View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
DECEMBER 13, 2011
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS @ 5:30 P.M.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER:
PRAYER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
HONORS AND AWARDS:
INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Approval of Minutes. CITY CLERK
B. 2012 User Fee Update. FINANCE
C. Request to Deny & Accept Properties That Did Not Sell During the Tax
Sale for 2011. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
D. Deficit Elimination Plan for Home Rehabilitation Fund and State Grants
Fund. FINANCE
E. Improvement Plan for Hackley Park – Donor. PLANNING & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Amendment. PLANNING &
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNICATIONS:
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Consolidation of Services Plan – EVIP. FINANCE
B. 2012 National League of Cities Membership Dues. CITY CLERK
ANY OTHER BUSINESS:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Reminder: Individuals who would like to address the City Commission shall do the following:
Fill out a request to speak form attached to the agenda or located in the back of the room.
Submit the form to the City Clerk.
Be recognized by the Chair.
Step forward to the microphone.
State name and address.
Limit of 3 minutes to address the Commission.
(Speaker representing a group may be allowed 10 minutes if previously registered with City Clerk.)
CLOSED SESSION:
ADJOURNMENT:
ADA POLICY: The City of Muskegon will provide necessary auxiliary aids and services to individuals who
want to attend the meeting upon twenty four hour notice to the City of Muskegon. Please contact Ann
Marie Cummings, City Clerk, 933 Terrace Street, Muskegon, MI 49440 or by calling (231) 724-6705 or
TTY/TDD: dial 7-1-1 and request a representative to dial (231) 724-6705.
Date: December 13, 2011
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Ann Marie Cummings, City Clerk
RE: Approval of Minutes
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To approve minutes of the City
Commission Meeting that was held on Tuesday, November 22, 2011.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the minutes.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 22, 2011
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS @ 5:30 P.M.
MINUTES
The Regular Commission Meeting of the City of Muskegon was held at City
Hall, 933 Terrace Street, Muskegon, Michigan at 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, November
22, 2011.
Vice Mayor Gawron opened the meeting with a prayer from Pastor Josh
Dear from the Lakeside Baptist Church after which the Commission and public
recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL FOR THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING:
Present: Vice Mayor Stephen Gawron, Commissioners Chris Carter, Clara
Shepherd, Lawrence Spataro, and Steve Wisneski, City Manager Bryon Mazade,
City Attorney John Schrier, and City Clerk Ann Marie Cummings.
Absent: Mayor Stephen Warmington and Commissioner Sue Wierengo (both
excused)
2011-83 CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Approval of Minutes. CITY CLERK
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To approve minutes of the November 7th City
Commission Meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the minutes.
B. Approval of Realtor and Title Company for CNS. COMMUNITY &
NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To extend the Procurement Contract to June 30, 2012,
for Exit Lakeshore Realty and Midstate Title Agency to be used by the City of
Muskegon Community and Neighborhood Services office.
The CNS office put out public notices for a variety of trades. No bids were
received for realtors or title companies. We already have a good working
relationship with Exit Lakeshore Realty and Midstate Title Agency. We would
1
like to extend their contract until June 30, 2012.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The funding for any project the realtor or title company
would be used for would come out of the funds the house was originally
established under: CDBG, HOME or NSP1.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the extension of the Procurement
Contracts for Exit Lakeshore Realty and Midstate Title Agency for the Community
and Neighborhood Services office.
C. Budgeted Vehicle Replacement. PUBLIC WORKS
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Authorize staff to purchase one 2012 Ford F-450 4x4
Dump Truck. This vehicle will be an addition to the Highway Department for
alley plowing and cul-de-sac clean up.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: $28,396.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None, the price of this vehicle is under what the
Equipment Division has budgeted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to purchase one 2012 Ford F-450 4x4
Dump Truck from Vanderhyde Ford who was the lowest responsible bidder.
D. Intergovernmental Agreement for Traffic Signal Maintenance Contract
Extension. PUBLIC WORKS
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Authorize Staff to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement
for Traffic Signal Maintenance. This is a one-year contract extension, from a
previous three-year contract, with the Muskegon County Road Commission,
along with other municipalities from March 9, 2012, thru March 9, 2013, with
Windemuller Electric Inc. as the traffic signal maintenance contractor. The
agreement calls for MCRC to administer the project and charge the
participating agencies 15% overhead. The local agencies included in the
Muskegon County Signal Maintenance Group are Muskegon, Muskegon
Heights, Norton Shores, Roosevelt Park and MDOT.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Approximate costs for the previous contract including
emergency repairs have been $35,064 in 2009, and $33,982 in 2010.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None, budgeted for in the Highway Majors budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve request.
E. Consideration of Bids/Contract Award for Roof Replacement over
Police Department. ENGINEERING
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Authorize staff to enter into an agreement with Gale
Roofing out of Hart to replace the roofing system over the Police Department
portion of City Hall (Jefferson side) for a total cost of $12, 223. Gale was the
2
lowest responsible bidder with the only other bidder being J. Stevens
Construction for $19,600.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The construction cost of $12,223.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None, this project was budgeted for in the
2011/2012 CIP.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to enter into an agreement with Gale
Roofing to replace the roofing system over the Police Department.
F. Request to Amend Existing Resolution 2011-69(b) for an Obsolete
Property Certificate – J&J Bail Bonds, 41 E Apple Ave. PLANNING &
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Pursuant to Public Act 146 of the Michigan Public Acts
of 2000, J&J Bail Bonds, 41 E. Apple Avenue, was approved for an obsolete
property certificate on September 27, 2011. The Michigan State Tax Commission
has requested that the resolution be amended to include language stating that
the City will not allow an extension of additional years, pursuant to the City of
Muskegon Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Policy.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.
Motion by Commissioner Carter, second by Commissioner Wisneski to approve
the Consent Agenda as read.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Gawron, Shepherd, Spataro, Wisneski, and Carter
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
2011-84 PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Request for an Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate – ADAC
Plastics. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Pursuant to Public Act 198 of 1974, as amended, ADAC
Plastics, 1801 E. Keating Avenue, has requested the issuance of an Industrial
Facilities Tax Exemption Certificate. The company will be making an investment
of $4,690,000 in real property improvements and plans on creating 130 jobs
within two years. They are eligible for a 12 year abatement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City will capture certain additional property taxes
generated by the expansion.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the resolution granting an Industrial
3
Facilities Exemption Certificate for a term of 12 years on real property.
The Public Hearing opened to hear and consider any comments from the
public. John Shape, representative of ADAC Plastics spoke.
Motion by Commissioner Spataro, second by Commissioner Shepherd to close
the Public Hearing and approve the resolution granting an Industrial Facilities
Exemption Certificate for a term of 12 years on real property for ADAC.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Shepherd, Spataro, Wisneski, Carter, and Gawron
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
B. Request for Exemption of New Personal Property (PA 328) – ADAC
Plastics. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Pursuant to Public Act 328 of 1998, as amended, ADAC
Plastics, Inc., 1801 E. Keating Avenue, has requested an exemption of new
personal property. The company plans on investing $15,780,000 in personal
property improvements and is seeking a 12 year exemption on personal
property. The exemption would include all new personal property investments
during the duration of the exemption.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City will forgo 100% of the personal property taxes for
the length of the abatement.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the exemption of new personal
property for a duration of 12 years.
The Public Hearing opened to hear and consider any comments from the
public. No public comments were heard.
Motion by Commissioner Carter, second by Commissioner Spataro to close the
Public Hearing and approve the request for Exemption of New Personal Property
for ADAC Plastics for a term of 12 years.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Spataro, Wisneski, Carter, Gawron, and Shepherd
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
C. Establishment of a Commercial Rehabilitation District – 363 Ottawa
Street. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Pursuant to Public Act 210 of 2005, as amended, Lake
Welding Supply has requested the establishment of a Commercial Rehabilitation
District. The creation of the district will allow the building owner to apply for a
Commercial Rehabilitation Certificate, which will freeze the taxable value of the
building and exempt the new real property investment from local taxes.
4
The school operating tax and the State Education Tax are still levied on the new
investment. Land and personal property cannot be abated under this act.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Establishment of the Commercial Rehabilitation
District at 363 Ottawa Street.
The Public Hearing opened to hear and consider any comments from the
public. Comments were heard from Greg Teerman, representative of Lake
Welding .
Motion by Commissioner Carter, second by Commissioner Wisneski to close the
Public Hearing and establish a Commercial Rehabilitation District at 363 Ottawa
Street.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Wisneski, Carter, Gawron, Shepherd, and Spataro
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
2011-85 NEW BUSINESS:
A. Holidays in the City – Resolution of Support. PLANNING & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: A request to sign the resolution in support of Holidays in
the City, an event starting this Saturday in downtown Muskegon that will
showcase the holiday events and unique retail destinations of downtown
Muskegon. Everyone is encouraged to come downtown for the Teddy Bear
Breakfast, Festival of Trees, the lighting of Hackley Park, shopping and dinning, a
window decorating contest with prizes for voters and a movie showing at the
Frauenthal Theatre.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the resolution.
Motion by Commissioner Spataro, second by Commissioner Carter to adopt the
resolution of support for the various Holidays in the City activities for this coming
weekend.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Wisneski, Carter, Gawron, Shepherd, and Spataro
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
B. Winter Ice Rink in Downtown Muskegon. PLANNING & ECONOMIC
5
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Downtown Muskegon Now (DMN) is planning an
outdoor ice rink in downtown Muskegon, from mid-January to mid-February. The
ice rink will be located on the vacant lot owned by Parkland Properties. The ice
rink will provide another opportunity for the public to enjoy the downtown during
the winter season (free of charge), in addition to shopping, restaurant and
entertainment venues. Andrew Haan, DMN Director, has been working with City
staff to develop a plan for installation of the rink. Since they are unable to use
the fire hydrant, a separate water service must be installed. DMN is requesting
that the costs associated with establishing this service be waived. Other
partners in this venture include Parkland Properties (Jon Rooks), the Muskegon
Lumberjacks and the Muskegon Winter Sports Complex.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: If the Commission chooses to waive the entire fee (which
includes materials, equipment and labor), the total is estimated to be $1,964.07.
Of this amount, the cost for materials (which must be purchased) is $611.69.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To consider the request from DMN and partner with
the organization on some level to ensure the ice rink is established in downtown
Muskegon for the benefit of the public.
Motion by Commissioner Spataro, second by Commissioner Carter to approve
the request from Downtown Muskegon Now and its partners to provide the water
hook up so that they may have an ice rink downtown.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Wisneski, Carter, Gawron, Shepherd, and Spataro
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Public comments received.
ADJOURNMENT: The City Commission Meeting adjourned at 6:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Marie Cummings, MMC
City Clerk
6
Date: December 13, 2011
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Finance
RE: 2012 User Fee Update
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: City departments have reviewed and updated their user fees and
these have been incorporated into the Master Fee Resolution that is attached for your consideration.
The new fees and fee changes that are being proposed are highlighted on the attached spreadsheet and
include the following:
x Establishment of new fees to cover costs associated with rental re-inspection “no-shows” and
repeated non-compliance inspections;
x Increase in the landlord affidavit filing fee for landlords seeking to have tenants directly responsible
for payment of water and sewer bills;
x Modification of some fees related to special events (note: these fees are shown under DPW and
under Special Events);
x Changes to Clerk’s fees for gaming licenses, transient businesses/peddlers, encroachments &
fireworks
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Increased revenue for fee supported activities.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None at this time. Adoption of the Master Fee Resolution will
help the city attain its budgeted revenue estimates.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: None.
1
City of Muskegon
RESOLUTION
A resolution adopting fees for services in the City entitled "Master Fee Resolution".
The City of Muskegon hereby RESOLVES:
1. The City of Muskegon has in the past adopted resolutions from time to time which set fees for various services in the City.
2. That in addition to the specifically adopted resolution fees, there are fees which are charged pursuant to ordinances and
codes as well the fees which are charged in the exercise of various other functions of the City which serve the public.
3. That the City Commission has reviewed all of the fees which are charged from time to time pursuant to resolution,
ordinance and in the affording of services to and for the public, and has determined to adopt the resolution a comprehensive
schedule of fees by this resolution which is hereby called the "Master Fee Resolution".
4. That the City Commission and its committees, with the advice of the staff of the City, have carefully investigated and
examined the fees set forth in this Master Resolution and have determined that they are reasonably related to the actual cost
of affording the services involved.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COMMISSION HEREBY RESOLVES:
1. That the schedule of fees attached to this resolution is hereby adopted and shall be charged for the services set forth in the
schedule and under the conditions set forth therein.
2. That any fees listed which are also listed in specific resolutions, rules or regulations, shall be charged in accordance with
those resolutions, rules and regulations, and with the practices of the City in affording the appropriate services.
3. That the adoption of this resolution does not amend or change previous specific resolutions for the charging of fees for
services, and does not preclude the existence of previous or future resolutions setting forth fees which are not included
herein.
This resolution adopted.
Ayes
Nays
CITY OF MUSKEGON
___________________________________________
Ann Marie Cummings, City Clerk
CERTIFICATE
This Resolution was adopted at a meeting of the City Commission of the City of Muskegon, held on December 13, 2011.
The meeting was properly held and noticed pursuant to the Open Meetings Act of the State of Michigan, Act 267 of the Public Acts
of 1976.
____________________________________________
Ann Marie Cummings, City Clerk
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
1 ALL ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD ON SALES TO OUTSIDE PARTIES TOTAL BALANCE DUE 15.00% 15.00% 15.00%
2 ALL COPIES FOR PUBLIC (STANDARD SIZES) PER COPY 0.25 0.25 0.25
3 ALL FAX CHARGE FOR INFORMATION REQUESTS PER PAGE 0.50 0.50 0.50
4 ALL LATE FEE ON CITY RECEIVABLES (EXCEPT TAXES) PAST DUE BALANCE 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% PER MO./IMPOSED AFTER 30 DAYS
5 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES EVERGREEN MAUSOLEUM (CRYPTS A-B) EACH 1,339.00 1,339.00 1,339.00
6 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES EVERGREEN MAUSOLEUM (CRYPTS A-B) NR * EACH 1,664.00 1,664.00 1,664.00
7 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES EVERGREEN MAUSOLEUM (CRYPTS C-F) EACH 1,533.00 1,533.00 1,533.00
8 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES EVERGREEN MAUSOLEUM (CRYPTS C-F) NR * EACH 1,906.00 1,906.00 1,906.00
9 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (EVERGREEN) ONE GRAVE 700.00 700.00 700.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
10 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (EVERGREEN) TWO GRAVES 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
11 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (EVERGREEN) NR * TWO GRAVES 1,599.00 1,599.00 1,599.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
12 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (EVERGREEN) NR * ONE GRAVE 827.00 827.00 827.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
13 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (LAKESIDE) ONE GRAVE 700.00 700.00 700.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
14 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (LAKESIDE) TWO GRAVES 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
15 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (LAKESIDE) NR * ONE GRAVE 827.00 827.00 827.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
16 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (LAKESIDE) NR * TWO GRAVES 1,599.00 1,599.00 1,599.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
17 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (OAKWOOD) ONE GRAVE 700.00 700.00 700.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
18 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (OAKWOOD) TWO GRAVES 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
19 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (OAKWOOD) NR * TWO GRAVES 1,599.00 1,599.00 1,599.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
20 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (OAKWOOD) NR * ONE GRAVE 827.00 827.00 827.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
21 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (RESTLAWN-FLUSH MARKER) ONE GRAVE 650.00 650.00 650.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
Page 1
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
22 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (RESTLAWN-FLUSH MARKER) TWO GRAVES 1,200.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
23 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (RESTLAWN-FLUSH MARKER) NR * ONE GRAVE 717.00 717.00 717.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
24 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (RESTLAWN-FLUSH MARKER) NR * TWO GRAVES 1,423.00 1,423.00 1,423.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
25 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (RESTLAWN-UPRIGHT MARKER) ONE GRAVE 700.00 700.00 700.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
26 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (RESTLAWN-UPRIGHT MARKER) TWO GRAVES 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
27 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (RESTLAWN-UPRIGHT MARKER) NR * ONE GRAVE 827.00 827.00 827.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
28 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (RESTLAWN-UPRIGHT MARKER) NR * TWO GRAVES 1,599.00 1,599.00 1,599.00 50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE
29 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES IN-GOUND SPACE FOR CREMAINS (RESTLAWN) EACH 289.00 289.00 289.00
30 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES IN-GOUND SPACE FOR CREMAINS (RESTLAWN) NR* EACH 347.00 347.00 347.00
31 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (1/2 GRAVE--ALL CEMETERIES) EACH 462.00 462.00 462.00
32 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (1/2 GRAVE--ALL CEMETERIES) NR * EACH 578.00 578.00 578.00
33 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OPENING (1/2 GRAVE) EACH 260.00 260.00 260.00
34 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OPENING (1/2 GRAVE) NR EACH 318.00 318.00 318.00
35 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OPENING (CREMATION) EACH 300.00 300.00 300.00
36 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OPENING (CREMATION) NR EACH 312.00 312.00 312.00
37 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OPENING (CREMATION, GRASS, CHAIRS) EACH 330.00 330.00 330.00
38 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OPENING (CREMATION, GRASS, CHAIRS) NR EACH 370.00 370.00 370.00
39 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OPENING (CREMATION, TENT, GRASS, CHAIRS) EACH 370.00 370.00 370.00
40 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OPENING (CREMATION, TENT, GRASS, CHAIRS) NR EACH 404.00 404.00 404.00
41 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES SECOND CREMAINS (OPEN GRAVESITE) EACH 58.00 58.00 58.00 FOR ADDITIONAL ASHES
42 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OPENING EACH 500.00 500.00 500.00
Page 2
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
43 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OPENING (DEVICE) NR EACH 607.00 607.00 607.00
44 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OPENING (STILLBORN IN BABYLAND) EACH 145.00 145.00 145.00
45 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OPENING (STILLBORN IN BABYLAND) NR EACH 173.00 173.00 173.00
46 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OPENING (STILLBORN NOT IN BABYLAND) EACH 260.00 260.00 260.00
47 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OPENING (STILLBORN NOT IN BABYLAND) NR EACH 318.00 318.00 318.00
48 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OVERTIME (MON-FRI AFTER 2:30PM) EACH 200.00 200.00 200.00
49 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OVERTIME (SATURDAYS & HOLIDAYS) EACH 300.00 300.00 300.00
50 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OVERTIME (SUNDAYS) EACH 450.00 450.00 450.00
51 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES NICHES COLUMBARIUUM EACH 800.00 800.00 800.00
52 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES NICHES COLUMBARIUM NR EACH 850.00 850.00 850.00
53 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES NICHES (OPEN/CLOSING) EACH 125.00 125.00 125.00
54 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES NICHES (OPEN/CLOSING) NR EACH 175.00 175.00 175.00
55 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES HEADSTONE SERVICE PER SQUARE INCH 0.55 0.55 0.55 MINIMUM $60.00
56 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES SERVICE (GOVERNMENT MARKERS) EACH 60.00 60.00 60.00
57 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES SERVICE (MAUSOLEUM VASES) EACH 75.00 75.00 75.00
58 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES SERVICE HEADSTONE PRE-PLACEMENT EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00
59 CEMETERIES CEMETERIES SERVICE (SMALL VASES) RESTLAWN EACH 40.00 40.00 40.00
60 CEMETERIES ENTOMBMENT - EVERGREEN MAUSOLEM EACH 173.00 173.00 173.00
61 CEMETERIES ENTOMBMENT NR - EVERGREEN MAUSOLEUM EACH 231.00 231.00 231.00
62 CEMETERIES TRANSFER & AFFIDAVIT FEE PER GRAVE SPACE EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00
63 CEMETERIES CHAPEL FUNERAL SERVICE EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00
Page 3
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
64 CEMETERIES FAMILY TREE SEARCH SINGLE SEARCH 3.00 3.00 3.00
65 CEMETERIES FAMILY TREE SEARCH FIVE SEARCHES 10.00 10.00 10.00
66 CLERK ADDRESS LABELS - VOTER REGISTRATION EACH 0.05 0.05 0.05
67 CLERK BUSINESS REGISTRATION EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
68 CLERK BUSINESS TRANSIENT/PEDDLER PER DAY 25.00 25.00 30.00 20.00%
69 CLERK BUSINESS AUCTIONEER LICENSE (INDIVIDUAL EVENT) PER DAY 10.00 10.00 10.00
70 CLERK BUSINESS AUCTIONEER LICENSE (REGULAR) PER YEAR 100.00 100.00 100.00
71 CLERK AUCTION FEE PER DAY 30.00 30.00 30.00
72 CLERK BUSINESS COMMERCIAL GARBAGE HAULER PER YEAR 100.00 100.00 100.00
73 CLERK BUSINESS ENTERTAINMENT OCCUPANCY PER YEAR 125.00 125.00 125.00
74 CLERK GAMING LICENSE REQUEST/PERMIT (30 DAYS OR MORE ADVANCE NOTICE) EACH 50.00 50.00 75.00 50.00%
75 CLERK GAMING LICENSE REQUEST (LESS THAN 30 DAYS ADVANCE NOTICE) EACH 0.00 0.00 100.00 ***NEW FEE***
CHARGED TO LAW FIRMS AND OTHER FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
76 CLERK CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM RENTAL PER HOUR 25.00 25.00 25.00
WISHING TO USE FACILITIES FOR NON-CITY RELATED BUSINESS
77 CLERK ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FEE EACH 100.00 100.00 100.00
78 CLERK ENCROACHMENT PERMIT CERTIFICATE FEE EACH LOCATION 50.00 50.00 50.00 SAME AS RENEWAL FEE
79 CLERK ENCROACHMENT/RENTAL FEE (BUS BENCHES) PER BENCH/PERMONTH 5.00 5.00 5.00
80 CLERK ENCROACHMENT 1-YEAR RENEWAL EACH 10.00 10.00 25.00 150.00%
81 CLERK ENCROACHMENT 1-YEAR RENEWAL (INSPECTION REQ'D) EACH 0.00 0.00 50.00 ***NEW FEE***
82 CLERK ENCROACHMENT PERMIT TO WORK IN R-O-W PER UNIT 10.00 10.00 10.00 OR ACTUAL COSTS (WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT PROCESSING FEE (30 OR MORE DAYS ADVANCE
83 CLERK EACH 50.00 50.00 75.00 50.00%
NOTICE)
FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT PROCESSING FEE (LESS THAN 30 DAYS ADVANCE
84 CLERK EACH 100.00 100.00 150.00 50.00%
NOTICE)
Page 4
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
85 CLERK LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL EACH 100.00 100.00 100.00
86 CLERK LIQUOR LICENSE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OR LOCATION EACH 250.00 250.00 250.00
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AREA CLASS-C ON-PREMISES LIQUOR LICENSE
87 CLERK EACH 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 SAME REVIEW PROCESS AS FOR RENEWAL
(FORMERLY DOWNTOWN DEV AUTH LICENSE)
88 CLERK LIQUOR LICENSE NEW CLASS C LICENSE EACH 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 IF LICENSE AVAILABLE
89 CLERK LIQUOR LICENSE NEW SDD OR SDM EACH 250.00 250.00 250.00
90 CLERK GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALE EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00 UP TO ONE MONTH - RENEWABLE
91 CLERK LIQUOR LICENSE (EXPANSION OF EXISTING LICENSE) EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00
92 CLERK ORDINANCE BOOK EACH 250.00 250.00 250.00
93 CLERK ORDINANCE BOOK ON CD-ROM EACH 250.00 250.00 250.00
94 CLERK ORDINANCE BOOK SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE (BI-ANNUAL UPDATES) PER YEAR 50.00 50.00 50.00 IN ADDITION TO BASE FEE
95 CLERK PASSPORT APPLICATION FEE EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00 FEDERAL LAW CHANGE
96 CLERK PASSPORT PHOTO FEE 2 PHOTOS 10.00 10.00 10.00
97 CLERK PRECINCT MAPS (SMALL) EACH 2.00 2.00 2.00
98 CLERK PUBLIC NOTARY FEE EACH 5.00 5.00 5.00 CONSISTENT WITH COUNTY FEE
99 CLERK TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT NEW PROVIDER FEE EACH 500.00 500.00 500.00 PER NEW STATE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
100 CLERK VOTER INFORMATION - ON DISK EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00
101 CLERK VOTER REGISTRATION - HARDCOPY LIST PER LISTING 0.01 0.01 0.01
102 CLERK VOTER REGISTRATION - MAILING LABELS PER LABEL 0.05 0.05 0.05
103 CNS MORTGAGE REFINANCE FEE EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00
104 CNS REHAB LOAN APPLICATION FEE EACH 200.00 200.00 200.00
105 CNS RENTAL REHAB APPLICATION FEE FEE PER LOAN 100.00 100.00 100.00
Page 5
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
106 DPW ADDITIONAL GARBAGE SERVICE (1 TOTER) PER MONTH 13.00 13.00 13.00
107 DPW APPLIANCE STICKER EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00
108 DPW GARBAGE CART REPLACEMENT - DAMAGED BY USER EACH 55.00 55.00 55.00
109 DPW GARBAGE SERVICE - SMALL BUSINESS PER MONTH 16.00 16.00 16.00 INCLUDES CHURCHES AND NON-PROFITS
110 DPW GARBAGE SERVICE - UNAUTORIZED USE OF CARTS PER INCIDENT 30.00 30.00 30.00
111 DPW GARBAGE SERVICE - REPLACE LOST/STOLEN CART EACH 55.00 55.00 55.00
112 DPW GARBAGE SERVICE - NEW SERVICE STARTUP EACH 55.00 55.00 55.00
113 DPW GARBAGE SERVICE - MIXED REFUSE STICKER EACH 2.00 2.00 2.00 BUY 6 FOR $10.00 - UNIT PRICE $1.67
114 DPW FEE FOR SPECIAL COLLECTION OF ILLIEGAL MATERIALS EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00 OR ACTUAL COSTS (WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
FEE FOR BULK YARD WASTE DROP OFF (DURING REGULAR HOURS) - BY
115 DPW EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00
APPOINTMENT ONLY
116 DPW SENIOR TRANSIT PER RIDE 1.50 1.50 1.50
117 DPW REPLACE EMPLOYEE ID/ACCESS TKC CARD PER LOST CARD 50.00 50.00 50.00 NO CHARGE FOR FIRST REPLACEMENT
118 DPW STORM SEWER CONNECTION FEE EACH 800.00 800.00 800.00 STUB FEE
119 DPW TREE REPLACEMENT PLANTING FEE EACH 200.00 200.00 200.00
120 DPW TREE REMOVAL FEE (12" AND UNDER DIAMETER) EACH 200.00 200.00 200.00 TREE MEASURED AT 4' ABOVE GRADE
121 DPW TREE REMOVAL FEE (12" - 18" DIAMETER) EACH 345.00 345.00 345.00 TREE MEASURED AT 4' ABOVE GRADE
122 DPW TREE REMOVAL FEE (18" - 24" DIAMETER) EACH 650.00 650.00 650.00 TREE MEASURED AT 4' ABOVE GRADE
123 DPW TREE REMOVAL FEE (24" - 30" DIAMETER) EACH 750.00 750.00 750.00 TREE MEASURED AT 4' ABOVE GRADE
124 DPW TREE REMOVAL FEE (30" - 36" DIAMETER) EACH 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 TREE MEASURED AT 4' ABOVE GRADE
125 DPW TREE REMOVAL FEE (36" - 42" DIAMETER) EACH 1,700.00 1,700.00 1,700.00 TREE MEASURED AT 4' ABOVE GRADE
126 DPW TREE REMOVAL FEE (42" AND OVER DIAMETER) EACH 1,900.00 1,900.00 1,900.00 TREE MEASURED AT 4' ABOVE GRADE
Page 6
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
127 DPW HANG AND/OR REMOVE BANNER EACH REQUEST 450.00 450.00 450.00 EACH ADDITIONAL BANNER: $50.00
128 DPW (PARKS) EXCLUSIVE USE OF HACKLEY PK FOR SPECIAL EVENTS PER DAY 0.00 0.00 125.00 ***NEW FEE***
129 DPW (PARKS) EXCLUSIVE USE OF PERE MARQUETTE LARGE OVAL FOR SPECIAL EVENTS PER DAY 0.00 0.00 125.00 ***NEW FEE***
130 DPW (PARKS) EXCLUSIVE USE OF MARGARET DRAKE ELLIOTT PK FOR SPECIAL EVENTS PER DAY 0.00 0.00 125.00 ***NEW FEE***
CLEANING DEPOST FOR EXCLUSIVE USE OF HACKLEY, PERE MARQUETTE OR
131 DPW (PARKS) EACH 0.00 0.00 50.00 ***NEW FEE***
MARGARET DRAKE ELLIOTT PARKS
132 DPW (PARKS) MC GRAFT PARK BUILDING USE 11:00AM - 4:00PM 0.00 100.00 100.00
133 DPW (PARKS) MC GRAFT PARK BUILDING USE 5:00PM - 10:00PM 0.00 0.00 100.00 ***NEW FEE***
134 DPW (PARKS) MC GRAFT PARK BUILDING USE (RESV. MADE BETWEEN 4/15 - 9/30) EACH 0.00 0.00 25.00 ***NEW FEE***
135 DPW (PARKS) MC GRAFT PARK BUILDING USE PER ADDITIONAL HOUR 0.00 25.00 25.00
136 DPW (PARKS) MC GRAFT PARK BUILDING USE (CLEANING/SECURITY DEPOSIT) EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00
137 DPW (PARKS) MC GRAFT PARK MUSIC BOWL HOUR 45.00 45.00 45.00
138 DPW (PARKS) PARKS (LIGHT COSTS SPORT FIELDS & COURTS) EACH 40.00 40.00 40.00
DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
139 DPW (PARKS) PARKS (WOOD SNOW FENCE RENTAL) EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
UP IS REQUIRED
DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
140 DPW (PARKS) PARKS (USE OF GARBAGE CANS) EACH 5.00 5.00 5.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
UP IS REQUIRED
141 DPW (PARKS) PARKS (PLASTIC BAGS FOR GARBAGE CANS) PER CASE 0.00 25.00 30.00 REFLECTS COST INCREASE; REFUND FOR UNOPENED CASES 20.00%
142 DPW (PARKS) SPORTS FIELD & COURT RENTAL (EXLUDES SETUP SERVICES) 2 HOUR RENTAL 25.00 25.00 25.00
143 DPW (PARKS) CHANNEL SHELTER RENTAL EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00
144 DPW (PARKS) PICNIC SHELTER RENTAL (MADE BEFORE 4/15 OR AFTER 9/30) EACH SESSION 100.00 100.00 100.00
145 DPW (PARKS) PICNIC SHELTER RENTAL (MADE BETWEEN 4/15 AND 9/30) EACH SESSION 100.00 125.00 125.00
146 DPW (PARKS) PICNIC SHELTER RENTAL RESERVATION CHANGE EACH 0.00 15.00 15.00
147 DPW (PARKS) CLEANING DEPOSIT FOR RENTALS EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00 REFUNDED IF CLEANUP AND OTHER RULES ADHERED TO
Page 7
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
148 DPW (PARKS) PICNIC SHELTER RENTAL (KRUSE #4 - 200 PERSON SHELTER) RESIDENT 125.00 125.00 125.00
149 DPW (PARKS) GROUPED TABLES (4) AT DRAKE-ELLIOTT (48 PEOPLE) EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00
150 DPW (PARKS) WEDDING RESERVATIONS IN/ON CITY PARKS/BEACHES EACH 100.00 100.00 125.00 25.00%
151 DPW (PARKS) KEY DEPOSIT (RESTROOM) EACH 0.00 25.00 25.00
DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
152 DPW (PARKS) CITY SERVICES (55-GAL METAL TRASH CANS) EACH 5.00 5.00 5.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
UP IS REQUIRED
DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
153 DPW (PARKS) CITY SERVICES RENTAL OF POSTS EACH POST 3.00 3.00 3.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
UP IS REQUIRED
DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
154 DPW (PARKS) CITY SERVICES (PICNIC TABLES) EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
UP IS REQUIRED
155 DPW (PARKS) CITY SERVICES (LABOR PARKS OR DPW STAFF) PER HOUR 60.00 60.00 60.00
156 ENGINEERING CHARGE FOR BLUEPRINTS (PLANS & UTILITY MAPS) EACH 8.00 8.00 8.00
157 ENGINEERING CHARGE FOR BID DOCUMENTS (STANDARD) EACH 40.00 40.00 40.00
158 ENGINEERING CHARGE FOR BID DOCUMENTS (NON-STANDARD) EACH ACTUAL COSTS ACTUAL COSTS ACTUAL COSTS
159 ENGINEERING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT BILLING FEE PER BILL 5.00 5.00 5.00
160 ENGINEERING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT HOOKUP FEE FOR SYSTEM AVAILABILITY EACH 175.00 175.00 175.00 5,000 GALLON PER DAY MAXIMUM
161 ENGINEERING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FEE EACH 500.00 500.00 500.00
162 ENGINEERING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM USE FEE PER 1,000 GALLONS 0.20 0.20 0.20
163 ENGINEERING PROPERTY OWNER WORKING IN R-O-W FEE EACH UNIT 20.00 20.00 20.00
164 ENGINEERING R-O-W/SIDEWALK CUT PERMIT FEE APPROACH 20.00 20.00 20.00
165 ENGINEERING UTILITY ANNUAL PERMIT FEE EACH 1,750.00 1,750.00 1,750.00
166 ENGINEERING UTILITY CUT PERMIT APPLICATION FEE EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00
167 ENGINEERING UTILITY CUT PERMIT FEE UNIT 20.00 20.00 20.00
Page 8
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
168 ENGINEERING UTILITY CUT (PAVEMENT REMOVAL-PAVEMENT <4 YEARSOLD) SQUARE YARD 100.00 100.00 100.00 FEES ADJUSTED TO REFLECT RESIDUAL VALUE
169 ENGINEERING UTILITY CUT (PAVEMENT REMOVAL-PAVEMENT 4-9 YEARSOLD) SQUARE YARD 75.00 75.00 75.00 FEES ADJUSTED TO REFLECT RESIDUAL VALUE
170 ENGINEERING UTILITY CUT (PAVEMENT REMOVAL-PAVEMENT >10 YEARSOLD) SQUARE YARD 50.00 50.00 50.00 FEES ADJUSTED TO REFLECT RESIDUAL VALUE
171 ENGINEERING UTILITY CUT (PROJECT DURATION) WEEK 27.50 27.50 27.50
172 ENV SERVICES ALERT NOTIFICATION - FAX ANNUAL - LOCAL 20.00 20.00 20.00
173 ENV SERVICES ALERT NOTIFICATION - FAX ANNUAL - LONG DISTANCE 75.00 75.00 75.00
174 ENV SERVICES TERRACE VIOLATIONS FIRST VIOLATION 30.00 30.00 30.00 PLUS HOURLY COST FOR WORK PERFORMED.
PLUS HOURLY COST FOR WORK PERFORMED. FEE FOR EACH
175 ENV SERVICES TERRACE VIOLATIONS (EACH SUBSEQUENT IN YEAR) EACH SUBSEQUENT 5.00 5.00 5.00 SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS INCREMENT $5 (E.G. 2ND VIOLATION =
$35; 3RD = $40, ETC
176 ENV SERVICES GRASS, TRASH AND LEAF VIOLATIONS FIRST VIOLATION 70.00 70.00 70.00 PLUS HOURLY COST FOR WORK PERFORMED.
PLUS HOURLY COST FOR WORK PERFORMED. FEE FOR EACH
177 ENV SERVICES GRASS, TRASH AND LEAF VIOLATIONS (EACH SUBSEQUENT IN YEAR) EACH SUBSEQUENT 10.00 10.00 10.00 SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS INCREMENT $10 (E.G. 2ND VIOLATION =
$80; 3RD = $90, ETC
178 ENV SERVICES VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION VACANT BUILDING 0.00 0.00 0.00 VACANT LESS THAN ONE YEAR
179 ENV SERVICES VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION VACANT BUILDING 500.00 500.00 500.00 VACANT 1 YEAR BUT LESS THAN 2 YEARS
180 ENV SERVICES VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION VACANT BUILDING 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 VACANT 2 YEARS BUT LESS THAN 3 YEARS
181 ENV SERVICES VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION VACANT BUILDING 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 VACANT 3 YEARS BUT LESS THAN 5 YEARS
182 ENV SERVICES VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION VACANT BUILDING 3,500.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 VACANT 5 YEARS BUT LESS THAN 10 YEARS
183 ENV SERVICES VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION VACANT BUILDING 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 VACANT 10 YEARS
184 ENV SERVICES VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION VACANT BUILDING 500.00 500.00 500.00 EACH YEAR VACANT BEYOND 10 YEARS
185 ENV SERVICES VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION - FORMAL APPEAL FEE OCCURRENCE 50.00 50.00 50.00
186 FARMERS' MARKET FRONT CORNER 0-2 MONTHS 300.00 313.00 313.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
187 FARMERS' MARKET FRONT REGULAR 0-2 MONTHS 275.00 288.00 288.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
188 FARMERS' MARKET BACK CORNER 0-2 MONTHS 175.00 188.00 188.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
Page 9
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
189 FARMERS' MARKET BACK REGULAR 0-2 MONTHS 150.00 163.00 163.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
190 FARMERS' MARKET FRONT CORNER 3 MONTHS 330.00 348.50 348.50 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
191 FARMERS' MARKET FRONT REGULAR 3 MONTHS 303.00 321.50 321.50 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
192 FARMERS' MARKET BACK CORNER 3 MONTHS 193.00 211.50 211.50 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
193 FARMERS' MARKET BACK REGULAR 3 MONTHS 165.00 183.50 183.50 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
194 FARMERS' MARKET FRONT CORNER 4 MONTHS 336.00 361.00 361.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
195 FARMERS' MARKET FRONT REGULAR 4 MONTHS 308.00 333.00 333.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
196 FARMERS' MARKET BACK CORNER 4 MONTHS 196.00 221.00 221.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
197 FARMERS' MARKET BACK REGULAR 4 MONTHS 168.00 193.00 193.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
198 FARMERS' MARKET FRONT CORNER 5 MONTHS 345.00 376.50 376.50 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
199 FARMERS' MARKET FRONT REGULAR 5 MONTHS 316.00 347.50 347.50 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
200 FARMERS' MARKET BACK CORNER 5 MONTHS 201.00 232.50 232.50 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
201 FARMERS' MARKET BACK REGULAR 5 MONTHS 173.00 204.50 204.50 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
202 FARMERS' MARKET FRONT CORNER 6 MONTHS 354.00 392.00 392.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
203 FARMERS' MARKET FRONT REGULAR 6 MONTHS 325.00 363.00 363.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
204 FARMERS' MARKET BACK CORNER 6 MONTHS 207.00 245.00 245.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
205 FARMERS' MARKET BACK REGULAR 6 MONTHS 177.00 215.00 215.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
206 FARMERS' MARKET FRONT CORNER 7 MONTHS 360.00 404.00 404.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
207 FARMERS' MARKET FRONT REGULAR 7 MONTHS 330.00 374.00 374.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
208 FARMERS' MARKET BACK CORNER 7 MONTHS 210.00 254.00 254.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
209 FARMERS' MARKET BACK REGULAR 7 MONTHS 180.00 224.00 224.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
Page 10
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
210 FARMERS' MARKET FRONT CORNER 8 MONTHS 375.00 421.00 421.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
211 FARMERS' MARKET FRONT REGULAR 8 MONTHS 344.00 390.00 390.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
212 FARMERS' MARKET BACK CORNER 8 MONTHS 219.00 265.00 265.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
213 FARMERS' MARKET BACK REGULAR 8 MONTHS 188.00 234.00 234.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
214 FINANCE REPLACEMENT OF LOST PAYROLL CHECK EACH OCCURRENCE 25.00 25.00 25.00
215 FINANCE COPIES OF CITY BUDGET OR CAFR (FOIA REQUESTS) EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00
216 FIRE FIRE REPORT COPY (MAJOR FIRE) EACH 15.00 15.00 15.00
217 FIRE FIRE REPORT COPY (REGULAR) EACH 5.00 5.00 5.00
218 FIRE PHOTOGRAPH REPRODUCTION (ENLARGED) EACH 15.00 15.00 15.00
219 FIRE PHOTOGRAPH REPRODUCTION (STD SIZE) EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00
220 FIRE PHOTOGRAPH REPRODUCTION (CD-ROM) EACH 5.00 5.00 5.00
221 FIRE INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION ESCROW EACH INCIDENT 15.00 15.00 15.00 PLUS RELATED COURT COSTS
222 FIRE FIRE INSPECTION ADDITIONAL VISIT EACH INCIDENT 75.00 75.00 75.00
223 FIRE ARSON FIRE RESTITUTION FEE PER HR ON CALL 720.00 720.00 720.00 PLUS RELATED COURT COSTS
224 FIRE FALSE ALARM FEE PER HR ON CALL 720.00 720.00 720.00 AFTER 3RD FALSE ALARM IN ONE YEAR
225 FIRE WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE FIRE FEE PER HR ON CALL 720.00 720.00 720.00
226 FIRE CONFINED SPACE RESCUE FEE PER HR ON CALL 720.00 720.00 720.00
227 FIRE ICE RESCUE CALL PER HR ON CALL 110.00 110.00 110.00
228 FIRE DOWNED POWER LINE PER HR 185.00 185.00 185.00 AFTER FIRST HOUR
229 FIRE SPECIAL USE PERMITS (PER UFC) EACH PER YEAR 100.00 100.00 100.00
230 FIRE STRUCTURE FIRE RESPONSE EACH 500.00 500.00 500.00 CHARGED TO HOMEOWNER'S INSURANCE COMPANY
Page 11
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
231 FIRE PI ACCIDENT RESPONSE EACH 500.00 500.00 500.00 CHARGED TO AT FAULT DRIVER'S AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY
232 FLEA MARKET DEALERS SPACE - CORNER COVERED SPACE DAILY 8.00 9.00 9.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
233 FLEA MARKET DEALERS SPACE - 10 x 15 COVERED SPACE DAILY 7.00 8.00 8.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
234 FLEA MARKET DEALERS SPACE - 10 x 30 ASHPHALT SPACE DAILY 6.00 7.00 7.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
235 FLEA MARKET DEALERS SPACE - 10 x 40 FIELD SPACE DAILY 5.00 6.00 6.00 FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM
236 INCOME TAX DELINQUENT PAYMENT AGREEMENT ADMINISTRATION FEE EACH 15.00 15.00 15.00 PLUS RELATED PENALTIES & INTEREST
237 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION FEE EACH 15.00 15.00 15.00
25% of Value; Min 25% of Value; Min 25% of Value; Min
238 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING DEMOLITION PERMIT (COMMERCIAL) EACH
$60.00 $60.00 $60.00
239 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING DEMOLITION PERMIT (GARAGE) EACH 35.00 35.00 35.00
240 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING DEMOLITION PERMIT (RESIDENTIAL) EACH 60.00 60.00 60.00
241 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($1-$500 VALUE) EACH 35.00 35.00 35.00 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
242 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($501-$2,000 VALUE) BASE 35.00 35.00 35.00 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
243 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($501-$2,000 VALUE) EACH ADDITIONAL $100 3.05 3.05 3.05 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
244 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($2,001-$25,000 VALUE) BASE 80.75 80.75 80.75 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
245 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($2,001-$25,000 VALUE) EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000 14.00 14.00 14.00 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
246 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($25,001-$50,000 VALUE) BASE 403.25 403.25 403.25 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
247 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($25,001-$50,000 VALUE) EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000 10.10 10.10 10.10 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
248 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($50,001-$100,000 VALUE) BASE 655.25 655.25 655.25 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
249 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($50,001-$100,000 VALUE) EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000 7.00 7.00 7.00 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
250 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($100,001-$500,000 VALUE) BASE 1,005.25 1,005.25 1,005.25 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
251 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($100,001-$500,000 VALUE) EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000 5.60 5.60 5.60 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
Page 12
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
252 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($500,001-$1,000,000 VALUE) BASE 3,245.25 3,245.25 3,245.25 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
253 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($500,001-$1,000,000 VALUE) EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000 4.75 4.75 4.75 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
254 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES (OVER $1,000,000 VALUE) BASE 5,608.75 5,608.75 5,608.75 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
255 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES (OVER $1,000,000 VALUE) EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000 3.65 3.65 3.65 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
256 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT (INSPECTION-SPECIAL. REINSPECTION, ETC.) PER HOUR 60.00 60.00 60.00 MINIMUM 2 HOURS
257 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT (PRE-MANUFACTURED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE) EACH 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% OF REGULAR BUILDING PERMIT FEE
258 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FEE (INCL FIRE REVIEW) PERMIT FEE 65.00% 65.00% 65.00% OF APPLICABLE PERMIT FEE
259 INSPECTION SERVICES CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FEE EACH 100.00 100.00 100.00
260 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (BASE PERMIT) BASE 45.00 45.00 45.00
261 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (BASEBOARD HEAT UNITS) EACH 9.00 9.00 9.00
262 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (CIRCUITS) EACH 6.00 6.00 6.00
263 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (DISHWASHER) EACH 9.00 9.00 9.00
264 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (ENERGY RETROFIT/TEMP CONTROL) EACH 45.00 45.00 45.00
265 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (FEEDERS, BUS DUCTS, ETC.) EACH 50' 9.00 9.00 9.00
266 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (FIRE ALARM 1-10 DEVICES) EACH 75.00 75.00 75.00
267 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (FIRE ALARM 11-20 DEVICES) EACH 150.00 150.00 150.00
268 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (FIRE ALARM EA. STATION OVER 20 DEV) EACH DEVICE 8.00 8.00 8.00
269 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (FURNACE-UNIT HEATER) EACH 9.00 9.00 9.00
270 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-ADDITIONAL) PER HOUR 45.00 45.00 45.00 MINIMUM 1 HOUR
271 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-FINAL) EACH 45.00 45.00 45.00
272 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-HOURLY FEE) HOUR 60.00 60.00 60.00 MINIMUM 1 HOUR
Page 13
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
273 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-SPECIAL/SAFETY) HOUR 50.00 50.00 50.00 MINIMUM 1 HOUR
274 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (KVA OR HP UP TO 20) EACH 9.00 9.00 9.00
275 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (KVA & HP 21 TO 50) EACH 15.00 15.00 15.00
276 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (KVA & HP 50 AND OVER) EACH 18.00 18.00 18.00
277 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (LIGHTING FIXTURES-PER 25) EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00
278 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (METER INSPECTION/POWER TURN-ON) EACH 45.00 45.00 45.00
279 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (MOBILE HOME SITE) EACH 9.00 9.00 9.00
280 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (POWER OUTLETS-INC RANGES, DRYERS) EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00
281 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SITE) EACH 8.00 8.00 8.00
282 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SERVICES 0 TO 200 AMP) EACH 15.00 15.00 15.00
283 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SERVICES 201 TO 600 AMP) EACH 20.00 20.00 20.00
284 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SERVICES 601 TO 800 AMP) EACH 23.00 23.00 23.00
285 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SERVICES 801 TO 1200 AMP) EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
286 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SERVICES OVER 1200 AMP/GFI ONLY) EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00
287 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SIGNS LETTER) EACH 15.00 15.00 15.00
288 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SIGNS NEON) EACH 25' 2.00 2.00 2.00
289 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SIGNS UNIT) EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00
290 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SPECIAL CONDUIT/GROUNDING) EACH 45.00 45.00 45.00
291 INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PLAN REVIEW FEE EACH 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% OF APPLICABLE PERMIT FEE
292 INSPECTION SERVICES FIRE ALARM PLAN REVIEW FEE 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% OF PERMIT FEE FOR ANY SYSTEM OVER 10 DEVICES
293 INSPECTION SERVICES GARAGE MOVING FEE EACH 200.00 200.00 200.00
Page 14
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
294 INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING MOVING FEE (EXCEPT GARAGE) EACH 500.00 500.00 500.00
295 INSPECTION SERVICES RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION (ANNUAL) SINGLE UNIT 35.00 35.00 35.00 INCLUDES INSPECTION/REINSPECTION ONCE EVERY 4 YEARS
296 INSPECTION SERVICES RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION (ANNUAL) DUPLEX 40.00 40.00 40.00 INCLUDES INSPECTION/REINSPECTION ONCE EVERY 4 YEARS
297 INSPECTION SERVICES RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION (ANNUAL - BASE) 3+ UNITS 50.00 50.00 50.00 INCLUDES INSPECTION/REINSPECTION ONCE EVERY 4 YEARS
298 INSPECTION SERVICES RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION (ANNUAL - PER UNIT) PER UNIT OVER 3 5.00 5.00 5.00 INCLUDES INSPECTION/REINSPECTION ONCE EVERY 4 YEARS
299 INSPECTION SERVICES RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION (INSPECTION NO-SHOW) 50.00 50.00 0.00 -100.00%
300 INSPECTION SERVICES RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION (INSPECTION NO-SHOW FIRST TIME) PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 50.00 ***NEW FEE***
ADDED TO BASE NO SHOW FEE; EACH NO SHOW INSTANCE WILL
301 INSPECTION SERVICES RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION (INSPECTION NO-SHOW EACH ADDT'L TIME) PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 10.00 ***NEW FEE***
CAUSE INSPECTION FEE TO INCREASE BY AN ADDITIONAL $10.00
FEE TO BE ASSESSED TO PROPERTIES NOT BROUGHT INTO
302 INSPECTION SERVICES RENTAL PROPERTY NON-COMPLIANCE FEE (5TH REINSPECTION) PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 40.00 ***NEW FEE***
COMPLIANCE BY FOURTH INSPECTION
ADDED TO BASE NON-COMPLIANCE FEE; EACH REINSPECTION
RENTAL PROPERTY NON-COMPLIANCE FEE (STARTING WITH 6TH COMPLIANCE
303 INSPECTION SERVICES PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 10.00 INSTANCE WILL CAUSE NON-COMPLIANCE FEE TO INCREASE BY AN ***NEW FEE***
REINSPECTION) ADDITIONAL $10.00
FEE ASSESSED TO PROPERTIES IN COMPLIANCE INTERIOR
RENTAL PROPERTY EXTERIOR ONLY NON-COMPLIANCE FEE (1ST EXTERIOR ONLY
304 INSPECTION SERVICES PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 25.00 REQUIREMENTS BUT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH EXTERIOR ***NEW FEE***
REINSPECTION) REQUIREMENTS BY FOURTH REINSPECTION
ADDED TO BASE EXTERIOR NON-COMPLIANCE FEE; EACH
RENTAL PROPERTY EXTERIOR ONLY NON-COMPLIANCE FEE (STARTING WITH 2ND
305 INSPECTION SERVICES PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 5.00 REINSPECTION INSTANCE WILL CAUSE EXTERIOR NON-COMPLIANCE ***NEW FEE***
EXTERIOR ONLY COMPLIANCE REINSPECTION) FEE TO INCREASE BY AN ADDITIONAL $5.00
306 INSPECTION SERVICES LATE FEE FOR RENTAL UNITS NOT REGISTERED BY DUE DATE EACH PROPERTY VIOLATION 100.00 100.00 100.00 FEE CHARGED AFTER 90 DAYS
307 INSPECTION SERVICES HOUSING-WARRANT INSPECTION FEE EACH 150.00 150.00 150.00
308 INSPECTION SERVICES LIQUOR LICENSE INSPECTION FEE EACH 75.00 75.00 75.00
309 INSPECTION SERVICES LIQUOR LICENSE RE-INSPECTION FEE EACH 45.00 45.00 45.00
310 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (AIR HANDLERS-COMMERCIAL HOODS) EACH 20.00 20.00 20.00
311 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (AIR HANDLERS-OVER 10,000 CFM) EACH 60.00 60.00 60.00
312 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (AIR HANDLERS-RES BATH & KITCHEN) EACH 5.00 5.00 5.00
Page 15
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
313 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (AIR HANDLERS-UNDER 10,000 CFM) EACH 20.00 20.00 20.00
314 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (A/C & REFRIG-CHILLER) EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
315 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (A/C & REFRIG-COMPRESSOR) EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
316 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (A/C & REFRIG-COOLING TOWERS) EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
317 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (A/C & REFRIG-EVAPORATOR COILS) EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
318 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (A/C & REFRIG-REFRIGERATION SPLIT SYSTEM) EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
319 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (BASE PERMIT) EACH 45.00 45.00 45.00
320 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (FIRE SUPPRESSION/DUCT) PER FOOT 0.10 0.10 0.10 $25.00 MINIMUM FEE
321 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (FIRE SUPPRESSION/PIPING) PER FOOT 0.10 0.10 0.10 $25.00 MINIMUM FEE
322 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (FIRE SUPPRESSION/RESTAURANT HOODS) EACH 150.00 150.00 150.00
323 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (FIRE SUPPRESSION/SPRINKLER HEADS) PER HEAD 0.75 0.75 0.75 $20.00 MINIMUM FEE
324 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEAT RECOVERY UNITS/THRU-WALL FAN COILS) EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00
325 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-BOILER CONTROLS, PUMPS) EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00
326 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-BOILERS) EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
327 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-CHIMNEY, FACTORY BUILT) EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00
328 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-FLUE/VENT DAMPER) EACH 8.00 8.00 8.00
329 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-GAS FIRE PLACES) EACH 20.00 20.00 20.00
330 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-GAS PIPE TESTING NEW SERVICE) EACH 45.00 45.00 45.00
331 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-GAS PIPING EACH OPENING) EACH 5.00 5.00 5.00
332 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-GAS/OIL BURNING EQUIPMENT) EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
333 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-HEAT PUMPS COMMERCIAL) EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
Page 16
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
334 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-HEAT PUMPS, COMPLETE RESIDENT) EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
335 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-HEAT PUMPS, COMPLETE RESIDENT) EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
336 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-RESIDENTIAL A/C) EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
337 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-RESIDENTIAL SYSTEM) EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00
338 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-SOLAR, SET OF 3 PANELS) EACH 20.00 20.00 20.00
339 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-SOLID FUEL EQUIPMENT COMPLETE) EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
340 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-WATER HEATER) EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00
341 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HUMIDIFIERS) EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00
342 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-ADDITIONAL) EACH 45.00 45.00 45.00
343 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-FINAL) EACH 45.00 45.00 45.00
344 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-HOURLY RATE) EACH 60.00 60.00 60.00
345 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-SPECIAL/SAFETY) EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00
346 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-TURN ON GAS) EACH 45.00 45.00 45.00
347 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (PROCESS PIPING/HAZARDOUS 1-4 OUTLETS) EACH 5.00 5.00 5.00
348 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (PROCESS PIPING/HAZARDOUS 5+ MORE OUTLETS) PER OUTLET 1.00 1.00 1.00
349 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (PROCESS PIPING/NON-HAZARDOUS 1-4 OUTLETS) EACH 2.00 2.00 2.00
350 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (PROCESS PIPING/NON-HAZARDOUS 5+ OUTLETS) PER OUTLET 0.50 0.50 0.50
351 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (ROOFTOP HVAC UNIT) EACH 60.00 60.00 60.00
352 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (TANKS-ABOVEGROUND) EACH 20.00 20.00 20.00
353 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (TANKS-UNDERGROUND) EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00
354 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (UNIT HEATERS/TERMINAL UNITS) EACH 15.00 15.00 15.00
Page 17
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
355 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (UNIT VENTILATORS) EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00
356 INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PLAN REVIEW FEE EACH 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% OF APPLICABLE PERMIT FEE
357 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (BASE PERMIT) EACH 45.00 45.00 45.00
358 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (CONNECTION BLDG. DRAIN; SEWERS AT STREET) EACH 9.00 9.00 9.00
359 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (FIXTURES, FLOOR DRAINS, LAB DEVICES) EACH 9.00 9.00 9.00
360 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (INSPECTION ADDITIONAL) EACH 45.00 45.00 45.00
361 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (INSPECTION FINAL) EACH 45.00 45.00 45.00
362 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (INSPECTION HOURLY FEE) EACH 60.00 60.00 60.00 MINIMUM TWO HOURS
363 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (INSPECTION SPECIAL/SAFETY) EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00
364 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (MANHOLES-CATCHBASINS) EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00
365 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (MEDICAL GAS INSTALLATION) PER OUTLET 8.00 8.00 8.00
366 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW PREVENTER 1/4" TO 2") EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00
367 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW PREVENTER OVER 2") EACH 20.00 20.00 20.00
368 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (SEWAGE SUMPS & EJECTORS) EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00
369 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (SEWERS-SANITARY OR STORM OVER 6") EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00
370 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (SEWERS-SANITARY OR STORM UNDER 6") EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00
371 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (STACKS, VENTS, CONDUCTORS) EACH 6.00 6.00 6.00
372 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (SUB-SOIL DRAINS) EACH 9.00 9.00 9.00
373 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM--1-1/2") EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
374 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM--1-1/4") EACH 23.00 23.00 23.00
375 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM--1") EACH 15.00 15.00 15.00
Page 18
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
376 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM--2") EACH 38.00 38.00 38.00
377 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM--3/4") EACH 8.00 8.00 8.00
378 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM--OVER 2") EACH 45.00 45.00 45.00
379 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER SERVICE 2" TO 6") EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00
380 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER SERVICE LESS THAN 2") EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00
381 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER SERVICE OVER 6") EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00
382 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PLAN REVIEW FEE EACH 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% OF APPLICABLE PERMIT FEE
383 INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (GREASE TRAP INSPECTION) EACH 45.00 45.00 45.00
384 INSPECTION SERVICES PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE APPEAL APPLICATION FEE EACH 100.00 100.00 100.00
APPLICABLE BLDG PERMIT FEE BASED ON VALUE OF
385 INSPECTION SERVICES ROOFING PERMIT (RE-ROOF OVER OLD ROOF/1LAYERS MAX) $100 PER SQUARE
SQUARES
APPLICABLE BLDG PERMIT FEE BASED ON VALUE OF
386 INSPECTION SERVICES ROOFING PERMIT (STRIP THEN RE-ROOF) $200 PER SQUARE
SQUARES
APPLICABLE BLDG PERMIT FEE BASED ON VALUE OF
387 INSPECTION SERVICES ROOFING PERMIT (STRIP, RE-SHEET, THEN RE-ROOF) $250 PER SQUARE
SQUARES
388 INSPECTION SERVICES Telecommunications Outlets 1 - 10 Outlets 50.00 50.00 50.00
389 INSPECTION SERVICES Telecommunications Outlets 11 - 20 Outlets 100.00 100.00 100.00
390 INSPECTION SERVICES Telecommunications Outlets Over 20 Outlets - Per Outlet 2.00 2.00 2.00
391 MARINA 20 FOOT SLIP EACH 0.00 0.00 0.00 5% DISCOUNT IS GIVEN IF FEE PAID IN FULL BY FEBRUARY 1
392 MARINA 30 FOOT SLIP EACH 2,005.00 2,005.00 2,005.00 5% DISCOUNT IS GIVEN IF FEE PAID IN FULL BY FEBRUARY 1
393 MARINA 40 FOOT SLIP EACH 3,050.00 3,050.00 3,050.00 5% DISCOUNT IS GIVEN IF FEE PAID IN FULL BY FEBRUARY 1
394 MARINA 60 FOOT SLIP EACH 5,355.00 5,355.00 5,355.00 5% DISCOUNT IS GIVEN IF FEE PAID IN FULL BY FEBRUARY 1
ADDITIONAL 5% DISCOUNT IS GIVEN IF FEE PAID IN FULL BY
395 MARINA MULTIPLE SLIP RENTAL RENT ADDITIONAL SLIP 0.00 0.00 0.00
FEBRUARY 1
396 MARINA HARD ACCESS (SLIPS 37-46, 69) UNDER 27' ONLY EACH 1,317.00 1,317.00 1,317.00
Page 19
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
397 MARINA CLASS A MOORING EACH 468.00 491.00 491.00 5% DISCOUNT IS GIVEN IF FEE PAID IN FULL BY FEBRUARY 1
398 MARINA CLASS B MOORING EACH 397.00 417.00 417.00 5% DISCOUNT IS GIVEN IF FEE PAID IN FULL BY FEBRUARY 1
399 MARINA DAILY LAUNCH RAMP EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00
400 MARINA SEASONAL LAUNCH RAMP STICKER RESIDENT 40.00 40.00 40.00
401 MARINA SEASONAL LAUNCH RAMP STICKER NON-RESIDENT 55.00 55.00 55.00
402 MARINA SEASONAL LAUNCH RAMP STICKER (SENIOR/HANDICAPPED) RESIDENT 25.00 25.00 25.00
403 MARINA SEASONAL LAUNCH RAMP STICKER (SENIOR/HANDICAPPED) NON-RESIDENT 40.00 40.00 40.00
404 MARINA END OF SEASON LAUNCH RAMP PERMIT EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00 SOLD AFTER SEPTEMBER 15
405 MARINA COMMERCIAL LAUNCH RAMP PERMIT EACH 250.00 250.00 250.00
406 MARINA SMALL BOAT BASIN EACH 834.00 834.00 834.00 5% DISCOUNT IS GIVEN IF FEE PAID IN FULL BY FEBRUARY 1
407 MARINA DRY STORAGE (RESIDENTS - CATAMARAN) EACH 134.00 134.00 134.00
408 MARINA DRY STORAGE (NON-RESIDENTS - CATAMARAN) EACH 199.00 199.00 199.00
409 MARINA CANOE & KAYAK STORAGE PER SIX MONTHS 75.00 75.00 75.00 DRY STORAGE BASED ON VEHICLE LENGTH
410 MARINA DRY STORAGE PER LINEAL FOOT 14.50 14.50 14.50 DRY STORAGE BASED ON VEHICLE LENGTH
411 MARINA TRAILER STORAGE EACH 60.00 60.00 60.00
412 MARINA PERSONAL WATERCRAFT STORAGE EACH 65.00 65.00 65.00 DOCKAGE FEE FOR JET SKI
MINIMUM - FEE CHARGED BASED ON TRANSIENT VESSEL RATES
413 MARINA END OF SEASON LATE REMOVAL FEE PER DAY MINIMUM 24.00 24.00 24.00
(VESSEL LENGTH)
414 PLANNING PRECINCT MAPS (LARGE) EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
415 PLANNING MASTER PLAN COPY (CITY, DDA, LDFA) - COLOR EACH 130.00 130.00 130.00 HARD COPY
416 PLANNING MASTER PLAN COPY (CITY, DDA, LDFA) - B & W EACH 35.00 35.00 35.00 HARD COPY
417 PLANNING DOWNTOWN PLAN COPY EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00 HARD COPY
Page 20
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
418 PLANNING MASTER PLAN COPY (CITY, DDA, LDFA) - COLOR EACH 15.00 15.00 15.00 PROVIDED ON CD
419 PLANNING MASTER PLAN COPY (CITY, DDA, LDFA) - B & W EACH 15.00 15.00 15.00 PROVIDED ON CD
420 PLANNING DOWNTOWN PLAN COPY EACH 15.00 15.00 15.00 PROVIDED ON CD
421 PLANNING OBSOLETE PROPERTY REHAB FILING & MONITORING FEE EACH 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 2% OF ABATED TAXES (WHICHEVER IS LESS) - $200.00 MINIMUM
422 PLANNING NEZ APPLICATION FEE EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00
423 PLANNING IFT/CFT APPLICATION FEE EACH 1,722.00 1,722.00 1,722.00 2% OF ABATED TAXES (WHICHEVER IS LESS - MINIMUM $200)
2% OF ABATED TAXES (WHICHEVER IS LESS - MINIMUM $200); NO FEE
424 PLANNING PERSONAL PROPERTY ABATEMENT FEE EACH 0.00 0.00 1,722.00 ***NEW FEE***
IF INCLUDED WITH IFT
425 PLANNING COMMERCIAL REHAB FILING/MONITORING FEE EACH 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 2% OF ABATED TAXES (WHICHEVER IS LESS - MINIMUM $200)
426 PLANNING GROUNDWATER ORDINANCE APPLICATION FEE EACH 500.00 500.00 750.00 50.00%
427 PLANNING BROWNFIELD DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEE EACH 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 IF TAX CAPTURE FEE BASED ON ACTUAL COSTS
428 PLANNING LEISURE SERVICES MASTER PLAN EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00 HARD COPY
429 PLANNING LEISURE SERVICES MASTER PLAN EACH 15.00 15.00 15.00 CD
430 POLICE POLICE REPORTS - ACCIDENT & OFFENSE (EACH ADDITIONAL PAGE) EACH 0.25 0.25 0.25
431 POLICE POLICE REPORTS - ACCIDENT & OFFENSE (FIRST PAGE) EACH 5.50 5.50 5.50
432 POLICE BIKE REGISTRATION (CHANGE OWNERSHIP) EACH 2.00 2.00 2.00
433 POLICE BIKE REGISTRATION (DUPLICATE) EACH 1.00 1.00 1.00
434 POLICE BIKE REGISTRATION (ENGRAVING) EACH 0.00 0.00 0.00 NO CHARGE
435 POLICE BIKE REGISTRATION (NEW) EACH 2.00 2.00 2.00
436 POLICE CITATION COPY EACH 5.50 5.50 5.50
437 POLICE FALSE ALARM FEE (4TH IN YEAR) EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
438 POLICE FALSE ALARM FEE (5TH IN YEAR) EACH 60.00 60.00 60.00
Page 21
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
439 POLICE FALSE ALARM FEE (6TH OR MORE IN YEAR) EACH 75.00 75.00 75.00
440 POLICE LIQUOR - SPECIAL LICENSE (45 DAYS PRIOR TO EVENT) EACH 250.00 250.00 250.00
441 POLICE LIQUOR - SPECIAL LICENSE (15 - 44 DAYS PRIOR TO EVENT) EACH 350.00 350.00 350.00
442 POLICE LIQUOR - SPECIAL LICENSE (UNDER 15 DAYS PRIOR TO EVENT) EACH NOT ISSUED NOT ISSUED NOT ISSUED
LIQUOR - TEMPORARY EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE (45 DAYS PRIOR TO
443 POLICE EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00
EVENT)
LIQUOR - TEMPORARY EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE (15 - 44 DAYS PRIOR TO
444 POLICE EACH 75.00 75.00 75.00
EVENT)
LIQUOR - TEMPORARY EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE (UNDER 15 DAYS PRIOR
445 POLICE EACH NOT ISSUED NOT ISSUED NOT ISSUED
TO EVENT)
446 POLICE LIQUOR - TEMPORARY EXISTING CLUB LICENSE (45 DAYS PRIOR TO EVENT) EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00
447 POLICE LIQUOR - TEMPORARY EXISTING CLUB LICENSE (15 - 44 DAYS PRIOR TO EVENT) EACH 75.00 75.00 75.00
448 POLICE LIQUOR - TEMPORARY EXISTING CLUB LICENSE (UNDER 15 DAYS PRIOR TO EVENT) EACH NOT ISSUED NOT ISSUED NOT ISSUED
449 POLICE OUIL COST RECOVERY FEE EACH ACTUAL COSTS ACTUAL COSTS ACTUAL COSTS
450 POLICE PHOTOGRAPH REPRODUCTION (ENLARGED) EACH 15.00 15.00 15.00
451 POLICE PHOTOGRAPH REPRODUCTION (STD SIZE) EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00
452 POLICE PHOTOGRAPH REPRODUCTION (CD-ROM) EACH 5.00 5.00 5.00
453 POLICE VIN INSPECTION EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
454 POLICE VEHICLE IMPOUND FEE (PRIVATE) EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00
455 POLICE VEHICLE IMPOUND FEE (COURT-ORDERED) EVERY 30 DAYS 50.00 50.00 50.00
DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
456 SPECIAL EVENTS PARKS (WOOD SNOW FENCE RENTAL) EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
UP IS REQUIRED
457 SPECIAL EVENTS PARKS (PLASTIC BAGS FOR GARBAGE CANS) PER CASE 0.00 25.00 30.00 REFLECTS COST INCREASE; REFUND FOR UNOPENED CASES 20.00%
DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
458 SPECIAL EVENTS CITY SERVICES (55-GAL METAL TRASH CANS) EACH 5.00 5.00 5.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
UP IS REQUIRED
Page 22
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
459 SPECIAL EVENTS CITY SERVICES RENTAL OF POSTS EACH POST 3.00 3.00 3.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
UP IS REQUIRED
DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
460 SPECIAL EVENTS CITY SERVICES (PICNIC TABLES) EACH 10.00 10.00 10.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
UP IS REQUIRED
461 SPECIAL EVENTS FILM & MUSIC EVENTS ADMINISTRATION FEE EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00
SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATION FEE FOR PEAK SEASON EVENTS (4/15-9/30) APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO APRIL 15 WILL RECEIVE
462 SPECIAL EVENTS EACH 0.00 100.00 100.00
SUBMITTED AT LEAST 60 DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OF EVENT 50% DISCOUNT OFF REGULAR FEE.
SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATION FEE FOR PEAK SEASON EVENTS (4/15-9/30) APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO APRIL 15 WILL RECEIVE
463 SPECIAL EVENTS EACH 0.00 250.00 250.00
SUBMITTED 45-59 DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OF EVENT 50% DISCOUNT OFF REGULAR FEE.
SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATION FEE FOR PEAK SEASON EVENTS (4/15-9/30) APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO APRIL 15 WILL RECEIVE
464 SPECIAL EVENTS EACH 0.00 400.00 400.00
SUBMITTED 30-44 DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OF EVENT 50% DISCOUNT OFF REGULAR FEE.
SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATION FEE FOR OFF SEASON EVENTS (1/1-4/14 & 10/1-
465 SPECIAL EVENTS EACH 0.00 50.00 50.00
12/31) SUBMITTED AT LEAST 60 DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OF EVENT
SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATION FEE FOR OFF SEASON EVENTS (1/1-4/14 & 10/1-
466 SPECIAL EVENTS EACH 0.00 200.00 200.00
12/31) SUBMITTED 45-59 DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OF EVENT
SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATION FEE FOR OFF SEASON EVENTS (1/1-4/14 & 10/1-
467 SPECIAL EVENTS EACH 0.00 300.00 300.00
12/31) SUBMITTED 30-44DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OF EVENT
SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATION FEE FOR OFF SEASON EVENTS (1/1-4/14 & 10/1-
468 SPECIAL EVENTS EACH 0.00 500.00 500.00
12/31) SUBMITTED LESS THAN 30 DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OF EVENT
469 SPECIAL EVENTS CITY SERVICES (POLICE OFFICER - STRAIGHT TIME) PER HOUR 40.00 40.00 40.00
470 SPECIAL EVENTS CITY SERVICES (POLICE OFFICER - 1.5 OVERTIME) PER HOUR 60.00 60.00 60.00
471 SPECIAL EVENTS CITY SERVICES (POLICE OFFICER - TRIPLE OVERTIME) PER HOUR 120.00 120.00 120.00
472 TREASURER DUPLICATE TAX BILL COPY (COMPUTER PRINTOUT) EACH 3.00 3.00 3.00
473 TREASURER PROPERTY TAX PROJECTION/ESTIMATE LETTER EACH 0.00 0.00 20.00 ***NEW FEE***
474 TREASURER NSF CHECK/NSF ACH HANDLING CHARGE EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
475 TREASURER TAX RECEIPT INQUIRY (LESS THAN 3 YEARS OLD) EACH 5.00 5.00 5.00
476 TREASURER TAX RECEIPT INQUIRY (MORE THAN 3 YEARS OLD) EACH 12.00 12.00 12.00
477 TREASURER TRANSACTION SERVICE FEE (PAYMENTS MADE AT WINDOWW/O BILL) EACH 2.00 2.00 2.00
478 TREASURER TRANSACTION ADMINISTRATIVE FEE (CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS BY PHONE) EACH 5.00 5.00 5.00
Page 23
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
479 TREASURER PETTY CASH NUISANCE FEE (FAILURE TO RETURN RECEIPTS IN TIMELY FASHION) EACH 5.00 5.00 5.00
480 TREASURER PROPERTY TAX ROLL ON CD-ROM OR ELECTRONIC FILE EACH 100.00 100.00 100.00
481 TREASURER PROPERTY TAX LIEN INQUIRY/LOOKUP (PERFORMED BY CITY STAFF) EACH 35.00 35.00 35.00 PAYMENT IN ADVANCE W/CREDIT CARD REQUIRED
482 TREASURER PROPERTY TAX LIEN INQUIRY/LOOKUP (SELF-HELP INTERNET LOOKUP) EACH 20.00 20.00 20.00
483 TREASURER PENALTY ASSESSMENT ON DELINQUENT TAXES EACH 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
484 TREASURER PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION FEE (PTAF) EACH 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
485 TREASURER LANDLORD'S AFFIDAVIT FILING EACH 300.00 ***NEW FEE***
486 WATER FILTRATION WATER TEST SAMPLE PER SAMPLE 70.00 70.00 70.00 COVERS STAFF TIME AND LAB WORK
487 WATER-SEWER DELINQUENT PAYMENT PENALTY PAST DUE BALANCE 10.00% 10.00% 10.00%
GREATER OF 20% GREATER OF 20% GREATER OF 20%
488 WATER-SEWER DELINQUENT PAYMENT PENALTY (TAX LIEN FEE) PAST DUE BALANCE
OR $25.00 OR $25.00 OR $25.00
489 WATER-SEWER HYDRANT SERVICE (MAXIMUM 30 DAY) CONNECTION CHARGE EACH 50.00 50.00 50.00 $200.00 REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT ALSO REQUIRED
490 WATER-SEWER SALE OF SCRAP HYDRANTS EACH 0.00 0.00 35.00 ***NEW FEE***
491 WATER-SEWER INSTALLATION OF STUB LINE TO PROPERTY LINE (SEWER) EACH 800.00 800.00 800.00
492 WATER-SEWER INSTALLATION OF STUB LINE TO PROPERTY LINE (WATER) EACH 800.00 800.00 800.00
493 WATER-SEWER METER REPLACEMENT AT OWNER'S REQUEST EACH ACTUAL COSTS ACTUAL COSTS ACTUAL COSTS
494 WATER-SEWER METER RESET AT OWNER'S REQUEST EACH 35.00 35.00 35.00
495 WATER-SEWER METER TEST EACH 35.00 35.00 35.00
496 WATER-SEWER MISSED METER APPOINTMENT EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00
497 WATER-SEWER TEMPORARY (MINIMUM 30 DAY) SERVICE EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00
498 WATER-SEWER TURN ON CHARGE (AFTER HOURS) EACH 35.00 35.00 35.00
499 WATER-SEWER TURN ON CHARGE (REGULAR HOURS) EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00
Page 24
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
500 WATER-SEWER TURN ON CHARGE (SEASONAL USE) EACH 12.50 12.50 12.50
501 WATER-SEWER TURN ON CHARGE (MISSED APPOINTMENT - SAME DAY TURN ON) EACH 0.00 40.00 40.00
502 WATER-SEWER UNAUTHORIZED WATER USE OR TAMPERING (MINIMUM CHARGE) EACH 200.00 200.00 200.00
503 WATER-SEWER UNAUTHORIZED WATER USE (ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR CONT'D USE) PER DAY 20.00 20.00 20.00
504 WATER-SEWER BACKFLOW PREVENTER DEVICE REGISTRATION/AUDIT FEE ANNUAL FEE-EACH DEVICE 10.00 10.00 10.00
505 WATER-SEWER WATER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 5/8" OR 3/4" EACH 800.00 800.00 800.00
506 WATER-SEWER WATER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 1" EACH 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00
507 WATER-SEWER WATER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 1-1/4" OR 1-1/2" EACH 4,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00
508 WATER-SEWER WATER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 2" EACH 6,800.00 6,800.00 6,800.00
509 WATER-SEWER WATER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 3" EACH 12,800.00 12,800.00 12,800.00
510 WATER-SEWER WATER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 4" EACH 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00
511 WATER-SEWER WATER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 6" EACH 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00
512 WATER-SEWER WATER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - GREATER THAN 6" EACH TBD TBD TBD BASED ON CALCULATED CAPACITY
513 WATER-SEWER FIRELINE SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE 2" EACH 0.00 0.00 TIME & MATERIALS BASIS
514 WATER-SEWER FIRELINE SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE 4" EACH 6,800.00 6,800.00 PREVIOUSLY TIME & MATERIALS
515 WATER-SEWER FIRELINE SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE 6" EACH 12,800.00 12,800.00 PREVIOUSLY TIME & MATERIALS
516 WATER-SEWER FIRELINE SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE 8" EACH 20,000.00 20,000.00 PREVIOUSLY TIME & MATERIALS
517 WATER-SEWER FIRELINE SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE 12" EACH 40,000.00 40,000.00 PREVIOUSLY TIME & MATERIALS
518 WATER-SEWER SEWER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 5/8" OR 3/4" EACH 800.00 800.00 800.00
519 WATER-SEWER SEWER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 1" EACH 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00
520 WATER-SEWER SEWER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 1-1/4" OR 1-1/2" EACH 4,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00
Page 25
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
521 WATER-SEWER SEWER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 2" EACH 6,800.00 6,800.00 6,800.00
522 WATER-SEWER SEWER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 3" EACH 12,800.00 12,800.00 12,800.00
523 WATER-SEWER SEWER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 4" EACH 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00
524 WATER-SEWER SEWER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 6" EACH 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00
525 WATER-SEWER SEWER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - GREATER THAN 6" EACH TBD TBD TBD BASED ON CALCULATED CAPACITY
NO CHARGE IF CORRECTED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF DISCOVERY. FEE
STORM WATER CROSS CONNECTION SEWER TREATMENT CHARGE (AREAS UNDER
526 WATER-SEWER PER DAY 0.00 6.05 6.05 FOR AREAS OVER 45,000SF BASED ON CURRENT COUNTY WW
45,000 SF) TREATMENT CHARGE AND ASSUMED 36" ANNUAL RAINFALL
527 ZONING SPECIAL MEETING FEE (PLANNING, ZBA) PER REQUEST 400.00 400.00 400.00
528 ZONING FENCE PERMIT FEE EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
529 ZONING LOT SPLIT REVIEW EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
530 ZONING ZONING, GIS MAPS (UP TO 17" x 24" ) EACH 15.00 15.00 15.00
531 ZONING ZONING, GIS MAPS (17" x 24" TO 34" x 44" ) EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00
532 ZONING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) EACH 500.00 500.00 500.00
533 ZONING SIDEWALK BENCH ENCROACHMENT PER BENCH PER MONTH 5.00 5.00 5.00
534 ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE - MINOR EACH 100.00 100.00 100.00
535 ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE - MAJOR EACH 200.00 200.00 200.00
536 ZONING SPECIAL USE PERMIT EACH 300.00 300.00 300.00
537 ZONING STREET VACATION EACH 300.00 300.00 300.00
538 ZONING ZONING COMPLIANCE LETTER EACH 30.00 30.00 30.00
539 ZONING ZONE CHANGE EACH 300.00 300.00 300.00
540 ZONING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION EACH 300.00 300.00 300.00 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ONLY
541 ZONING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION EACH 150.00 150.00 150.00 RESIDENTIAL ONLY
Page 26
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)
PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT
2010 2011 2012 %
DEPT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
LINE UNIT FEE FEE FEE CHANGE
542 ZONING ZONING ORDINANCE COPY EACH 25.00 25.00 25.00
543 ZONING ZONING ORDINANCE COPY W/ MAP EACH 45.00 45.00 45.00
Page 27
Commission Meeting Date: December 13, 2011
Date: December 2, 2011
To: Honorable Mayor & City Commission
From: Planning & Economic Development Department
RE: Request to Deny & Accept Properties that did not
Sell During the Tax sale for 2011
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The County of Muskegon held two delinquent tax auctions during 2011. There were twenty
three properties left after the last auction. According to the State’s new tax laws, the City
must state that they are not interested in obtaining them, otherwise the City will automatically
receive them. From the list that was provided, there are four houses, one commercial
building, and eighteen vacant lots. Community & Neighborhood Services would like to obtain
two of the houses and Planning would like to obtain eleven vacant lots with the remaining
parcels being denied.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To deny of ten parcels and accept thirteen parcels and authorize both the Mayor and the
Clerk to sign said resolution.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
None.
Resolution No. _______
MUSKEGON CITY COMMISSION
RESOLUTION TO DENY ACCEPTANCE OF TAX REVERTED PROPERTY FROM THE
COUNTY TREASURER.
WHEREAS, The City may not accept the properties available under the urban homestead act,
1999 PA 127, MCL 125.2701 to 125.2709, PA 123 of 1999, MCL 211.78M(6) or for any other
lawful purpose, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Muskegon does not want to acquire ten parcels;
WHEREAS, the City of Muskegon will accept the remaining thirteen parcels;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Muskegon shall not accept fourteen
parcels that were remaining from the tax sale but will accept the remaining thirteen.
Legal Descriptions that will not be Accepted are as Follows:
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 S 45 FT LOT 1 BLK 68
Parcel # 24-205-068-0001-10
1073 Williams
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT 1903 S 1/2 LOT 6 BLK 74
Parcel # 24-205-074-0006-10
1126 Kenneth
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 W 29 FT LOT 7 BLK 74
Parcel # 24-205-074-0007-10
0 Catherine
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT 1903 LOT 2 BLK 77
Parcel # 24-205-077-0002-00
1123 Chestnut
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT 1903 LOT 7 BLK 214
Parcel # 24-205-214-0007-00
974 Jay
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 S 21.6 FT LOT 7 & N 22.4 FT LOT
8 BLK 307
Parcel # 24-205-307-0007-00
1778 Pine
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 E 1/2 LOT 1 BLK 369
Parcel # 24-205-369-0001-10
371 Houston
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 E 1/2 LOT 4 BLK 371
Parcel # 24-205-371-0004-10
507 Houston
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 W 38 FT LOT 9 BLK 394
Parcel # 24-205-394-0009-00
24 Morrall
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 N 44 3/4 FT OF W 90 FT LOT 1
BLK 411
Parcel # 24-205-411-0001-00
1430 Beidler
Legal Descriptions that will be Accepted are as Follows:
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 LOT 9 BLK 9
Parcel # 24-205-009-0009-00
509 Adams
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 LOT 3 BLK 47 EXC N 132 FT OF
E 10 FT TH'OF
Parcel # 24-205-047-0003-00
519 Orchard (for CNS)
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT 1903 LOT 12 BLK 82
Parcel # 24-205-082-0012-00
642 McLaughlin
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 E 35 FT LOT 12 BLK 88
Parcel # 24-205-088-0012-00
734 Hill
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 SLY 12 FT LOT 13 BLK 148
Parcel # 24-205-148-0013-10
299 Jackson
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 W 42 FT LOT 7 & W 42 FT OF S
10 FT LOT 8 BLK 264
Parcel # 24-205-264-0007-00
336 Catawba
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 ELY 29 FT LOT 12 BLK 264
Parcel # 24-205-264-0012-10
297 McLaughlin
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 LOT 14 & N 4 FT LOT 13 BLK
274
Parcel # 24-205-274-0014-00
1451 Leahy
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 S 35.7 FT LOT 2 BLK 281
Parcel # 24-205-281-0002-10
1530 Hoyt
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 E 1/2 OF LOT 9 BLK 375
Parcel # 24-205-375-0009-10
0 Washington
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 N 1/2 LOT 12 BLK 389
Parcel # 24-205-389-0012-00
1349 6th
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 W 1/2 LOT 11 BLK 392
Parcel # 24-205-392-0011-10
0 Strong
CITY OF MUSKEGON EASTLAWN SUB DIV OF BLKS 3-4 & 5 R P EASTONS
2ND SUB DIV LOT 1 BLK 9
Parcel # 24-255-009-0001-00
1908 Superior (for CNS)
Adopted this 13th day of December, 2011
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
By: _________________________
Stephen J. Warmington, Mayor
Attest: ________________________
Ann Marie Cummings, MMC
Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing constitutes a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted
by the City Commission of the City of Muskegon, County of Muskegon, Michigan at a regular
meeting held on December 13, 2011.
By: ________________________
Ann Marie Cummings, MMC
Clerk
Date: November 23, 2011
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Assistant Finance Director
RE: Deficit Elimination Plan for Home Rehabilitation Fund and State
Grants Fund
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: At June 30, 2011 the City of Muskegon Home
Rehabilitation Fund had a deficit balance of $166,174 and the State Grants Fund had a
deficit unassigned balance of $71,930. Act 275 of the Public Acts of 1980 requires that
the City file a Deficit Elimination Plan with the Michigan Department of Treasury. Staff is
requesting adoption of the Home Rehabilitation Fund and State Grants Fund Deficit
Elimination Plan Resolutions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: As presented by the Deficit Elimination Plan the Home
Rehabilitation Fund and State Grants Fund will no longer have a deficit by June 30,
2013.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the Deficit Elimination Plan Resolutions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENATION:
Commission Meeting Date: December 13, 2011
Date: December 6, 2011
To: Honorable Mayor & City Commission
From: Planning & Economic Development Department
RE: Improvement Plan for Hackley Park- Donor
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: A potential donor has made a request through the
Community Foundation for Muskegon County, to provide funds for improvements to
Hackley Park, including a Foundation fund for future park maintenance. Staff has
met with the donor, as well as Schultz Transport, Inc., who is designing the
improvements. The Master Plan for Hackley Park has been consulted as
improvements are being designed. This is an exciting project which will provide for
attractive, as well as historic, improvements to the Park, when there are few City
funds available. The City has agreed to continue providing water to the Park as part
of our responsibility. There will be a marker placed in the park in memory of the
donor’s husband.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None for the City. The maintenance fund established through
the Community Foundation will pay for future maintenance, as well as replacement,
when necessary (with the exception of the water, which the City will provide).
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the general plan for improvements to
Hackley Park and the establishment of a maintenance fund through the Community
Foundation; and authorize staff to continue coordinating with the Foundation, the
donor and Schultz Transport, Inc. on the specific design and improvements to be
made. Final improvements must be approved by the Historic District Commission.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The improvement plan will be presented to the
Commission Work Session on December 12, 2011 and the final plan will be
presented to the Historic District Commission for approval in January.
Commission Meeting Date: December 13, 2011
Date: November 15, 2011
To: Honorable Mayor & City Commission
From: Planning & Economic Development Department
RE: Parks & Recreation Master Plan Amendment
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: In order to seek a Michigan Natural
Resources Trust Fund grant for projects, they must be included in the
Parks & Recreation Master Plan. Therefore, amendments are
recommended for the Consumer’s Power site and Sheldon Park. In
addition, minor amendments are included for other parks, particularly in
relation to ADA requirements.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To adopt the “Muskegon Parks &
Recreation Master Plan 2009” Amendments and authorize the Mayor &
Clerk to sign any documents necessary related to the amendments.
Resolution No. ______
MUSKEGON CITY COMMISSION
CITY OF MUSKEGON
RECREATION PLAN AMENDMENT
RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION
WHEREAS, the City of Muskegon has undertaken a Parks and Recreation Plan Amendment which
describes changes to the Five Year Parks and Recreation Plan originally adopted in 2009 and indicates
actions to be taken to improve and maintain recreation facilities during the same five year period; and
WHEREAS, a public comment session was held December 13, 2011 at City Hall, 933 Terrace St. to
provide an opportunity for citizens to express opinions, ask questions, and discuss all aspects of the
Recreation Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, after the public meeting, the City of Muskegon City Commission voted to adopt said
Recreation Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Muskegon City Commission hereby adopts
the City of Muskegon “Muskegon Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2009” Recreation Plan
Amendment.
Adopted this _____ of _______________, 2011.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
By:______________________________
Stephen J. Warmington, Mayor
Attest:____________________________
Ann Marie Cummings, City Clerk
PROPOSED CHANGES MADE TO THE MASTERPLAN
December 2011
ACTION PLAN AND ASSESMENT
P. 12- Conclusion- Change ‘largest’ to ‘greatest’
P. 47- Relationships with other agencies- Add: “Recently, the city has established a relationship with the
organization “No More Sidelines”; a non-profit group helping children and young adults with disabilities
to participate in sports and other social events, which are hosted within many public facilities. The city has
also provided grant funding to assist with their softball and soccer program.”
P. 59- Facilities Chart- Remove: softball diamonds; Add: combined football and soccer field, basketball
court lights, picnic grills, observation pier, picnic shelters for Smith-Ryerson.
P. 63- Sheldon Park- Special Characteristics: Add last two sentences- “This is also home to the East Little
League, and a potential location for the “No More Sidelines” baseball program to take place. This
program is for children and young adults with disabilities; and could in turn bring much more interaction
to the park as the program is growing in popularity.”
P. 63- Sheldon Park- Condition: Add “The Park needs an automatic irrigation system.”
P. 63- Beachwood Park- Special Characteristics: Add last sentence- “Minor ADA upgrades are being
planned for the park, such as a route to the covered BBQ area and a path to the play area.”
P. 64- Conclusion- Add sentence- “Sheldon Park’s usage is expected to steadily rise as more programs and
interaction are expected to take place there. This gives it a higher priority when it comes to enhancing its
current state.”
P. 65- Smith-Ryerson- Facilities: Add- concession stand, observation pier, trail along creek, picnic
pavilion, and a combined soccer and football field.
P. 65- Smith-Ryerson- Condition: Remove “poor” and add “great” condition in first sentence.
P. 65- Smith Ryerson- Condition: Add/Update condition of basketball court. “The basketball courts have
recently been reconstructed with cement rather than asphalt which will minimize future inconvenience.
There are new basketball poles, backstops, and hoops. There is also a new timed lighting system for the
courts.”
P.65- Smith-Ryerson- Condition: Add- “The removal of the softball diamond has left more room for open
green space as well as more room for other recreational activities to take place.”
P. 65- Smith-Ryerson- Condition: Add/Update accessible facilities: “Accessibility is especially important
as the building is used as a voting precinct. The old restroom facility in the park has been converted to
storage for maintenance equipment. A new ADA accessible restroom and concession stand building have
been constructed on the site. A large picnic shelter has been added with ADA accessible grills and barrier
free picnic tables.”
P.66- Smith-Ryerson- Add/Update on irrigation: “An underground irrigation system has been added to the
park. This will keep the combined football and soccer field looking presentable and green.”
P. 66- Smith-Ryerson- Condition: Add/Update on parking: “The parking area has been reconstructed,
enlarged, striped and made ADA van accessible. There are more parking spaces overall with more spaces
added for people with disabilities.”
P.66- Smith-Ryerson- Condition: Add, “There is also an observation pier located at the creek as well as a
trail to walk along the creek.”
P.66- Smith-Ryerson- Condition: Change “The City ‘had’ to The City ‘has’ been awarded…” since this has
been done.
P.66- Smith-Ryerson- Condition: Add, “The improvements have been completed.”
P.66- Smith-Ryerson- Condition: Add, “Future renovation plans for the park include creating an ADA
accessible route to the playground area.”
P. 66- Reese Park- Condition: Add, “These should include ADA accessible parking spaces. For every 50
spaces it is required to have one van accessible and one standard accessible parking space.”
P.66- Reese Park- Condition: Change, “The restroom and maintenance building need replacement to “The
restroom and maintenance building are in good condition.”
P. 66- Reese Park- Condition: Add, “A concession stand, as well as a place for storage is needed.”
P. 66- Reese Park- Condition: Add, “Getting a well water system in place should be looked into as a new
irrigation system for the soccer field is of high priority. An expansion of lights on the field is also needed.”
P. 66- Reese park- Condition: Add ‘accessible’ to last sentence
P. 76- Veterans Memorial Park- Special Characteristics: Add, “Each parking lot here will have at least one
ADA van accessible parking space.”
P. 76- Ryerson Creek Open Space- Facilities: Add, ‘pier overlooking creek’.
P. 77- Ryerson Creek Open Space- Condition: Add/Update on pathway/trail, “A trail has been constructed
along the creek in Smith-Ryerson Park and is approximately 1500-feet long and has been constructed
according to ASHTO standards. It has been designed with little to no slope so that it is accessible to
everyone. The trail veers off to a newly added pier overlooking the creek, which offers a good spot for
nature watching. The trail connects to two walkways that were previously on the site. In the future the city
would like to extend the trail past the park property.”
P. 84- Conclusions- Physical Issues- Add Smith-Ryerson to renovated parks list.
P. 84- Conclusions- Physical Issues- Add, “Perhaps, the future renovations of Sheldon Park can focus on
creating specific amenities geared toward the needs and interests of people with disabilities. The addition
of a baseball/softball complex on the Consumer’s Energy property would provide recreational
opportunities for residents of Muskegon County, as well as providing a venue for activities and
tournaments attracting participants from the entire State of Michigan.”
P. 99- Action Step IV- Remove Smith-Ryerson on list of parks to be updated.
P. 99- Action Step V- Add, “Public facilities geared toward people with disabilities could be created
throughout Sheldon Park, helping to bring them together and give them more of an opportunity to
participate in sports and other activities.”
P. 100- Goal #3 first paragraph: Add, “little to” no programs for preschoolers and the disabled (as there
is the “No More Sidelines” program)
P. 100- Goal #3 last paragraph: Add, “universal design, which will enrich” into sentence.
P. 104- Action Step XIII- Add, “Developing a relationship with the group, “No More Sidelines” is an
example of this.”
CAPITAL IMPORVMENTS SCHEDULE
• Smith-Ryerson: Remove all improvements except for ‘reconstruct tennis courts/fencing’ and
‘drinking fountains”.
• Smith Ryerson: Initial amount of project, $922,000 was changed to $110,000.
• Sheldon Park: Remove “sidewalks and paved parking” Add, “pave parking/alley, concrete
sidewalk along south side of Isabella, asphalt sidewalks within park, baseball diamond”.
• Sheldon Park: Initial amount of project, $959,700 was changed to $923,700.
• Sports/Baseball/Softball Complex (Causeway Park): Change from “soccer” to “baseball/softball”.
Take out Phase III. Change Phase I from “$800,000” to “$900,000” and change the total from
“$3,300,000” to “$2,600,000”.
• Lighton Park: Remove “remove fountain”.
• Lighton Park: Initial amount of project, $1,230,000 was changed to $330,000.
Date: December 13, 2011
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Finance
RE: Consolidation of Services Plan - EVIP
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Under the Economic Vitality Incentive Program (EVIP)
adopted by the state earlier this year, the City must meet certain criteria in order to continue
receiving statutory revenue sharing funds. The first criterion was to prepare and make
available a citizen’s guide and performance dashboard by October 1, 2011.
The second criterion the city must meet is to certify to the Michigan Department of Treasury
that by January 1, 2012 they have produced and made readily available to the public, a plan
with one or more proposals to increase its existing level of cooperation, collaboration, and
consolidation, either within the jurisdiction or with other jurisdictions.
The attached Economic Vitality Incentive Program - Consolidation of Services Plan is
presented for your approval. Once approved, the plan will be submitted to the Michigan
Department of Treasury and made available to the public on the City’s website.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Failure to submit the plan to the state could result in the loss of
$321,642 - the consolidation of services portion of the EVIP payment.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Commission approval of the attached plan and
authorization for staff to submit the plan to the Michigan Department of Treasury.
1
City of Muskegon,
Michigan
EVIP Consolidation of Services Plan
December 2011
www.shorelinecity.com
Michigan Department of Treasury
4887 (07-11)
Economic Vitality Incentive Program
&HUWL¿FDWLRQ RI &RQVROLGDWLRQ RI 6HUYLFHV
Issued under authority of Public Act 63 of 2011. Filing is mandatory to qualify for payments.
Each city/village/township applying for Consolidation of Services payments must:
1. Certify to the Michigan Department of Treasury (Treasury) that the local unit listed below has produced and made readily
available to the public, a plan to increase its existing level of cooperation, collaboration, and consolidation of services (either
within the jurisdiction or with other jurisdictions). The plan shall include a listing of any previous services consolidated with the
cost savings realized from each consolidation and an estimate of potential savings for any new service consolidations being
planned.
2. Submit to Treasury a copy of the plan to increase cooperation, collaboration, and consolidation of services.
7KLV FHUWL¿FDWLRQ DORQJ ZLWK D cooperation, collaboration, and consolidation plan, PXVW EH UHFHLYHG E\ -DQXDU\ RU WKH ¿UVW
day of a payment month) in order to qualify for that month’s payment. Post mark dates will not be considered. For questions, call
(517) 373-2697.
3$57 /2&$/ 81,7 ,1)250$7,21
Local Unit Name
City of Muskegon
Local Unit Code Local Unit County
612020 Muskegon
Contact Name Contact Telephone Number
Bryon Mazade (231) 724-6724
3$57 &(57,),&$7,21
,Q DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK 3XEOLF $FW RI WKH XQGHUVLJQHG KHUHE\ FHUWL¿HV WR 7UHDVXU\ WKDW E\ -DQXDU\ WKH DERYH PHQWLRQHG ORFDO
XQLW KDV SURGXFHG DQG PDGH UHDGLO\ DYDLODEOH WR WKH SXEOLF D SODQ WR LQFUHDVH FRRSHUDWLRQ FROODERUDWLRQ DQG FRQVROLGDWLRQ RI VHUYLFHV
7KH SODQ IRU FRRSHUDWLRQ FROODERUDWLRQ DQG FRQVROLGDWLRQ RI VHUYLFHV LV DWWDFKHG WR WKLV VLJQHG FHUWL¿FDWLRQ
&KLHI $GPLQLVWUDWLYH 2I¿FHU 6LJQDWXUH DV GH¿QHG LQ 0&/ E
Title Date
City Manager 12/14/11
Completed and signed forms (including required attachments) should be e-mailed to: 7UHDV257$#PLFKLJDQJRY
If you are unable to submit via e-mail, mail the completed form and required attachments to:
Michigan Department of Treasury
2I¿FH RI 5HYHQXH DQG 7D[ $QDO\VLV
PO Box 30722
Lansing MI 48909
7UHDVXU\ 8VH 2QO\
EVIP Eligible &HUWL¿FDWLRQ 5HFHLYHG EVIP Notes
Y N
)LQDO &HUWL¿FDWLRQ 3ODQ 5HFHLYHG
City of Muskegon
Economic Vitality Incentive Program - Consolidation of Services Plan
Introduction
The state’s Economic Vitality Incentive Program (EVIP) adopted earlier this year set
three criteria for cities to maintain statutory revenue sharing:
1. Certify to the Michigan Department of Treasury that by October 1, 2011 they have produced and
made readily available to the public, a citizen’s guide and a performance dashboard of their local
finances, including recognition of their unfunded liabilities. The City has met this criterion.
2. Certify to the Michigan Department of Treasury that by January 1, 2012 they have produced and
made readily available to the public, a plan with one or more proposals to increase its existing
level of cooperation, collaboration, and consolidation, either within the jurisdiction or with other
jurisdictions. A plan shall include a listing of any previous services consolidated with the cost
savings realized from each consolidation and an estimate of the potential savings for any new
service consolidations being planned.
3. Certify to the Michigan Department of Treasury that by May 1, 2012 they have developed an
employee compensation plan, which they intend to implement, with any new, modified, or
extended contract or employment agreement, for employees not covered under contract or
employment agreement; and that the plan has been made available for public viewing in the
clerk’s office or posted on a publicly accessible Internet site.
This document represents the City’s Consolidation of Service Plan due by January 1,
2012 under the EVIP requirements.
Examples of Prior Consolidation of Services Initiatives
The City of Muskegon is the largest community in the Muskegon-Norton Shores-
Muskegon Heights, MI SMSA and has long been a leader in initiating and implementing
consolidation of municipal service efforts. The City can point to numerous and
successful service consolidation examples both as a service provider to others and as a
recipient of services where it has been determined another local unit can perform a
service more efficiently:
Existing Service Consolidation Examples
(Muskegon Provides Services to Other Units)
Service Communities Involved Annual Savings
Roosevelt Park, North Muskegon,
Water production $1,000,000
Northside System, Muskegon
Township
Muskegon Township, Northside
Water distribution system
System, Laketon Township, Dalton $250,000
maintenance
Township and stand-by emergency
for Roosevelt Park
Vehicle maintenance Muskegon Township, Roosevelt $100,000
Park, Muskegon Heights
Design and survey work to Norton
Engineering and survey $50,000
Shores, Roosevelt Park, North
services
Muskegon
Existing Service Consolidation Examples
(Muskegon Receives Services From Other Units)
Service Communities Involved Annual Savings
Prosecution of local The City has contracted with the
$70,000
ordinance violations Muskegon County Prosecutor’s
Office for this service
The City has contracted with the
Property Assessment $75,000
Muskegon County Equalization
Office for this service
Mail service The City has contracted with
$25,000
Muskegon County Central Services
for this service
There is a countywide Central
Public Safety dispatch Dispatch Authority that provides this
services service to the City $300,000
New Planned Consolidation of Services Initiatives
Recently, the City (together with Muskegon County and six other area communities)
was an active participant in a shared services study sponsored by the Muskegon
Lakeshore Chamber of Commerce. This study was funded and conducted under a
public-private partnership and sought to provide an “assessment of opportunities to
provide traditional municipal services on a broader scale, with two or more
municipalities working cooperatively to achieve cost savings through the use of
alternative service models.”
The final report from this effort was published in July 2011. We have incorporated a
copy of the full report as an appendix to this EVIP Consolidation of Services Plan as we
believe the study’s nineteen specific recommendations will be the roadmap guiding
further consolidation efforts in the Muskegon area.
Of the nineteen specific recommendations, fifteen directly involve the City of Muskegon.
Because of this large number, we have found it necessary to internally prioritize each
recommendation (High, Medium, or Low) based on our assessment of costs vs. benefits
and political/technical feasibility.
City of
Study Involves City of Muskegon
Potential Shared- Municipalities or
Rec Muskegon? Priority
Service - Opportunity Departments Affected
# Ranking
Muskegon Heights
contracts fire
Fire Contract-for- Yes Low
1
services to
Services
Muskegon or Norton
Shores
Muskegon-Area Fire
Ladder Truck Joint Departments Yes Medium
2
Purchase/Deployment determine location
and specifics
All county-wide police
Police and Fire and fire agencies Yes Low
3
Training Facility utilize - funding must
be determined
Roosevelt Park
contracts police
Police Contract-for- No N/A
4
services to Norton
Services
Shores
City of
Study Involves City of Muskegon
Potential Shared- Municipalities or
Rec Muskegon? Priority
Service - Opportunity Departments Affected
# Ranking
Muskegon Heights
contracts police
Police Contract-for- Yes Medium
5
services to
Services
Muskegon or
Muskegon County
Muskegon Heights
Collaborative collaborates on Yes Medium
6
Community Policing community policing
with Muskegon
Montague and
No N/A
7
Police Authority Whitehall form a
police authority
All or most
Yes Low
8
Solid Waste Authority communities form a
solid waste authority
Roosevelt Park
contracts remaining
Public Works Yes Medium
9
public works
Contract-for-Services
operations to
Muskegon
Montague and
Whitehall
Combined Public No N/A
10
incrementally
Works Operations
combine public works
operations
North Muskegon
Contract for Meter contracts water meter Yes Medium
11
Reading and Billing reading and billing to
Muskegon
Muskegon County
Road Commission
Contract for Survey Yes Low
12
contracts survey
Services
services to others on
demand
City of
Study Involves City of Muskegon
Potential Shared- Municipalities or
Rec Muskegon? Priority
Service - Opportunity Departments Affected
# Ranking
Muskegon contracts
Contract for Yes Medium
13
engineering services
Engineering Services
to others on demand
Norton Shores
Contract for Rental contracts with Yes Medium
14
Inspections Muskegon for rental
inspections
Muskegon area
Consolidated communities Yes High
15
Telecommunications combine phone
systems
Muskegon County
institutes Reverse
Centralized Yes Low
16
Auction purchasing
Purchasing
process for all
communities
Ten non-participating No (Muskegon
Centralized
communities join is current N/A
17
Geographic
County's GIS participant)
Information System
initiative
Muskegon Heights
Contract for Income contracts with Yes High
18
Tax Administration Muskegon for income
tax administration
All Muskegon area
One Water communities joined in Yes High
19
Production System one common water
production system
Three consolidated service recommendations are ranked as highest priority by the City
of Muskegon: 1) One Water Production System, 2) Contract for Income Tax
Administration and, 3) Consolidated Telecommunications.
The City’s plan for realizing each of these is reviewed below:
One Water Production System
The Muskegon region is currently serviced by two municipal water treatment facilities:
the City of Muskegon and the City of Muskegon Heights. Each system provides water
to neighboring municipalities at varying rates.
There has been much discussion for years about standardizing rates and achieving
greater economies of scale through consolidation of the two water supply systems –
either by creating an authority, contractual relationship, or having the Muskegon County
take over ownership and operation.
The City of Muskegon is an active leader in these discussions. In July 2011, the City
issued a proposal in line with the recommendations of the Chamber’s shared services
study to energize the discussion of consolidated water supply.
More recently, the City has agreed to standardize its current water service agreements
with four separate municipal customers under a new single agreement. This agreement
is currently under legal review and should be finalized within three months.
These City initiatives have helped generate an active, positive, and ongoing discussion
on the feasibility of consolidated metropolitan water supply system. As a large-scale
project with many legal and financial implications, it will likely take some time to achieve.
However, there are substantial benefits and savings that could accrue to the entire
region and the City will continue to aggressively pursue this recommendation.
Anticipated annual operating savings (for all affected communities): $1,000,000
Contract for Income Tax Administration
The City of Muskegon and the City of Muskegon Heights are currently the only
communities in Muskegon County that have enacted a municipal income tax. The
municipal income tax is authorized by PA 284 of 1964 and most aspects of
administering the tax are uniform across all adopting cities. While there can be
variations in terms of tax rates or exemption levels, the Muskegon and Muskegon
Heights taxes are identical in this regard.
Discussions have started between the two cities on feasibility of having Muskegon
administer Muskegon Heights income tax under a contractual relationship. Such a
relationship would have the potential benefits of: 1) lowering both communities overall
tax administration costs, enhance collections through more uniform enforcement, and
lessen business and taxpayer confusion.
Anticipated annual operating savings/improved collections (for both
communities): $100,000
Consolidated Telecommunications
This consolidated services initiative is nearest to completion. Several communities in
the area have dated telecommunications systems and are considering upgrading to
more modern and cost-effective VOIP (voice over IP) internet-based systems.
Muskegon Central Dispatch Authority has led the effort in analyzing and selecting the
best product lines. A contractor and equipment provider has been selected and the City
of Muskegon anticipates approving its participation in this contract.
Anticipated annual operating savings of $80,000
APPENDIX
MUSKEGON LAKESHORE
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR MUNICIPAL
SHARED-SERVICES
Municipal Consulting Services LLC
Municipal Consulting Services LLC
July 11, 2011
Ms. Janessa Smit
Vice President, Government Affairs
Muskegon Lakeshore Chamber of Commerce
380 W. Western Avenue, Suite 202
Muskegon, MI 49440
Dear Ms. Smit,
We have completed the Feasibility Study for Municipal Shared-Services for which we were
engaged by the Muskegon Chamber of Commerce. The results of the study are presented in this
final report document.
The study has included an assessment of opportunities to provide traditional municipal services
on a broader scale, with two or more municipalities working cooperatively to achieve cost
savings through the use of alternative service models. These include partnerships, contracts with
other governments, or districts and authorities charged with the responsibility of providing inter-
jurisdictional services.
To identify these opportunities, we have worked closely with the seven participating entities as
well as the committee and discussion groups that you have organized for the project. We have
appreciated the cooperation extended to us by the elected officials, city administrators and
private sector sponsors that we have worked with throughout the course of the study. The
contributions of these individuals were indispensable to assuring focus and substance in the
report findings.
We have sincerely enjoyed this opportunity to work with the Muskegon Chamber of Commerce
and the seven participating municipalities. Should you have questions concerning this report,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 734.904.4632.
Very truly yours,
Mark W. Nottley, Principal
Municipal Consulting Services LLC
3999 Albert Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Phone: 734-904-4632 Facsimile: 206-350-0305
www.MunicipalConsultingServices.com
MUSKEGON LAKESHORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR MUNICIPAL
SHARED-SERVICES
Table of Contents
Section Page
I. Executive Summary I-1
II. Current Status and Conditions II-1
III. Targeted Areas for Shared-Services
A. Fire and Emergency Services III-1
B. Police Services III-13
C. Public Works and Inspection Services III-26
D. Central Services III-36
E. Water Production III-40
IV. Summary of Shared-Service Targets IV-1
Appendices
A. Existing Shared-Services (as identified) A-1
B. Fire Service Maps B-1
C. Police Schedules for Whitehall/Montague C-1
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In this section of the report we provide an overview of the study’s purpose and objectives, our
approach to the project and a summation of our findings and conclusions.
OVERVIEW
In 2010, Municipal Consulting Services LLC was retained by the Muskegon Lakeshore Chamber
of Commerce to conduct a study of the potential for shared-services among nine communities in
Muskegon County.
The study has been funded by a group of business and corporate leaders as well as the
participating municipalities. Of the nine communities initially envisioned for the study, seven
opted to participate including the Cities of Muskegon, North Muskegon, Norton Shores,
Roosevelt Park, Montague, Whitehall and Fruitport Charter Township. Two other communities
declined to participate including the City of Muskegon Heights and Muskegon Charter
Township.
Shared-services have become a topic of interest across the state as a means of potentially
providing public services at lower cost. Under a shared-services scenario, municipalities place
less emphasis on traditional municipal borders and look at broader options for providing utility,
public safety, public works or other services. These options might include merging services with
another public service provider, contracting for services or forming an authority to provide
services to multiple cities and/or townships. However accomplished, the end objective is to
provide taxpayers with better service and/or lower cost. This study has been designed to identify
these opportunities.
DRIVING FORCE
The study has been prompted in large part by the economic downturn. Similar to other regions of
the state, the Muskegon area has been negatively affected by the economic recession. This
impact can be seen in the number of job losses, reduced economic activity and the ongoing
decline in property values.
As the economic fall-out has intensified, the local governments in Muskegon County have seen
large reductions in operating revenues. These have resulted from a myriad of sources including
declining property values and associated tax revenue, reductions in state revenue-sharing
previously earmarked for local governments, significant decreases in investment income and loss
of income from building permits and other secondary revenue sources that are dependent on new
development. These trends can be expected to continue as the housing market, state government,
and the economy more generally continue to struggle. In turn, this trend can be expected to
reshape both the business and public service environments.
I-1
In essence, the municipal governments are faced with a challenge that will not easily be solved.
Cutbacks have been initiated and services have been modified to operate at both lesser and more
cost-effective levels. However, more cost saving will be required. Essentially, what are needed
are new ideas for providing the core services of government in more efficient ways. Shared-
services, selectively applied, may be one solution to achieving this objective.
OUR APPROACH TO THE PROJECT
Our approach to the project has been designed to investigate and identify a full-range of shared-
services opportunities. To accomplish this, we have spent a significant amount of time in data
collection and analysis. This has included ongoing data requests from each of the seven
participating municipalities as well as a wide assortment of interviews and on-site visitations.
Data collection tasks have included:
Multiple interviews with city administrators.
Interviews at the department head level for most operating departments in all seven
entities.
Interviews and data collection from Muskegon County departments such as County
Administration, the Sheriff’s Office, Public Works, Road Commission, Information
Technology, Geographic Information Systems and others.
Interviews with other area organizations and governments such as E-911, ProMed
Ambulance and representatives of several municipal authorities in Muskegon County.
Freedom of Information (FOIA) data gathering from Muskegon Heights and Muskegon
Charter Township.
Collection of data from other counties, cities, authorities and expert sources pertaining to
existing or planned shared-services initiatives.
Essentially, our approach has entailed a “broad sweep” of all service areas to identify targets that
have potential for a shared-services arrangement. These targets have then been subjected to
further analysis and detailed in the report. Related to this, the report should not be seen as an
“end all” but rather the beginning of a process of determining which shared-services
opportunities should receive immediate or future attention – and which should be discarded as
unworkable or inefficient. In this sense, the report is a first step in the coordination of shared-
services collaboration.
OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The following sections of the report are organized to provide a step-by-step assessment of
shared-services opportunities: They include:
Section II: The current status of shared-services in Muskegon County and overview of
conditions that must be met to achieve further successes.
Section III: The evaluation of, and conclusions concerning shared services opportunities
organized as follows:
I-2
- Fire and Emergency Services
- Police Services
- Public Works and Inspection Services
- Central Services
- Water Production.
Each section is organized to evaluate related shared-services opportunities that have the
greatest potential for cost savings and/or service improvement. Conclusions are then
drawn and presented in the report – punctuated by cost saving estimates where applicable
and possible. In total, nineteen opportunities are identified and described. These include
opportunities of all sizes and dollar impact – some involving two communities and others
extending county-wide.
Section IV: The identified shared-services opportunities are summarized in matrix form,
allowing convenient reference points for each community.
UTILIZATION OF THE REPORT’S FINDINGS
As noted, the sponsorship of the study has been a cooperative endeavor between the business
sponsors and the local governments. There is a common understanding that the efforts of the
business community and governments must be coordinated if the Muskegon area is to realize its
full potential for economic and community development. Simply put, the services provided by
the various governments must be affordable and support a high quality of life that retains and
attracts business and personal investment. The identification and implementation of shared-
services initiatives can be a key step in supporting this process.
Toward this end, the results of this study will provide a foundation for the Muskegon area’s
Community Service Improvement Plan and a basis to focus discussion, gain consensus on
priority items, further evaluate potential outcomes and monitor success in effecting meaningful
change.
To our knowledge, this is among the more coordinated and committed shared-services/service
improvement efforts in Michigan. In every sense it is consistent with the Governor’s shared-
service message and municipal revenue-sharing strategies. If municipal revenue-sharing and
other state aid is to be dependent on a community’s willingness to embrace new service
concepts, this report, and subsequent movement to new shared-service arrangements should
position the Muskegon area well in the competition for scarce state funding.
* * * * *
In the following Section II, we present a summation of the current status of service sharing in the
participating municipalities as well as conditions and challenges that influence future shared-
service arrangements.
I-3
SECTION II
CURRENT STATUS AND CONDITIONS
SECTION II
CURRENT STATUS AND CONDITIONS
Our study of shared-services in Muskegon County has involved the evaluation of nine local
governments, seven of which have been active participants in the study. Two other communities
have opted not to actively participate but have been included in the study due to their geographic
proximity and importance to the future of the greater Muskegon area.
The nine communities represent a cross sample of Michigan municipalities including a
traditional center city, several small, mature urban communities, several communities in which
growth is still, or will be occurring and several small “out-county” municipalities. Summarily,
the group includes both cities and townships of varying size, population, demographic features
and financial condition. Exhibit 1 summarizes the nine communities from an overview
perspective.
Exhibit 1
Communities Targeted for the Shared-Services Study
General Overview
FY 2011
General Fund Square
Municipality 2010 Population Budget* Miles
Muskegon 38,401 $23,473,354 19.0
Muskegon Heights** 10,856 $5,836,990 4.0
Muskegon Township** 17,840 $6,503,208 23.9
North Muskegon 3,786 $2,185,353 1.5
Norton Shores 23,994 $8,325,970 24.5
Roosevelt Park 3,831 $2,185,800 1.0
Fruitport Township 13,598 $3,881,112 30.1
Whitehall 2,706 $1,843,866 2.7
Montague 2,361 $1,782,605 3.5
AVERAGE 13,129 $6,224,251 12.2
*Includes Police and Fire Funds for Fruitport and Muskegon Townships, North Muskegon: FY 2010
** Indicates non-participating community
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, FY 2011 operating budgets, MML 2010 Directory, Wikipedia
Shared-service provision is not a new concept among government entities but it has taken on a
new sense of urgency as governments seek new methods for “doing more with less.” In this
section of the report, we frame the issue of shared-services as it pertains to Muskegon County’s
municipalities. More specifically:
A. Current Trends That Support a Shared-Services Concept
B. Current Status of Shared Services in Muskegon County
C. The Challenges Associated With New Shared-Services Opportunities
II - 1
D. The Importance of Moving Forward.
Each of these issues is discussed separately below.
A. CURRENT TRENDS THAT SUPPORT A SHARED-SERVICES CONCEPT
As previously mentioned, the economy has been a motivating factor in the exploration of shared-
services opportunities. In better times, municipalities have been more inclined to maintain
services within municipal boundaries. In this situation, services can be tailored to the particular
community’s needs and service expectations are monitored and adjusted based on community
input. Seen from this perspective, shared-services concepts can be viewed as a loss of local
autonomy and community identity.
As in other areas of the State, the local decision-making model has worked well in differentiating
service levels and needs throughout the Muskegon area. Smaller communities, such as North
Muskegon or Roosevelt Park, have structured their service menus to respond to higher service
expectations in areas such as public works or public safety. Similarly, larger communities, like
the City of Muskegon, have targeted concerns such as community policing and rental inspections
as methods for stabilized vulnerable neighborhoods and sections of the city. Related to the
above, a strong case can be made for the argument that some of the best decisions of government
are made at the local level.
However, taken to its extreme, the local decision-making model can have profound cost
implements. Economies-of-scale can be lost if a defining point is not established between
services at the local level and those that can be more efficiently provided on a broader scale. An
argument can always be made for local autonomy. Simply put, there is always some service
advantage in providing services locally. The key is to determine the point of diminishing returns
when the cost of this service advantage becomes prohibitive. An example would be public safety
dispatch. Muskegon County was the frontrunner in Michigan in consolidating dispatch services
on a county-wide basis. The result is a system in which fewer, centralized personnel can serve
the needs of multiple communities. The cost savings are significant since the municipalities are
not required to staff separate dispatch systems or purchase associated equipment. However,
some service advantage is lost. Local dispatchers know their particular locales better than a
centralized dispatcher servicing a large area. Local dispatchers also tend to coordinate more
effectively with their own law enforcement agency and citizens. However, a decision has been
made in Muskegon County (and many other geographic areas) that the cost advantage of
centralized dispatch far outweighs the marginal service advantage of local dispatchers.
Essentially, the point of diminishing returns has been established and a prudent financial service
decision has been made.
The point at which cost considerations outweigh service consideration is key to the discussion of
shared-services. As an example, the Cities of Grosse Pointe Shores and Grosse Pointe Woods,
two affluent Detroit area communities, have now decided to merge dispatch services. While
shared-services may have been an issue of discussion prior to the recession, the financial
challenges now facing the two communities intensified and shifted the debate from dispatch
II - 2
service to dispatch cost. For these two communities, the “tipping point” at which cost
considerations outweigh the benefits of the previous service model has been redefined.
The issue of cost is also central to the discussion of shared-services in Muskegon County. As
seen in the following Exhibit 2, Taxable Valuation, the basis for property tax revenue, declined
markedly in 2010 in eight of the nine studied municipalities. These declines are part of a
continuing and more universal trend in housing values that is not expected to abate in the near
future. As a result, the Muskegon area communities will be in a situation in which retrenchment
and cost cutting is the continuing norm.
Exhibit 2
Trends in Taxable Valuation
for the Nine Target Municipalities (000)
- 4.3%
1,000,000
- 4.3%
800,000
600,000 - 2.5%
- 3.6%
400,000
- 3.1%
- 3.4% - 5.3% - 2.9%
200,000 + 1.8%
0
Muskegon Muskegon North Norton Roosevelt Fruitport
Muskegon Heights Township Muskegon Shores Park Township Whitehall Montague
2009 756,015 138,360 380,498 146,489 930,478 126,742 467,962 126,615 76,084
2010 723,209 133,618 366,724 141,910 890,443 120,045 456,150 122,932 77,436
Source: Michigan Department of Treasury
In addition to the losses in tax revenue, many communities in Muskegon County are also
experiencing outflows in population. As seen in Exhibit 3, this trend is most pronounced in the
more established communities where suburban migration and population aging have impacted
existing population levels as well as prospects for future growth.
II - 3
Exhibit 3
Population Trends for the Nine Target Municipalities
2000-2010
50,000 - 4.2%
40,000
+ 6.5%
30,000
+ 0.6%
+ 8.5%
20,000 - 9.9%
- 6.1% - 1.5% -6.2% - 1.9%
10,000
0
Muskegon Muskegon North Norton Roosevelt Fruitport
Muskegon Heights Township Muskegon Shores Park Township* Whitehall Montague
2000 40,105 12,049 17,737 4,031 22,527 3,890 12,533 2,884 2,407
2010 38,401 10,856 17,840 3,786 23,994 3,831 13,598 2,706 2,361
*Includes Fruitport Village
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Summarily, many Muskegon area communities are faced with a future in which growth trends
may be negative and operating revenues are limited. Ideally, new service planning will seek to
address both conditions through the development of strategies for assuring solvency, maintaining
key services and generally providing an attractive environment for personal and business
retention and investment. In some cases, service-sharing agreements may facilitate the
accomplishment of this objective.
As in the Grosse Pointe example discussed above, this will likely involve some modifications to
the existing service scope or method of delivery. Related to this, a shared-services approach will
definitely alter the current service models. However, with service costs taking on increasing
importance, it may also (in some cases) provide a workable solution to assuring that core
services are continued at a high quality level within a more cost-efficient service approach.
While the economic downturn has had many negative impacts it has also opened the door for
changes that may have been politically impossible a decade ago. Significant changes to police
and fire service delivery systems were extremely rare in Michigan in 2000. It has now become a
common topic – both in Muskegon County and at the state and national levels. The willingness
of Muskegon County’s elected officials to open dialogue on these and many other shared-service
issues bode well for the future.
B. CURRENT STATUS OF SHARED-SERVICES IN MUSKEGON COUNTY
In conducting the study, we have had the opportunity to review financial and service data from
all seven participating municipalities, Muskegon County and, to a lesser extent, the two non-
participating municipalities. In doing so, it became immediately apparent that significant
amounts of cost cutting and shared-services initiatives have already been implemented.
Indicative of this, Exhibit 4 compares full-time staffing levels in the seven participating
municipalities in 2005 and 2011.
II - 4
Exhibit 4
Comparison of Full-Time Staffing in the Municipalities Actively
Participating in the Study: 2005 and 2011
300 281
280
260 244
240
220
200
180
160
140
120 99
87
100
80
60
35 34
40 23 24 16
16
17 10
15 15
20
0
Muskegon North Norton Roosevelt Whitehall Montague Fruitport
Muskegon Shores* Park Township
2005 2011
* Six new positions will be added with millage passage
Source: Survey of listed entities
As seen in the exhibit, full-time staffing has decreased by approximately 12% in aggregate,
spread among six of the seven communities. Measured by sheer count, the City of Muskegon
has been particularly aggressive in its downsizing efforts, losing 37 positions, or approximately
13% of the City’s total full-time workforce during this time period. Among the smaller
communities, Roosevelt Park has reduced full-time staffing by an impressive 37%.
To accomplish these reductions and still maintain service levels, the communities have been
challenged to “think outside the box.” Duties and responsibilities have been merged or
reassigned, services have been contracted to the private sector and technology has been
emphasized. Additionally, a number of shared-services arrangements have been added to an
already impressive list.
Related to this, as part of the study we have developed an inventory of shared-services
arrangements that currently exist. The list is likely not exhaustive, but is our best attempt to
capture the breadth of shared-services among the study participants. This inventory, listed in
Appendix A, includes shared-services arrangements of the following types:
County-wide or area-wide authorities, districts and other broad-reaching agreements.
Contracts-for-service in which one community provides service to another.
County-centered services that are open to all communities that wish to contract or join the
service group.
Mass-purchase opportunities, training, equipment sharing and other less formal
cooperative arrangements.
II - 5
In assembling and reviewing the shared-services list included in Appendix A, we have observed
and concluded that the Muskegon County communities have progressed much further than cities
and townships in many other Michigan counties in regard to service consolidation. Examples
include:
E-911 Dispatch: The Muskegon County communities participate in, and receive services
from, a common emergency dispatch system. Other counties, including major counties
such as Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne, have not yet achieved this level of central service
provision. As previously discussed, this represents a major cost savings to taxpayers as
fewer dispatchers are used more efficiently to handle the county-wide emergency call
volume.
Similarly, the County wastewater system represents a major regional success in the
funding and coordination of wastewater services. A new contract has recently been
agreed-upon by the municipal users for wastewater collection and treatment in a County-
operated system featuring a negotiated long-term rate structure supporting a central land
treatment process encompassing 11,000 acres of aeration and settling basins, storage
lagoons, and irrigated cropland. As a result of this cooperative effort, the Muskegon
communities avoid much of the acrimony and rate uncertainty that plagues some other
regional wastewater systems in Michigan.
Contracts for service between the communities are prevalent, ranging from the City of
Norton Shores’ provision of fire and emergency medical services to the City of Roosevelt
Park on one extreme to the City of Muskegon’s contracts to provide various public works
and other services to the City of North Muskegon, Muskegon Charter Township, the City
of Norton Shores and others. As seen in Appendix A, similar arrangements are common
in virtually all service areas throughout the nine communities.
Muskegon County provides a range of contract services from a central focus including
assessment services, geographic information services, police services and less formal
joint purchasing opportunities.
Asset sharing is common in equipment use and even work-crew sharing among the
municipalities. Some is formally contracted while other initiatives have been undertaken
through informal cooperation. Many of the informal arrangements are not listed in
Appendix A, but are important in their own right as a recognition point of the need to
think and act on a broader-scale for the larger community.
Fire service automatic aid agreements are common. This type of aid is more predictable
and rapid than the mutual aid pacts than are commonly seen between communities or on
a county-wide level. Similarly fire training, purchasing and emergency response are all
well coordinated between the communities.
Essentially, the Muskegon County communities are already engaged in many of the operational
practices and collaborative efforts that are being actively promoted by the Governor’s Office. To
use a common metaphor, much of the “low hanging fruit” has already been picked. Further,
II - 6
some very complex solutions (such as E-911 or centralized wastewater) have been implemented
and further refined over the course of time.
In this situation, additional shared-services solutions will find fertile ground but will be less
plentiful than those available to communities/counties that have not achieved the same level of
success. Hopefully this will not place the Muskegon area in a competitively unfavorable position
in the quest for state-shared revenues that are targeted to encourage and reward municipal
service-sharing.
C. THE CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH NEW SHARED-SERVICES
OPPORTUNITIES
As could be expected, there are various constraints associated with implementing service
consolidation and sharing. Not surprisingly, these constraints increase in proportion to the
significance and scope of the undertaking. Conceptually, this is illustrated in Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 5
Shared-Services:
Conceptual Degree of Difficulty
Authorities and Total
Formal
Readily Contracts for
Other Service Difficult
Municipal
Resource
Service
Achievable Mergers Consolidation
Sharing
As seen in Exhibit 5, less complex service sharing agreements, such as resource and equipment
sharing or a straightforward contract for service provision may be easier to achieve. As
discussed, many such agreements now exist between the nine studied communities. However,
more complex cases of service assumption may require compliance with labor contracts or
restrictive state laws, introduce issues such as asset division, or require an unusually high level of
community acceptance or acquiescence. Total municipal consolidation would be the most acute
example of this, and in turn, would be subject to each of these constraints at extreme levels. For
this reason, total municipal consolidation (i.e. two or more cities or city/township) has been a
rare event in the State of Michigan.
In regard to new shared-services for Muskegon’s municipalities, these and other constraints need
to be thoroughly considered. In some cases, there will be significant cost burdens associated
with an idea that on the surface appears totally logical; or other constraints may exist that limit
opportunity. In evaluating shared-services opportunities in this report, we cite particular
constraints that must be considered within the context of a particular idea. These will need to be
considered and addressed in implementing any shared-services ideas discussed and detailed in
the report. From an overview perspective they include the following:
II - 7
Labor Constraints: Many municipal workers are unionized. In addition to contractual
protections, state law provides explicit protections against unilateral changes in working
conditions. Examples include:
− PA 312 of 1969: PA 312 provides public safety workers (i.e. police and fire)
with the option of compulsory arbitration before an independent arbitrator in
the event of labor disputes. PA 312 was legislated on the premise that public
safety workers should not be allowed to strike and should be granted a viable
alternative. In practice, it has been criticized as an undue limitation on
management’s ability to control compensation or other working conditions.
The merits of PA 312 are being debated by the current legislative body. For
purposes of shared-services it restricts what can be readily accomplished.
− PA 7 of 1967: The Urban Cooperation Act contains the following language.
“No employee who is transferred to a position with the political subdivision
shall by reason of such transfer be placed in any worse position with respect to
workmen’s compensation, pension, seniority, wages, sick leave, vacation,
health and welfare insurance or any other benefits that he enjoyed as an
employee of such acquired system.” Simply put, in the event of a
consolidation of services between two entities (e.g. police, fire, public works,
etc.) wages and benefits cannot be adjusted to a lower level. The current
legislative body is also reportedly reviewing PA 7 of 1967.
Other legislation also exists providing explicit employee protections. Individually or in
total, the current legal framework provides significant disincentive for more
comprehensive types of shared-services arrangements.
Differences in Operating Models: Public safety systems schedule employees on an
around-the-clock basis. Within this context, shift scheduling practices vary. Among the
studied communities, police officers may work 12, 10, or 8 hours shifts. Full-time
firefighters may work different 24-hour scheduling patterns to comply with the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In many cases, the shift system has become contractually
specified. If not, it is subject to the legal argument of past practice. As discussed above,
proposed changes for a new shared-service model may be subject to PA 312 arbitration.
Differences in Operating Efficiency: Governments, like businesses, differ in the level of
operating acumen. Some simply run more efficiently, or provide a higher quality of
service. In the case of shared-services, a more efficient government will be less inclined
to enter into a cooperative arrangement. What may appear to be a logical shared-services
situation could actually be a bad business model for a stronger, more efficient
government.
Prior Cutbacks: As previously illustrated in Exhibit 4, some communities, including the
City of Muskegon, have experienced significant cutbacks in personnel. The City of
Muskegon is mentioned because it has the largest staffing level of the nine communities,
and in turn the most diverse and complete menu of services that could be contracted to
II - 8
others. Whether it is the City of Muskegon or the other communities, prior cutbacks in
personnel now limit the opportunity to provide services to others. Again, using the City
of Muskegon as an example, in the past the Community Development Department could
have potentially provided urban planning services to other communities for a fee.
However, following cutbacks, professional staffing has been reduced to two. In the
current situation, there is not sufficient staff to extend service to others. This scenario is
common to the studied communities.
Similarly, in smaller communities such as the City of Montague (or others), employees
may “wear multiple hats”. While some tasks (such as tax collections) could potentially be
provided by a larger community, the function is one portion of a much more diverse job.
In this event, contracting the service may simply lessen the productivity level of an
existing job that is highly productive and would still exist following the removal of the
responsibility. In other cases, duties (such as some associated with a city clerk) may be
statutorily or charter mandated.
The Private Sector May Be Less Costly: In some cases we have considered opportunities
in which one government could contract with another. However, feedback would then
indicate that this option has been considered and discarded because of cost. This point
was raised on a number of occasions pertaining to public works services such as street
sweeping, surveying and others. The issue appears to focus on employee benefit costs.
These are much higher in the public sector and are “baked into” the estimated contract
cost. The private sector, frequently paying less generous benefits, can propose a more
competitive price for service.
Strong Community Preferences for the Status Quo: Some communities are more willing,
or able to pay for more personalized services. Police services would be a prime example.
Public safety is an important indicator of quality-of-life and is often equated with a local,
responsive police agency. In many cases, residents are willing to pay the extra cost to
assure local responsiveness and police presence. This attitude may also extend to other
services such as public works where road quality, special services such as leaf pick-up or
snow removal, or other services may be highly valued. In truth, this may be an intelligent
economic decision as some studies have concluded a correlation between service quality
and scope and property values. One might point to the City of North Muskegon as an
ongoing example of this correlation within the greater Muskegon area.
In summary, a number of factors exist which may impact the cost-benefit or viability of shared-
services opportunities. These affect both the substance of this study as well as the potential
options available to government officials going forward. Exhibit 6 provides a visual summary of
the above discussion.
II - 9
Exhibit 6
Summary of Shared-Services Constraints
Labor Constraints
Different Operating Models
Impediments to
Differences in Efficiency Shared-Services
Prior Cutbacks
Preference for the Status Quo
D. THE IMPORTANCE OF MOVING FORWARD
The fiscal challenges facing the Muskegon area’s local governments have been well
documented. As discussed in the previous pages, many positive actions have been taken to
improve the cost and quality of municipal services. However, the financial issues facing
government will not soon abate and more entrepreneurial methods of service provision must be
identified.
Exhibit 7 provides an illustration of General Fund fund balance from the most recent audited
financial statements provided to our consulting team. Fund balance can generally be described
as a discretionary reserve of money that is available to fund operations. Auditors typically cite
and recommend a minimum fund balance of 10% of expenditures to assure necessary cash flow
and funds for “rainy day” needs. In practice, 10% is probably the appropriate amount for a
larger city (i.e. 100,000) – smaller communities (with smaller General Fund total budgets) may
appropriately maintain much higher percentages.
Exhibit 7
FY 2009 or 2010 Audited Ending General Fund
Fund Balance as a Percentage of Expenditures
55.0%
44.4%
45.0% 39.9%
36.2%
35.0% 28.8%
21.3%
25.0%
14.8% 13.5%
10.2%
15.0%
5.0%
-5.0%
-9.8%
-15.0%
Muskegon Muskegon Muskegon North Norton Roosevelt Fruitport Whitehall Montague
Heights Township Muskegon Shores Park Township
Source: Most recent audited financial statement provided to our consulting team
II - 10
As seen in Exhibit 7, all of the communities except the City of Muskegon Heights exceed the
10% threshold – some by a significant amount. In the case of Muskegon Heights, the City is
operating under a state-mandated budget deficit elimination plan.
The adequacy of fund balances in the other eight communities should be viewed positively and
as an indicator of prudent financial planning, but not without qualifiers. If, as expected, property
taxes and other revenue sources remain flat or decline, fund balance depletion will result. Many
traditional cost saving measures have already been enacted in these cities and townships. Short
of reducing service levels, it will be extremely difficult to balance budgets. New ideas and
initiatives are needed and must be embraced.
In this scenario, shared-services could play an important role in assuring future fiscal solvency.
As discussed, this will not be an easy path and will require political resolve. The evaluation and
ideas presented in the following section are intended to support this process.
* * * * *
In the following section, we present the evaluation of particular shared-services opportunities.
II - 11
SECTION III
TARGETED AREAS FOR SHARED-SERVICES
SECTION III
TARGETED AREAS
As mentioned in the Executive Summary our approach has involved a broad sweep of all service
areas in the seven participating communities and a lesser data-gathering exercise for the two non-
participants. Based on interviews and data review, we have identified areas where shared-
services are most feasible.
In this section of the report, we explore and summarize the shared-services opportunities that we
have identified for the nine studied municipalities. For purposes of discussion, the findings are
presented in the following subsections:
A. Fire and Emergency Services
B. Police Services
C. Public Works and Inspection Services
D. Central Services
E. Water Production.
Each area is discussed separately below.
A. FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
The studied communities utilize different operational models to provide fire suppression and
prevention services. These include:
Career departments that feature all full-time firefighting personnel.
Departments that utilize a combination of full-time and part-time personnel – with some
part-time personnel assigned to shift duty.
Departments that utilize a combination of full-time and part-time personnel – with part-
time personnel used only on a call-out basis.
One department that is wholly part-time.
From an organizational standpoint, four of the nine municipalities have their own fire
departments, two have dedicated fire services within larger public safety departments, two are
members of multi-community fire authorities and one (i.e. the City of Roosevelt Park) contracts
for fire service from the City of Norton Shores. The operating models for each of the nine
communities are illustrated in Exhibit 8.
III - 1
Exhibit 8
Fire Service Operating Models
Municipality Organizational Context for Fire Services Firefighting Model/Firefighter Usage
Muskegon Part of Public Safety Department Full-time Career Firefighters*
Muskegon Heights City Department Full-time Career Firefighters
Muskegon Township Township Department Combination Career and Part-paid
North Muskegon City Department Combination Career and Part-paid
Norton Shores City Department Combination Career and Part-paid
Roosevelt Park Contract with Norton Shores -
Fruitport Township Part of Public Safety Department Combination Career and Part-paid
Montague Served by Montague Fire Authority Paid-on-call
Whitehall Served by White Lake Fire Authority Combination Career and Part-paid
* Muskegon will begin using part-time firefighters in FY 2012
Source: Applicable fire departments
In regard to emergency medical services, all agencies provide Medical First Response; though
some at different priority levels. Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS)
treatment and transport are provided by PROMED in the south and the White Lake Ambulance
Authority in the north. Related to this, the scope of fire department services are fairly uniform
across the nine communities, albeit with differing levels of fire prevention activities and
professional ability. This condition simplifies the study of, and potential for shared-services.
Also, as discussed, fire service automatic aid agreements are common between the agencies. This
type of aid is more predictable and rapid than the mutual aid pacts than are commonly seen
between communities or on a county-wide level. Similarly, fire training, purchasing and
emergency response are all well coordinated between the communities. In this sense, the
agencies are already embracing a number of shared-service concepts and recognize the value of a
coordinated emergency response system.
In regard to shared-services, we have evaluated several options for fire service, including:
The potential for fire service consolidation
Assumption of fire service by a neighboring community via contract
Additional shared-services opportunities.
Each is discussed separately below.
The Potential for Fire Service Consolidation
The study of fire service consolidation must recognize two important factors:
III - 2
Consolidation should not be considered simply for the sake of change. Unless adequate
cost savings can be demonstrated (for all involved), the local decision-making model is
probably preferable.
Cost considerations cannot be considered in a vacuum. Services should not be unduly
compromised in such an important area of emergency service and should be clearly
understood for the purpose of evaluation. Alternative operating scenarios should be
mindful of this prerequisite.
Our evaluation proceeds from these two important assumptions.
CURRENT FIRE SERVICE COSTS – AN OVERVIEW
In regard to shared-services, cost-saving is the overriding objective. Related to this, Exhibit 9
compares fire budgets among the seven studied communities that are located in the greater
Muskegon area. The Cities of Whitehall and Montague are not included due to their
participation in authorities that are separate taxing entities with multiple members.
Exhibit 9
Fire Cost Per Capita
2010 FY 2010-11 Cost Per
Municipality Population Fire Budget Capita
Muskegon 38,401 $3,467,928 $90.31
Muskegon Heights 10,856 $926,403 $85.34
Muskegon Township 17,840 $1,310,942 $73.48
North Muskegon 3,786 $135,404 $35.76
Norton Shores 23,994 $2,044,000 $85.19
Roosevelt Park 3,831 $207,800 $54.24
Fruitport Township 13,598 $827,153 $60.83
AVERAGE 16,005 $1,274,233 $69.62
Whitehall and Montague are part of fire authorities and not included in the above
Muskegon total does not include Inspection Services
North Muskegon budget total is FY 2010 and includes estimated employee benefits at 32% of Fire Chief's wage
Source: Municipal budgets and U.S. Census Bureau
As seen in Exhibit 9, fire service costs considered on a per capita basis are highest in the City of
Muskegon, closely followed by Muskegon Heights. On the other end of the spectrum, the City
of North Muskegon has the lowest estimated per capita cost of $35.76.
As a second measure of relative cost, Exhibit 10 compares cost per call-for-service. As seen in
Exhibit 10, the City of Norton Shores has the highest agency cost by a significant amount when
considered by this measure. The City of North Muskegon is again the lowest but the majority of
the others are more closely grouped. It must be noted that calls for service differ among the
agencies in regard to the type and severity of the incident. Consequently, the results of Exhibit 9
should be viewed with that qualifier in mind.
III - 3
Exhibit 10
Fire Cost per Call
FY 2010-11 Fire Number of 2010 Cost Per
Municipality Budget Service Calls Fire Call
Muskegon $3,467,928 4,402 $787.81
Muskegon Heights $926,403 1,740 $532.42
Muskegon Township $1,310,942 1,814 $722.68
North Muskegon $135,404 308 $439.62
Norton Shores $2,044,000 1,974 $1,035.46
Roosevelt Park $207,800 281 $739.50
Fruitport Township $827,153 1,049 $788.52
AVERAGE $1,274,233 1,653 $720.86
Whitehall and Montague are part of fire authorities/districts and not included in the above
Muskegon total does not include Inspection Services
North Muskegon budget total is FY 2010 and includes estimated employee benefits at 32% of Fire Chief's wage
Source: Fire department reports and U.S. Census Bureau
If only Exhibits 9 and 10 were considered it would appear that the City of Norton Shores (as an
example) would benefit greatly from some type of service consolidation with cost reduction
being a primary objective. However, there are other factors to consider – most notably service
quality and the scope of fire protection.
As an example, the Insurance Service Organization (ISO) conducts field surveys and rates
communities in regard to the quality of the fire protection system. ISO evaluates and rates three
areas of the fire protection system in the following percentages of total:
Fire alarm and communication system (10%)
Fire department (50%)
Water supply (40%).
After completing the field survey, ISO develops a numerical total for the community and issues a
Public Protection Classification (PPC) number ranging between 1-10, with ten indicating the
highest exposure and least developed fire suppression system. Exhibit 11 illustrates the PPC
ratings for each of the fire services include in the study.
As seen in the exhibit, the City of Norton Shores and the City of Muskegon both have ISO
ratings of 4. The City of Roosevelt Park has a very impressive ISO rating of 3. Though ISO
ratings do not correlate perfectly with homeowner and business premium costs, there is an
undisputable impact. An ISO rating of 3 or 4 provides most policyholders with lower rates than
communities with higher ratings. No Michigan community is currently rated at PPC 1 and only a
handful at PPC 2. The PPC 3 rating in Roosevelt Park (utilizing the Norton Shores Fire
Department) is a quantifiable indicator of the quality of the fire protection system and a
consideration beyond cost that must be noted in the evaluation of fire service consolidation.
III - 4
Exhibit 11
Comparison of Insurance Service Office (ISO)
Public Protection Classification Rating
Municipality Highest ISO Rating
Muskegon 4
Muskegon Heights 5
Muskegon Township 5
North Muskegon 7
Norton Shores 4
Roosevelt Park 3
Fruitport Township 5
White Lake Fire Auth. 5
Montague 5
AVERAGE 4.8
Source: Various fire chiefs and inquiries
On a similar note, Exhibit 12 compares fire service cost per $1,000 in State Equalized Value
(SEV) of property within the respective communities. The case for this measure is simply that a
fire department’s costs can be correlated to the amount of property being protected – since this is
the primary mission of the fire service. While this argument could be taken to absurd lengths, it
does have validity since staffing levels, equipment and other resources must all be geared to the
quantity and value of property protected.
Exhibit 12
Fire Cost per $1,000 in State Equalized Value
2010 State FY 2010-11 Cost per $1,000 in State
Municipality Equalized Valuation Fire Budget Equalized Value
Muskegon $783,089,250 $3,467,928 $4.43
Muskegon Heights $148,033,800 $926,403 $6.26
Muskegon Township $404,803,300 $1,310,942 $3.24
North Muskegon $154,318,600 $135,404 $0.88
Norton Shores $976,571,400 $2,044,000 $2.09
Roosevelt Park $122,672,600 $207,800 $1.69
Fruitport Township $532,904,500 $827,153 $1.55
AVERAGE $446,056,207 $1,274,233 $2.88
Whitehall and Montague are part of fire authorities/districts and not included in the above
Muskegon total does not include Inspection Services
North Muskegon budget total is FY 2010 and includes estimated employee benefits at 32% of Fire Chief's wage
Source: Municipal budgets and U.S. Census Bureau
As seen in Exhibit 12, the measure of fire service cost in comparison to SEV yields an entirely
different result than per capita or per call cost comparisons. If measured by the dollar amount of
property protected, the City of Norton Shores is well below the average of the group – while the
City of Muskegon Heights appears to be the most costly.
In summary, there are different means of measuring fire service costs. While a small department
like the North Muskegon Fire Department will score low on all measures, a larger community
III - 5
and department, such as Norton Shores, must consider more than one measure in evaluating the
relative impacts of shared-services. Some departments may be more or less cost efficient and
Exhibits 9-12 can be helpful in establishing this.
However, service impacts must be considered in concert with cost to truly establish cost benefit.
This issue is discussed below.
FACTORS AND IMPACTS RELATED TO FIRE CONSOLIDATION
With a total cost of nearly $9 million per annum, the seven Muskegon area fire departments
represent a significant financial outlay for the larger Muskegon community. For this reason, the
idea of consolidated fire services has gained footing as a possible means of lessening this cost
burden. To do so, it would be necessary to achieve cost savings through station house closure,
staff reductions or significant equipment savings. We are not performing an in-depth review of
each fire department as part of this study – however, we have collected information pertaining to
staffing, response and other factors that can be used to help focus and conclude on the viability
of this option.
Related to the above, a primary factor to be considered in the study of consolidation is the
location of fire houses. If fire houses could be eliminated, cost savings could be achieved.
However, if fire stations are properly placed in regard to distances and related response times,
consolidation could not be expected to yield significant savings.
Appendix B-1 illustrates the location of all fire houses in Muskegon County. As seen in
Appendix B-1 most are clustered in the greater Muskegon area, consistent with property density.
In regard to the number of station houses and proper location, there are service indicators
established by ISO that can be used to evaluate the appropriateness of station house location.
Specifically:
Built-up areas should have a ladder company within 2.5 miles
Built-up areas should have an engine company within 1.5 miles.
The latter of these two metrics is more universally accepted and applied in the fire service.
Appendix B-2 provides a visual representation of estimated travel distance from each of the fire
houses located in Muskegon County. As seen in Appendix B-2, the nine studied communities
have the following characteristics.
The “outer” fire departments, including Muskegon Township, Fruitport Township, the
City of Norton Shores (and City of Roosevelt Park by extension) are all well positioned
within the ISO mileage parameters for an engine company. Muskegon Township lacks
the ladder company but can call neighboring communities for aid.
III - 6
The City of Muskegon has the greatest overlap – partly as a result of geography as well
as a traditionally denser urban core.
The City of Muskegon Heights station is well situated but a portion of the service area is
redundant if layered over the Cities of Norton Shores’ and Muskegon’s 1.5 radius.
The City of North Muskegon forms only a half-circle due to geography. In practice, an
automatic aid agreement with Muskegon Township alleviates this problem.
Our conclusions concerning station house placement are as follows:
Muskegon Township and Fruitport Township are well positioned for service. Station
houses are located consistent with the ISO standard. Both utilize a combination of full-
time and part-time firefighters. Additionally, Fruitport Township has a public safety
director managing both police and fire. It does not appear that consolidation would
provide either department with a significant cost or service advantage.
Similarly, the City of North Muskegon has developed a very cost-effective system (i.e.
full-time fire chief and paid-on-call) that assures rapid response to a city that is separated
from most communities by the Muskegon River. Automatic aid agreements are in place
with Muskegon Township to bolster coverage for both communities. The City of North
Muskegon would also not benefit significantly from consolidation.
The City of Norton Shores is well covered by the three Norton Shores stations. There is
some area of Norton Shores to the west that is more distant and in turn receives a slower
response. However, consolidation would not remedy this situation. Norton Shores
currently services the City of Roosevelt Park and could potentially expand further or join
in a fire authority.
As mentioned, the City of Roosevelt Park is within the City of Norton Shores ISO radius
and receives contract service from Norton Shores. The City of Muskegon is also
positioned to potentially provide this service to the City of Roosevelt Park or participate
in a larger authority.
A service cluster exists at the center of the metro area. The cities of Roosevelt Park,
Muskegon Heights, Muskegon, and to some degree Norton Shores are the most viable
candidates for service consolidation – if considered strictly on the location of current
station houses.
In summary, we do not see the practicality of a fire authority that extends to the seven
communities. There is the potential for a smaller authority encompassing the cities of
Muskegon, Roosevelt Park, Muskegon Heights and Norton Shores. However, there are
constraints that might make such an arrangement untenable for some potential members.
Related to this, Exhibit 13 illustrates full-time fire department staffing levels in each of the nine
studied communities.
III - 7
Exhibit 13
2010-11 Fire Department Staffing
FY 2010-11 Full-time
Municipality Firefighter Positions Part-time Firefighter Usage ?
Muskegon 38 Not currently: beginning in FY 2012
Muskegon Heights 12 No
Muskegon Township 12 Both paid-on-duty and paid-on-call
North Muskegon 1 Paid-on-call
Norton Shores 13 Both paid-on-duty and paid-on-call
Roosevelt Park - -
Fruitport Township 8 Some paid-on-duty and paid-on-call
White Lake Fire Auth. 5 Paid-on-call
Montague 0 Paid-on-call
AVERAGE 11 -
Note: Norton Shores will be adding positions from millage passage
Source: Applicable fire departments
As seen in the exhibit, the cities of Muskegon and Muskegon Heights are both career fire
departments, while Norton Shores (and all others) utilizes part-time personnel. In a consolidated
system, the difference in operating models would shift the cost burden onto the City of Norton
Shores, likely making the new model unacceptable.
As noted in the exhibit, the City of Muskegon will begin converting to a “combination”
department featuring part-time firefighters beginning in FY 2012. It will take a number of years
to achieve the optimal level of full-time and part-time employees. When this is accomplished, a
fire authority with Norton Shores (or others) could have greater acceptance and mutual
advantage.
A related consideration would be the distribution of costs to communities participating in a fire
authority. In regard to funding a fire authority, PA 57 of 1988 is the only legislation and
approach for funding a multi-jurisdictional public safety authority through general levy. Put
simply, under PA 57, each participating political jurisdiction agrees to incorporate in the
authority, and then, by Council or Board resolution, orders a general referendum regarding a
millage for funding. A simple majority vote is sufficient for passage. The tax is levied on all
taxable property within the authority. In a fire authority, this may seem equitable, since the tax is
spread consistent with the value of the property being protected.
Exhibit 14 compares the percentages of total current fire department costs for the four
abovementioned communities and how these percentages would change in an authority funded
by PA 57. Certainly, other funding arrangements could be arranged, but PA 57 is the generally
accepted standard, and would be an active consideration.
As seen in the exhibit, all other things being equal, a greater cost burden would be borne by the
cities of Norton Shores and Roosevelt Park in a PA 57 funded fire authority. The exhibit further
demonstrates the importance of converting the City of Muskegon’s fire force (and ideally
III - 8
firefighters in the City of Muskegon Heights) to a combination department that utilizes a sizable
number of part-time staff.
Exhibit 14
Example Distribution of Fire Service Costs Under PA 57 of 1988
For Four Community Authorities
FY 2010-11 % of Total Fire Costs
FY 2010-11 Percentage of 2010 Taxable Borne by Property
Municipality Fire Budget Total Fire Costs Valuation Owners Under PA 57
Muskegon $3,467,928 52% $723,209,538 39%
Muskegon Heights $926,403 14% $133,618,412 7%
Norton Shores $2,044,000 31% $890,443,307 48%
Roosevelt Park $207,800 3% $120,045,838 6%
SUMMARY $6,646,131 100% $1,867,317,095 100%
Muskegon total does not include Inspection Services
Source: Muskegon County Equalization and municipal budgets
In addition to the seven Muskegon-area communities, we have also reviewed fire services
provided to the Cities of Montague and Whitehall. Both receive services from separate
authorities that service multiple communities. Specifically:
White Lake Fire Authority: City of Whitehall, Whitehall Township and Fruitland
Township
Montague Fire Authority: City of Montague, Montague Township and White River
Township.
In the ideal circumstance, these communities would be served by a common fire authority –
similar to the White Lake Ambulance Authority. However, each has evolved as separate and
distinct operations. As an example, the White Lake Fire Authority employs a combination of
full-time and part-time firefighters while the Montague Fire Authority relies totally on paid-on-
call response. In addition to this cost differential in operations, property owners in the Montague
Fire Authority recently approved a 20-year millage for operations and debt associated with the
construction of a new facility. With this action, the separateness of the two agencies was further
established on a financial basis.
As seen in Appendix B-2, the response areas of the two fire departments overlap considerable.
However, there is currently limited interaction between the fire departments. An automatic aid
agreement for fire calls within the Cities of Montague and Whitehall would be a logical step
toward service-sharing and potentially a great benefit to the two communities.
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING FIRE CONSOLIDATION
In summary, we do not see great potential for a fire authority in the greater Muskegon-area.
Most station houses are currently well-placed and most departments employ relatively cost
efficient service models featuring large numbers of part-time or paid-on-call employees.
III - 9
One might argue that cost savings could be achieved through administrative consolidation,
however, this is unlikely. Specifically, two departments already employ relatively efficient
public safety director models with no fire chief. In other cases, fire chiefs would need to be
replaced by deputy chiefs or battalion chiefs to provide management of the separate facilities or
fire districts. In this case, the cost of conversion would be nominal.
This is not to say that efficiencies cannot be achieved in the larger system. What is suggested is
that a large-scale fire consolidation would not yield large savings unless services were somehow
diminished. More select consolidations have promise in the urban core, but are unlikely until the
City of Muskegon and the City of Muskegon Heights convert to more cost efficient
“combination” departments featuring both full-time and part-time employees. When this
achieved, the issue should be revisited.
Assumption of Fire Service by a Neighboring Community via Contract
While we do not consider fire consolidation to be a viable option, the concentration of fire
stations in the urban core provides an opportunity to eliminate a fire service and initiate a
contract or shared-services agreement. The most logical target for this type of arrangement
would be the City of Muskegon Heights. As mentioned, the City is currently operating under a
state-mandated budget deficit elimination plan and has a negative General Fund fund balance of
$571,211 as of the most recent audited financial statement (i.e. December 31, 2009). In this
sense, cost savings are critical to future solvency.
In regard to fire services, Muskegon Heights’ budgeted amount for fire services in FY 2011 is
$926,403 for protection of a service area that is four square miles with a declining population
base. As illustrated in Exhibit 15, the Fire Department has no fire chief and operates through
shift lieutenants overseeing three platoons.
Exhibit 15
Muskegon Heights Fire Department Organization
City
Manager
Fire Fire Fire
Lieutenant Lieutenant Lieutenant
Firefighters Firefighters Firefighters
(3) (3) (3)
Source: Muskegon Heights Fire Department, 2011 Annual Report
The City of Muskegon Heights has not been a participant in this study; consequently our
knowledge of fire and operations is minimal. We are aware that the City received a Staffing for
III - 10
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response grant (SAFER) for staffing and a second grant for a
new engine from the Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately, SAFER grants provide
only two years of personnel funding and thus provide only a temporary solution.
The long-term solution would be to enter into contact for fire services from either the City of
Norton Shores or City of Muskegon. This could take on several forms, including:
An outright contract including assumption of all fire and emergency medical
responsibility. In this event, Muskegon or Norton Shores would need to add personnel –
however, with a fire budget approaching $1 million it is likely that this could be achieved
with both a profit margin for the contractor and significant cost savings for the City of
Muskegon Heights. The future status of current employees would be a question for legal
counsel.
Or, sufficient in-house staff (i.e. six or seven) could be retained to staff a two-man team
for medical response (roughly 75% of current call volume) and initial fire response, as
available. Engines would be retained and the ladder truck sold. Norton Shores or
Muskegon would supervise the two-man crew and also provide fire response through
their larger department. Norton Shores currently provides mutual aid to all of Muskegon
Heights and could likely fashion an acceptable contract beneficial to both communities.
The City of Muskegon may be able to do likewise.
In addition to the benefits derived by the City of Muskegon Heights and the selected service
provider, a contract arrangement along these or similar lines would be an incremental step in
achieving additional economy of scale in fire services. As mentioned, the potential exists for a
consolidation of possibly four communities with resulting cost-benefit. Dissolution of the
Muskegon Heights Fire Department could be a first step in this process.
Additional Shared-Services Opportunities
A more targeted possibility for shared-services focuses on ladder trucks. By way of explanation,
the ladder truck is the most expensive piece of fire apparatus with cost readily exceeding $1
million for a vehicle with 100’ ladder extension. Depreciable period is typically 25 years, but
may be shorter depending on the agency. Ladder trucks are utilized for a number of fire
conditions but are particularly useful for large structures in which firefighters need additional
reach. An example might be an industrial site that has collapsed inward.
As seen in Exhibit 16, Muskegon County currently has six ladder trucks. There is an additional
truck stationed at the Grand Haven Public Safety Department that can be requested in the event
of a major fire.
III - 11
Exhibit 16
Ladder Trucks in Muskegon County
Agency Ladder Truck Size
White Lake Fire Authority 100'
Muskegon Heights 100'
Muskegon Township 75'
Muskegon 75'
Norton Shores 100'
Fruitport Township 65'
Source: Applicable fire departments
With the significant cost associated with a ladder truck, cooperative, joint purchasing could be a
logical course for the Muskegon-area. With fewer trucks, some communities would lose ISO
points but this might not be a dramatic enough change to worsen a PPC rating. Moreover, these
are not trucks that are needed frequently (Note: Exceptions exist in the current system. As an
example, the City of Muskegon reportedly uses their truck as an engine for routine response).
The larger 100’ ladder is in fact considered to be most useful when a building has already been
lost and/or for containment purposes. In this situation, set up and use would follow the set up of
engine/pumpers – a limited response delay could be tolerated.
Certainly, some value would be lost by limiting the number of fire trucks – but again, the
concept of diminishing returns should come into play. While the fire chiefs would be the best
judge of minimal need, it is not unreasonable to assume that the County could manage with two
100’ ladder trucks – one in the north for Whitehall/Montague and one in the south. A joint
purchase arrangement could allow each agency to pay a share and the truck could be housed at a
central location – possibly in the City of Muskegon or City of Norton Shores. The host agency
would have responsibility for manning the truck in response to service requests by the
participating agencies.
The funding and construction for a training facility for the fire and law enforcement services is
another cooperative endeavor that could yield significant benefit to Muskegon County. This idea
has been actively supported by the fire and police professionals in Muskegon County, but lacks
dedicated funding. Unlike the initiatives discussed above, the training facility would not create
cost savings. Instead the focus would be the further professionalization of police and fire
services and response.
In regard to instruction and training, the proposed training facility would provide:
Live fire training
Police shooting range
Hazardous materials training
Training for transportation incidents
Simulated fire response
III - 12
Classroom instruction
EMS training
Emergency driving
Search and rescue
And other emergency training.
The fire portion of the training curriculum would dovetail with the Muskegon Community
College (MCC) Fire Service program. A 30 acre site is also apparently available via a land
donation for the facility that would be coordinated through MCC.
The cost of the facility is significant, with similar facilities requiring funding of $2 million or
more. Kalamazoo has such a facility and reportedly raised $2 million in donations for the first
phase of the project, including a training tower. Unless grant funding can be identified,
Muskegon County would need a similar effort. From a service perspective this would be an
excellent vehicle for coordinating and standardizing response protocols, developing new fire and
police professionals, furthering the MCC fire training program, and centralizing training
activities in an accessible, close location. In this sense, it could be an important initiative for
defining Muskegon County as a progressive and forward-thinking geographic region.
B. POLICE SERVICES
Our study of police services has been limited by two factors. Specifically:
As noted, two metro-area communities (the City of Muskegon Heights and Muskegon
Township) have declined to participate in the study. Information related to police
services for these two communities has been limited to overview information collected
through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA requests for data must be
explicit; consequently many “data holes” have resulted.
Central dispatch (E-911) has refused our request for data pertaining to police activity in
the nine communities (i.e. Priority 1 and Priority 2 call summaries and similar summary
data) citing confidentiality. E-911 noted that any FOIA request would need to be handled
by the individual agency.
The lack of personalized input from two communities limits the analysis to information obtained
from FOIA data and overview information obtained from the participating agencies regarding the
public safety system. This is particularly true if considering the potential for an area-wide police
authority.
Despite this limitation, we have been able to develop fairly solid conclusions regarding shared –
services for police operations. As with other findings, more evaluation will be needed to gauge
the impact of shared-services opportunities – particularly as applied to the two non-participating
communities. However, our analysis should provide a strong starting point.
III - 13
Exhibit 17 provides an overview of the nine studied police departments, in regard to operating
models.
Exhibit 17
Police Service Operating Models
Organizational Context for Work Schedule
Municipality Police Services Employee Type (Certified Officers) - Shift Duration
Muskegon Part of Public Safety Department Full-time Police Officers Only 8.5
Muskegon Heights City Department Full-time and Part-time Police Officers 12
Muskegon Township Township Department Full-time Police Officers Only 8
North Muskegon City Department Full-time and Part-time Police Officers 10
Norton Shores City Department Full-time Police Officers Only 12
Roosevelt Park City Department Full-time and Part-time Police Officers 8
Fruitport Township Part of Public Safety Department Full-time and Part-time Police Officers 12
Montague City Department Full-time and Part-time Police Officers 12
Whitehall City Department Full-time and Part-time Police Officers 12
Source: Applicable police departments and labor agreements
As seen in Exhibit 17, each of the nine communities has a police agency. Seven operate as
distinct city or township departments, while two others function under a public safety director
overseeing both police and fire services. Six of the nine agencies employ both full-time and
part-time certified police officers. The use of part-time officers is a cost effective approach for
bolstering shift strength, reducing overtime and generally increasing the flexibility of the police
scheduling system. The widespread use of this resource indicates a willingness to embrace less
traditional and expensive service models.
Police officers in the nine communities work under an assortment of shift schedules including
twelve, ten and eight hour shifts. Each shift type has its own unique advantages and
disadvantages for the deployment of personnel. Generally speaking, eight hour shifts require
more personnel, but provide greater scheduling in flexibility. Twelve-hour shifts create a
situation in which fewer officers are required, but require police officers to work a 12-hour day.
Some debate exists regarding the impact on productivity resulting from the longer shift. Ten-
hour shifts are typically used by smaller communities to provide some overlap schedules to
address time periods of greatest need. The North Muskegon Police Department is the only
studied agency using a ten-hour shift.
Police officers in all but one agency (Whitehall Police Department) are unionized. Police
personnel are provided the opportunity for compulsory arbitration under PA 312. In the event of
a labor dispute, PA 312 has historically proven to be a major constraint on management’s ability
to modify working requirements or compensation and benefit levels for police and fire
employees. It must be seen as a potential impediment to any shared-services scenario relative to
Muskegon County.
At present each studied police department services only its specific geographic area with no
contracts-for-service extended to other political entities. (As an exception, Fruitport Township
III - 14
does service Fruitport Village.) The Sheriff’s Office provides contract services to three
jurisdictions (Laketon, Fruitland and White River Townships) and the County Wastewater
Treatment Facility. However, these are modest arrangements barely tapping the potential for
comprehensive police coverage. Essentially a tradition of autonomous police coverage exists in
each city and major township.
In regard to shared-services, we have evaluated several options for police service, including:
The potential for major police service consolidation
Assumption of police service by a neighboring community via contract
The potential for a police authority in the northern county.
Each is discussed separately below.
The Potential for Major Police Service Consolidation
The study of police service consolidation must recognize several important factors, including:
Large police districts or authorities are almost non-existent in Michigan.
One reason for the above is that police services vary significantly between communities
depending on demographics, crime rates and community service preference. This fact
has deterred large scale police service consolidation as communities tailor services to
their particular service needs and quality-of-life objectives.
An exception to this can be seen in the contracting of Sheriff’s Office police services to
particular municipalities. This type of arrangement is prevalent in counties such as
Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw and others. Municipalities are afforded the opportunity
to purchase the level of protection desired and tailor the contract and coverage
accordingly. Arguments over the deployment of resources are thus avoided and
administrative and special services costs are spread in a cost-efficient manner.
The potential for expanding Sheriff’s Office services to specific cities and townships in
Muskegon County is certainly a viable proposition. However, this would require an incremental
process – allowing the Sheriff to gradually grow and expand the operation. This option is
discussed in the following subsections, with particular thoughts on where this expansion might
begin.
In regard to a large scale police authority for the Muskegon area, this would be a difficult task to
achieve. The following discussion addresses this point.
POLICE SERVICE COST AND SERVICE VARIABLES – AN OVERVIEW
Exhibit 18 compares police cost per capita among the nine studied communities.
III - 15
Exhibit 18
Police Cost Per Capita
2010 FY 2010-11 Cost Per
Municipality Population Police Budget Capita
Muskegon 38,401 $9,013,330 $234.72
Muskegon Heights 10,856 $1,841,518 $169.63
Muskegon Township 17,840 $1,608,322 $90.15
North Muskegon 3,786 $648,848 $171.38
Norton Shores 23,994 $3,315,540 $138.18
Roosevelt Park 3,831 $631,800 $164.92
Fruitport Township 13,598 $1,082,372 $79.60
Whitehall 2,706 $798,835 $295.21
Montague 2,361 $616,179 $260.98
AVERAGE 13,041 $2,172,972 $178.31
North Muskegon budget is FY 2010 and includes 35% added to all wage categories for benefits
Source: Municipal budgets and U.S. Census Bureau
As seen in the exhibit, cost per capita is much higher in the City of Muskegon and the
neighboring communities of Montague and Whitehall. For Muskegon, this is partly a result of
its “center city” status. If day-time population is considered, the per capita number would drop.
Additionally, the all full-time nature of the department adds to cost. For Montague and
Whitehall, higher cost is an inevitable result of poor economy-of-scale; a situation that plagues
all city police departments in communities of 3,000 populations or less. Simply put, round-the-
clock policing requires a minimum number of patrol officers regardless of population and
community size.
Exhibit 19 continues the comparison by contrasting police staffing levels in the communities.
Exhibit 19
Police Officers per 1,000 Population
2010 Full-time equivalent Police Officers Per 1000
Municipality Population Police Officers* Population
Muskegon 38,401 79 2.06
Muskegon Heights 10,856 19 1.75
Muskegon Township 17,840 15 0.84
North Muskegon 3,786 1.85
7
Norton Shores 23,994 28 1.17
Roosevelt Park 3,831 1.83
7
Fruitport Township 13,598 11 0.81
Whitehall 2,706 9 3.33
Montague 2,361 6 2.54
AVERAGE 13,041 20.1 1.80
Bold indicates that full-time number includes part-time police officers as required by PA 302 State report
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau and 2010 PA 302 report. 2011 staffing may differ.
III - 16
As seen in the exhibit, the cities of Whitehall and Montague are much higher in regard to police
staffing levels, as would be expected. Other small communities also have relatively high staffing
levels in comparison to more heavily populated communities.
In regard to crime, the statistical data that we have collected is subject to interpretation, and as
such, limits the comparative conclusions that can be drawn. Most significantly, police
departments tend to report calls-for-service in different ways. Some might include a casual
citizen encounter as a service call while others report only dispatched calls. In this situation, we
are reluctant to attempt any definitive comparisons. Second, as noted, several entities have not
cooperated with our data gathering process; further limiting the conclusions that can be drawn.
Of the data assembled, we have created several exhibits to illustrate crime rates in the studied
communities. Exhibit 20, collected from on-line police statistics, compares major crimes in eight
of the nine studied communities (Muskegon Township excluded).
Exhibit 20
Comparison of 2009 Major Crime*
3,000
2,628
2,500
2,000
1,310
1,500
890
1,000
593
500 226
131 88 50
0
Muskegon Muskegon North Norton Roosevelt Fruitport Whitehall Montague
Heights Muskegon Shores Park Township
*Murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, theft, auto theft, arson
Note: Data not available for Muskegon Township
Source: City-data.com
As seen in Exhibit 20, historic crime rates have been much higher in the center city and very low
in the north county. The City of North Muskegon, a community that is geographically separate
from the Metro area (and has an active program of police patrol) is also comparatively low.
As illustrated in Exhibit 21, a comparison of arrests in eight of the nine studied communities
(Muskegon Heights excluded) shows a similar outcome – with arrest counts declining in
agencies further from the center city.
III - 17
Exhibit 21
2010 Police Arrests
5,000 4,624
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,253
1,500
1,000
377 325 277
232
500 131 70
0
Muskegon Muskegon North Norton Roosevelt Fruitport Whitehall Montague
Township Muskegon Shores Park Township
Note: Arrest total for Muskegon Heights is not known and subsequently not included
Source: listed police agencies
Summarily, the police departments differ in regard to cost-efficiency, the use of part-time
resources, the nature and demands of the service area and the focus and intensity of police work
and criminal response. All of these factors would need to be reconciled in planning for, and
implementing a police authority for a large geographic area such as the Muskegon metro area.
As previously discussed in the fire service section, a related consideration would be the
distribution of costs to communities participating in a police authority. In regard to funding a
police authority, PA 57 of 1988 is the only legislation and approach for funding a multi-
jurisdictional public safety authority through general levy. Put simply, under PA 57, each
participating political jurisdiction agrees to incorporate in the authority, and then, by Council or
Board resolution, orders a general referendum regarding a millage for funding. A simple
majority vote is sufficient for passage. The tax is levied on all taxable property within the
authority.
Exhibit 22 compares the percentages of total current police department costs for the seven metro
communities and how these percentages would change in an authority funded by PA 57.
Certainly, other funding arrangements could be arranged, but PA 57 is the generally accepted
standard, and would be an active consideration.
III - 18
Exhibit 22
Example Distribution of Police Service Costs Under PA 57 of 1988
FY 2010-11 % of Total Police
FY 2010-11 Percentage of Costs Borne by
Police Total Police 2010 Taxable Property Owners
Municipality Budget Costs Valuation Under PA 57
Muskegon $9,013,330 49.7% $723,209,538 25.5%
Muskegon Heights $1,841,518 10.2% $133,618,412 4.7%
Muskegon Township $1,608,322 8.9% $366,724,836 12.9%
North Muskegon $648,848 3.6% $141,910,534 5.0%
Norton Shores $3,315,540 18.3% $890,443,307 31.4%
Roosevelt Park $631,800 3.5% $120,045,838 4.2%
Fruitport Township $1,082,372 6.0% $456,150,127 16.1%
TOTAL $18,141,730 100% $2,832,102,592 100%
North Muskegon budget is FY 2010 and includes 35% added to all wage categories for benefits
Source: Muskegon County Equalization and municipal budgets
In addition to cost, there are distinct service differences between the communities. For example,
the City of North Muskegon attempts to maintain two police officers at all times on-duty. With a
low crime rate, the primary objective is pro-active patrol, visibility and related crime deterrence.
The City of Roosevelt Park has a similar objective and situation. Bordering some high crime
areas, police presence is deemed to be critical to public safety. In contrast, higher crime cities,
such as Muskegon or Muskegon Heights, have high numbers of dispatched crime calls and likely
face back-ups for less serious calls during peak response hours. The ability to engage in pro-
active patrol is also more limited.
Consolidating these and other service models on a large scale basis would prove problematic.
Inevitably, resources would be drawn and deployed to the geographic areas of greatest need. In
this situation other communities would not receive the level of pro-active police presence which
is expected by the citizenry.
As mentioned, a central system of police services contracted through the County Sheriff would
avoid these issues. Under a well-developed system, such as the one functioning in Oakland
County, communities could specify the level of police protection desired and pay a negotiated
fee. Administrative costs would not be duplicated and overall cost would be lower. However, a
system of this type must be gradually built. Oakland County, for example, began with several
small contracts and gradually expanded to larger municipalities. Recently, police service was
extended to the City of Pontiac. Washtenaw County has spent considerable time and effort in
fashioning a mutually acceptable cost allocation plan and related cost-for-service levels.
Similarly, for Muskegon County, this could only be seen as a long-range objective beginning on
a smaller scale, as discussed in the following subsection.
III - 19
Assumption of Police Services by a Neighboring Community
While we do not envision comprehensive police service consolidation as a viable short-term
objective for the Muskegon area, we have concluded that several departments could be
eliminated to achieve cost advantage. Both situations would be subject to the legal constraints
discussed in Section II of the report. They include the following:
Roosevelt Park contracts with Norton Shores
Muskegon Heights contracts with the City of Muskegon or Muskegon County.
Each is discussed separately below.
The City of Roosevelt Park
The Roosevelt Park Police Department (RPPD) has a FY 2010-11 police budget of $631,800.
The organization of the Department (prior to any recent reductions) is illustrated in Exhibit 23.
Exhibit 23
Roosevelt Park Police Department Organization
Police
Chief
Police Clerk
Sergeant
(part-time)
Full-time
Part-time
Police Officers
Police Officers
(3)
Source: City of Roosevelt Park
The department has experienced some recent reductions in personnel and has reportedly lost the
incumbent sergeant and one full-time police officer.
In regard to coverage, RPPD attempts to maintain two police officers on-duty at all times, except
4-6 am when staffing drops to one. The Department also has a contract-mandated swing shift
which has reportedly been the source of significant overtime. As a contractually specified shift,
it cannot be arbitrarily eliminated by management.
The total coverage area of Roosevelt Park is one square mile. The community is contiguous to
the City of Norton Shores and shares heavily commercialized Henry Street with that community.
In this sense the Norton Shores Police Department is very well positioned to provide service to
III - 20
the one square mile area of Roosevelt Park. Moreover, with the passage of the public safety
millage in Norton Shores – three full-time police officer positions will be reinstated.
Pertinent to the issue of a service contract is the level of service that would be required. If
Roosevelt Park desired a contract for occasional patrol, calls-for-service and related detective
and administrative services, the Norton Shores Police Department may be capable of handling
the expanded service area with the resources available. However, if a dedicated 24-hour
presence was required, the Norton Shores Police Department would need to add resources. A
rough calculation for staffing one full-time position round-the-clock is 4.2 personnel. If off-time
is considered, the Norton Shores Police Department would need 5-6 new dedicated officers to fill
the requirement of one-dedicated police officer. The cost of five officers (current wage and
benefits at 40% of base wage) is approximately $395,000. With the added cost of vehicle, fuel
and added administration, the cost could easily approach $450,000 – or more if six personnel
were needed. With a budget of $631,800 some cost savings could be achieved – the actual
amount would depend on the contract cost found to be agreeable to both parties.
Summarily, if the Roosevelt Park community is willing to accept a lower police presence, it is
likely that a significant cost savings can be achieved. If continued patrol is required, a lesser
savings could result. Either alternative is a viable option for contracting police services. The
current police contract in Roosevelt Park extends to 11-30-13; another factor that must be
considered.
The City of Muskegon Heights
The Muskegon Heights Police Department (MHPD) has a FY 2010-11budget of $1,841,518.
The organization of the Police Department is illustrated in Exhibit 24.
Exhibit 24
Muskegon Heights Police Department Organization
Police
Chief
Police Clerk Community
(part-time) Service Officer
Detectives
Lieutenant Lieutenant Lieutenant Lieutenant
(2)
Police Officers Police Officers Police Officers Evidence Tech
Sergeant
(3) (2) (2) (1)
Police Officers
(2)
Source: FOIA organization chart
III - 21
As seen in Exhibit 24, MHPD has 19 sworn staff including a three-person detective bureau and a
community service officer. Patrol officers and command work 12-hours shifts – reportedly with
the objective of maintaining two police officers on patrol duty at all times.
Muskegon Heights recorded 3,486 Parts 1 and 2 criminal calls for service in 2010, a fairly
significant number for a community with a population of only 10,856. Related to this, a patrol
strength of two officers is barely adequate, and likely inadequate during peak service periods.
Other departments reportedly provide some service call and investigative back-up. Most
notably, the Sheriff’s Office provides some weekend patrol funded by a grant. This assistance is
limited to general patrol and back-up – not primary call response.
With a police budget of over $1.8 million, a relatively heavy command structure and limited
patrol capability, the City of Muskegon Heights should explore options for police services. One
such option might involve the dissolution of MHPD, to be replaced by a police service contract
with another municipal entity.
Two viable candidates for providing police services to Muskegon Heights would be the City of
Muskegon and Muskegon County. The City of Muskegon shares a common border with
Muskegon Heights and is well-grounded in community policing and urban crime response.
Muskegon County is currently performing patrol duty and may be willing to negotiate a contract-
for-service.
In our brief discussions with these two entities, there appears to be consensus that minimum
staffing should need to be at a level of three patrol officers at all times. The Sheriff estimates
that he would need to add a minimum of twelve positions to provide sufficient patrol,
supervision and investigative services. This estimate appears to be modest. If we assume 15
positions we can very roughly estimate related costs as follows (using maximum pay rates).
12 Sheriff’s Deputies $677,476
3 Sergeant Level Positions $194,922
Benefits at 40% $348,959
Vehicles and fuel (6) $200,000
$1,421,357
The estimated cost for service (not contract cost) is roughly $400,000 less than the current
budgeted cost. This is only a rough estimate but does provide indication that cost savings can be
achieved while increasing the number of police officers actively involved in patrol duty and
criminal response.
It bears repeating that the above is a very rough estimate of cost. We have used maximum pay
rates and overstated the Sheriff’s staffing estimate. However, benefit costs may be higher or
actual staffing needs may differ. In this sense, the above estimate is only a starting point for the
City of Muskegon Heights to begin active consideration of the services that the City of
Muskegon or Muskegon County might provide.
III - 22
In regard to the City of Muskegon, The Police Department maintains a very comprehensive
community policing program staffed by 9-10 police officers. Should Muskegon Heights
ultimately contract with the City of Muskegon for police services this could be another feature of
the police program. Community policing has proven its worth as a pro-active strategy for
stabilizing vulnerable neighborhoods and could be cooperatively provided and coordinated
between these two contiguous communities.
The Potential for a Police Authority in Whitehall/Montague
As previously discussed, it is extremely challenging for a small community to maintain a police
department at a cost-efficient level – particularly if “round-the-clock” coverage is desired.
Related to this, each position staffed on a 24-hour seven day basis requires 4.2 personnel. When
off-time is added to the equation, the number increases accordingly. Additionally, a police chief,
detective or other specialty position further adds to the number of personnel required. The result
is a large number of personnel relative to other operations in a small city. Moreover, if crime
rates are low and the service area is limited, resources tend to be underutilized. As a result, the
police budget will command a disproportionate amount of the community’s General Fund
resources and service outlay.
The Cities of Whitehall and Montague both have police departments. The organization of the
police departments is illustrated in Exhibit 25.
Exhibit 25
Whitehall Police Department Organization
Police
Chief
Lieutenant
Sergeant
Detective
Part-time
Full-time School
Police Officers
Police Officers Resource
(4)
(4) Officer
Montague Police Department Organization
Police
Chief
Secretary
(part-time)
Full-time Part-time
Police Officers Police Officers
(4) (7)
Source: Applicable police agency
III - 23
As seen in Exhibit 25, the two Departments combined have 13 total sworn full-time personnel
and eleven part-time police officers. Considered on a full-time equivalent (FTE) basis, the two
Departments had a combined 15 FTE in 2010, as reported for the State’s PA 302 training report.
The combined cost of the two agencies has been budgeted at $1,415,014 for FY 2010-11, to
service a combined population of 5,067 in contiguous service areas totaling a combined 6.17
square miles.
As previously illustrated in Exhibits 20 and 21, the crime and arrest rates in Montague and
Whitehall are extremely low. Also, it can be expected that most criminals in the area would not
distinguish between municipal boundaries. In this situation, the presence of two police
departments is redundant.
In regard to police levels, the City of Whitehall maintains minimum staffing at two. With a
larger administrative and command group, staffing may be as high as four during the day. The
City of Montague maintains minimum staffing at one and staffs-up for weekends and summer
season. Both departments have part-time personnel that can be used flexibly to help in achieving
staffing objectives.
With a combined police department, it may be possible to eliminate personnel and still achieve
an acceptable minimum staffing level of two on a round-the-clock basis for the two communities
combined. To illustrate this option, we have developed four potential 12-hour shift schedules.
These are included in Appendix C of the report. The schedules provide optional approaches for a
combined police department operating with 10, 9, 8 or 7 full-time employees – while
maintaining minimum staffing at two or more for almost all time periods. Part-time officers
would supplement the full-time staff at varying levels, with part-time officer use increasing as
full-time staffing is decreased.
Key features of the optional staffing/scheduling systems are as follows:
Appendix C-1: A Police Chief, Detective and School Resource Officer are eliminated –
the combined department would operate with 10 full-time police personnel supplemented
by part-time officers.
Appendix C-2: A Police Chief, School Resource Officer and two full-time Police
Officers are eliminated – the combined department would operate with 9 full-time police
personnel supplemented by part-time officers.
Appendix C-3: A Police Chief, Detective, School Resource Officer and two full-time
Police Officers are eliminated – the combined department would operate with 8 full-time
police personnel supplemented by part-time officers.
Appendix C-4: A Police Chief, Sergeant and four full-time Police Officers are eliminated
– the combined department would operate with 7 full-time police personnel
supplemented by part-time officers.
III - 24
Each schedule has operational and cost advantages and disadvantages. Moreover, multiple
additional test schedules are possible. Related to this, the Police Chief (for a combined
department) would be the best judge of staffing and scheduling needs. From our perspective, the
bottom-line is that a combined department could be operated with fewer staff at lesser cost.
Rough estimated cost savings calculated from the pay grade structures or contracts could be as
follows (with benefits at 40% of wage):
Police Chief ($60,000 and benefits): $84,000
Detective ($55,000 and benefits): $77,000
Each Police officer ($50,559 and benefits): $70,783
Patrol vehicles eliminated (possibly two): $50,000
The above is a very rough analysis intended only to provide a starting point for additional
evaluation and consideration. It must also be noted that the increased use of part-time officers
would add cost in this expenditure category (approximate $16.15 maximum hourly rate with
FICA) effectively offsetting some cost savings achieved from the elimination of full-time
positions.
In regard to operating models, the Village of Spring Lake and City of Ferrysburg have a
combined police department which reportedly works very well – both operationally and
politically. The legal framework is an intergovernmental agreement in which a four person
Board (two representatives from each jurisdiction) provide policy direction. A ten-year
agreement is currently in place and the joint department has now operated for twenty-two years.
The formula for cost sharing considers the following elements:
Calls-for-service
Number of Part 1 and Part 2 crimes
Population.
The cities of Whitehall and Montague could use something similar or a PA 57 authority with a
separate millage levied on the entire operating area. This is currently the situation for fire
services and in that sense, may be an amenable community approach for funding.
A combined police department would be a radical change from the status quo. As an
incremental approach, the cities could consider first combining the two police chief positions.
This would most readily be accomplished when a vacancy exists in one or the other police chief
positions. For administrative reporting, the Police Chief could report to a Board – similar to the
Spring Lake/Ferrysburg model, or report to each City Manager. Reporting could be awkward at
first, but each City would retain control over its respective police budget; and the two cities do
have a track record of cooperative relations. Most importantly, such a move could serve as a test
case and gradual move toward a later, more comprehensive merger of the two agencies.
III - 25
C. PUBLIC WORKS AND INSPECTION SERVICES
The study of public works must recognize the differences in operating models and scope of
responsibilities between departments and municipalities. In regard to scope of responsibilities,
the nine studied municipalities may, or may not, have responsibility for the following:
Water plant operation
Water and sewer distribution systems maintenance
Roads maintenance
Engineering services
Building and grounds maintenance
Parks maintenance
Forestry services
Vehicle maintenance
Water billing and other administrative duties
Other public works services.
Related to the above, the operating models vary significantly, including the following
distinctions:
More or less reliance on part-time and seasonal employees
Differing levels of reliance on the private sector for services
Differing degrees of contracting with other municipalities to provide services
Various levels of resource sharing between communities.
In addition to the above, from a financial perspective, public works operations may encompass
six or more operating funds, including an assortment of mandated special revenue, internal
service and enterprise funds. Summarily, a simple comparison of staffing or expenditures for
public works services is not realistic or feasible.
A notable and highly visible service area is roads. Under State law (PA 51 of 1951) each city
and county road commission receives road funding through the Michigan Transportation Fund
(MTF). MTF is largely funded by fuel taxes paid at the service station. As illustrated in Exhibit
26, this transfer payment is a relatively significant revenue source for the funding of both road
construction and ongoing maintenance for the local and major roads located in each city. (Note:
township roads are maintained by the Muskegon County Road Commission. The Road
Commission also receives MTF funding as its primary revenue source.)
III - 26
Exhibit 26
Act 51 Roads Funding
Amount Received – 2009 Audited
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
Muskegon Muskegon North Norton Roosevelt Whitehall Montague
Heights Muskegon Shores Park
Source: 2009 Audited Financial Statements
The fuel tax is statutorily established at $.19 per gallon for gasoline and lesser amounts for
blends and diesel. As gasoline prices rise, the tax remains fixed – yielding no additional
revenue. Additionally, increases in fuel economy and reductions in miles driven are both
negatively influencing fuel consumption. In this situation, without legislative relief,
municipalities will be experiencing continuing reductions in Act 51 revenue sharing. As seen in
Exhibit 27, this situation impacts more than 500 miles of roadway for the seven studied cities.
Exhibit 27
Miles of Major and Local Road Miles Maintained
250.00
207.51
225.00
200.00
148.23
175.00
150.00
125.00
67.92
100.00
75.00
26.07 24.68
21.51
50.00 14.00
25.00
0.00
Muskegon Muskegon North Norton Roosevelt Whitehall Montague
Heights Muskegon Shores Park
Source: Michigan Department of Transportation
Faced with this prospect, many municipalities are subsidizing the major and local roads budgets
with scarce General Fund resources. Moreover, road condition is degenerating both in the
III - 27
Muskegon-area and state-wide. In this situation, opportunities for cost savings in the area of
public works take on particular importance.
In regard to shared-services for public works, much has already been accomplished in the
Muskegon-area. As seen in Appendix A:
Contracts between communities are numerous. The City of Muskegon has been
particularly successful in providing public works services to neighboring communities
such as Roosevelt Park, Muskegon Heights and Muskegon Township. With a full-service
public works operation employing approximately 60 full-time field employees (excluding
water plant), the City of Muskegon is best positioned to offer service contracts.
Joint purchasing is prevalent including the use of the State of Michigan bid system,
Oakland County and joint purchases arranged by the municipalities. A number of bids
and purchases are also coordinated through the Muskegon County Road Commission
including traffic signal maintenance, road striping and salt purchase.
Resource sharing is common for occasional contracts, or on an informal basis for
functions and equipment such as water taps, Vactor/sewer cleaning and various
equipment loans.
Our study of shared-services for public works is intended to suggest areas where additional
successes in shared-services can be achieved. Inspection services are also discussed in this
section of the report. To facilitate review, the discussion is organized in the following
subsections:
The advantages of a solid waste authority
The potential for contracting or consolidating public works services in select
communities
The potential for several smaller contracts-for-service
Issues pertaining to inspection services.
Each is discussed separately below.
The Advantages of a Solid Waste Authority
At present, the nine studied communities have different approaches for solid waste pick-up and
disposal. These are illustrated in Exhibit 28. As seen in the exhibit:
Four of the municipalities have a community-wide service contract with a private
provider. Two have special millages for solid waste and/or related services. Michigan
law allows a maximum three mills levy for this purpose.
In four communities, property owners contract individually for trash collection –
selecting a service provider of their choice. One community, Norton Shores, has a
millage for yard waste collection and spring clean-up.
III - 28
One community not participating in the study, Muskegon Township, reportedly provides
trash pickup using in-house resources.
Exhibit 28
Solid Waste Methods and Funding Source
FY 2010-11 Special
Community Provider of Solid Waste Collection Millage for Solid Waste
Muskegon Private Service Contract 2.568
Muskegon Heights Private Service Contract 2.99928
Muskegon Township In-house -
North Muskegon Private Service Contract 1.3
Roosevelt Park Private Service Contract -
Norton Shores Homeowner Contracts Separately .7
Fruitport Homeowner Contracts Separately -
Whitehall Homeowner Contracts Separately -
Montague Homeowner Contracts Separately -
Source: Applicable municipalities and Muskegon County Equalization
Summarily, under the current system, solid waste disposal is completely decentralized. There is
a Solid Waste Plan for Muskegon County (as mandated by the State), but it has not been updated
since 1999. The County is currently working to revive a solid waste planning committee, and in
the process, amend the Solid Waste Plan to include recycling.
In regard to recycling, the City of Roosevelt Park, Fruitport Village and Muskegon Township
provide curbside recycling. In some other communities this is an optional service. There is no
universal plan or coverage for this important component of waste stream reduction. Similarly,
only a small hazardous materials drop-off site is operated by the County from May-October, two
days per month.
A comprehensive approach to solid waste could potentially yield both environmental and cost
saving advantages. If, for example, a county-wide authority was formed, the following benefits
could potentially result:
Centralized bidding for a solid waste hauling and disposal contract – possibly yielding
cost savings through improved economy-of-scale.
Less truck traffic in some communities (and associated noise and road wear) as pickup
schedules became uniform.
A conduit for implementing aspects of an updated Solid Waste Plan including recycling
and waste stream reduction. In regard to the latter, less tonnage would equal lower solid
waste costs for the participating municipalities.
A model for this type of cooperative arrangement is the Southeastern Oakland County Resource
Recovery Authority (SOCRRA). Established under PA 179 of 1947, SOCRRA consists of 12
III - 29
member communities with a population of approximately 275,000. SOCRRA’s governing
Board includes one representative from each member municipality with voting power based on
tonnage received at the facility. SOCRRA’s services include:
Collective bidding for solid waste household services.
Operation of a state-of-the-art Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and related sale of
commodities.
Operation of a composting facility, including sale of compost, resident programs and free
compost pickup for residents.
A hazardous materials drop-off site with work-day access.
Various programs with heavy volunteer participation related to waste stream reduction
and environmental issues.
The SOCRRA experience could serve as a model for Muskegon County. An authority could
initially seek a unified bid for collection and recycling services and gradually expand into the
areas noted above. A unified bid could provide economy-of-scale and lower sold waste costs. As
mentioned, a concerted effort on waste stream reduction, through recycling, could also lower the
amount of waste requiring landfill, thus providing ongoing cost savings. SOCCRA and other
solid waste authorities have realized these benefits and Muskegon County could experience
similar outcomes.
The Potential for Contracting or Consolidating Public Works Services
in Select Communities
As previously discussed, the variety of public works services provided in the studied
communities differs dramatically – particularly among the larger communities. In this situation,
it is difficult to envision total service consolidation across multiple borders – simply because
service scope (and associated finances) differs so greatly. As has happened historically, it is
more reasonable to look for individual service consolidation opportunities – some on a large
scale (e.g. water, wastewater, solid waste) that can be clearly specified and implemented to
achieve cost savings in particular, identifiable areas of public works activity.
However, with smaller communities, total service outsourcing or service consolidation could be
a feasible approach – particularly in times of financial challenge. Among the seven studied
communities, we have identified two such opportunities, as discussed below.
Roosevelt Park
The City of Roosevelt Park’s FY 2011 budget lists expenditure totals for public works related
activities as follows:
III - 30
General Fund DPW: $390,200
Major Roads: $113,000
Local Roads: $143,300
Sewer Fund: $723,000
Water Fund: $694,000
Equipment Fund: $ 88,000
Summarily, it can be seen that public works is a major activity center – even in a small city of
approximately one square mile.
We do not have the financial detail to evaluate specific expenditure areas in the above areas of
public works outlay. This would require a more in-depth analysis beyond the scope of this study.
Further, the City’s budget does not clearly distinguish personnel costs for FY 2011. Related to
this, we have been unable to reconcile the specifics of the $302,800 in personnel costs listed in
the City’s FY 2011 budget with current staffing levels. Reportedly, the City has two full-time
workers and two part-time workers in the Public Works Department. Based on the labor contract
and the budget we have roughly estimated the bulk of field personnel cost at approximately
$150,000. These are the costs cited in the following paragraphs.
Service standards and levels are reportedly very high in Roosevelt Park. As examples, sidewalks
are plowed, streets are typically plowed and cleared before 7am and leaves are vacuumed
curbside in the fall. In this sense, the service crew is very responsive and resident service
expectations are higher than most other communities included in the study.
At present, Roosevelt Park outsources several services to the City of Muskegon including
equipment maintenance, water testing and 24-hour emergency back-up for utility issues. As a
full-service operation, it is likely that the City of Muskegon could assume responsibility for all
public works services in Roosevelt Park without adding significant numbers of personnel. (Note:
An exact number would need to be determined and a contract amount offered.)
Net of a contract amount, the potential cost savings to the City of Roosevelt Park would need to
come from the $150,000 in personnel costs cited above and other areas of materials expenditure.
Additionally, the City’s asset detail report (11-30-10) lists $566,715 in equipment at book cost.
The vast majority of this equipment is aged and in total, the equipment is almost totally
depreciated. In this regard, the City can anticipate a significant level of new equipment costs in
the near future. This cost could be avoided with a service contract.
As mentioned, there are not sufficient details to determine full cost impact of a contract option.
This would be a separate, more in-depth study. Moreover, City residents obviously have a high
level of pride in the City and support the higher service level. However, if finances worsen, the
total outsourcing of public works services is one area that should be given further attention.
A similar case could be made for the City of North Muskegon. Services in this community are
also at a very high level with services provided by a cadre of four full-time employees. However,
the geographic separation of North Muskegon is greater than Roosevelt Park and may present
temporal issues for duties such as snow plowing, utility emergencies and other tasks requiring
III - 31
rapid response. Further, the service expectations of the community, and willingness and ability
to pay would be active considerations in outsourcing such an important service area. As seen in
Appendix A, North Muskegon has taken an incremental approach to shared-services, identifying
and contracting for a number of specific services. In this sense, the community has followed a
balanced approach; continuing to search for cost-efficiencies through service contracts, while
still retaining responsibility for core services.
Whitehall/Montague
The Cities of Whitehall and Montague cooperate in a number of areas of public works. The two
communities share crack-sealing equipment for roads and a remote water meter reading device.
Resources are pooled for special events and informal equipment loans are frequent.
In regard to operating models, the two public works departments are markedly different. As seen
in Exhibit 29, Montague operates with a much lesser staffing level. Additionally, Whitehall’s
workers are unionized, while Montague’s workers are not.
Exhibit 29
Public Works Organizations
Whitehall DPW
Director
Streets and Parks and
Office
Utilities Cemetery
Coordinator
Supervisor Supervisor
Maintenance
Seasonal
Workers Mechanic
Workers
(5)
Montague DPW
Director
Foreman
Maintenance Maintenance
Cemetery Seasonal
Workers Worker
Worker Workers
(2) (part-time)
Source: City budgets and information received
III - 32
Essentially, Whitehall operates with double the full-time staffing employed in Montague. In this
regard, the City of Montague would undoubtedly question the wisdom of merging with an entity
that has higher costs and (in some areas) more expansive services. Moreover, each community
has unique service requirements. Montague has more beach activity and invests heavily in
related seasonal maintenance of toilets and facilities. Whitehall provides curbside pickup of
leaves in the fall – a service that Montague deems too expensive. Simply put, service goals and
objectives vary between the two communities.
Despite the differences, a combined public works could be a future goal. As noted, cooperation
is already high between the two departments and further, incremental joint efforts could be
added. Specifically:
Equipment should be shared as much as possible. Whitehall in particular appears to be
heavily invested in equipment. Large generalized equipment such as backhoes, loaders
and snow removal dump trucks are difficult to share, since both communities typically
need them for the same weather-related events. True consolidation would allow for some
cost savings in these areas, but short of this, some redundancy is inevitable. However,
the two communities should evaluate the combined equipment inventory and decide what
can be jointly purchased or assigned.
Purchasing should be done together whenever possible. Combining orders for items such
as paper supplies, sand, topsoil and water maintenance and repair supplies could result in
savings. Some joint purchasing is currently done, but additional opportunities may exist.
The same could hold true for bidding. As an example, both cities use contractors for tree
work so combining the bids could improve economy-of-scale. Both cities also contract
for sweeping – a combined bid could be considered in this area.
While it may not be feasible to physically combine the water systems, it does not mean
that the maintenance of the systems cannot be combined at some level. Both systems
have the same types of maintenance requirements and some preventive maintence tasks
could be jointly scheduled and combined.
Montague could potentially use the Mechanic at Whitehall DPW to do some routine
maintenance work. It may prove less costly to have a vendor do mechanical repair, but
the Whitehall option should be explored.
Combining efforts and resources during snow events could result in a more efficient
operation. If it is possible to combine routes so one driver continues on into the other
jurisdiction, it could save both communities time and effort. Also, reloading at the other
City’s yard may provide some time savings, depending on routing and location when the
truck becomes empty.
In summary, there are many steps that can be taken on the road to service consolidation. The
cooperative nature of the Whitehall/Montague relationship can potentially be expanded to
accommodate additional, beneficial service sharing and in the process move the two
communities closer to ultimate service consolidation.
III - 33
The Potential for Several Smaller Contracts-for-Service
In addition to the above, we have identified several smaller shared-services opportunities that
could yield cost-benefit to the participating municipalities. These include the following:
The Cities of Muskegon and North Muskegon
The Cities of Muskegon and North Muskegon both have radio read systems for water meter
reading. With a radio read system, individual on-site meter reading is not necessary. Meters can
be read from a drive-by or a remote location, and the data can then be uploaded into the billing
software. In this sense, radio read has transformed meter reading from a mundane, labor-
intensive task requiring significant man-hours.
The read systems in the two cities are apparently compatible; however, the City of Muskegon’s
system is much more efficient in regard to reading ability. The North Muskegon system requires
the laborer to walk down the target street to receive the read signal. In contrast the Muskegon
system can apparently record a large number of reads from one remote location.
In this situation it would be reasonable to have Muskegon take responsibility for meter reading
and also possibly maintain the accounts for billing purposes. The City of North Muskegon
would still be required to perform re-reads and other special tasks as well as read the meters in
those portions of the City where radio read has not yet been instituted.
In regard to cost savings, the meter reading function is a shared activity among the four Public
Works employees in North Muskegon. Similarly, water billing is only one function of a one-
person Treasury Department with some desk assistance. Consequently, staff reductions could
not be anticipated from the outsourcing of meter reading and billing. However, the City of North
Muskegon is a very lean and efficient operation. In this regard, the hours saved by outsourcing
could be put to good use on other tasks. This presumes that an acceptable service contract could
be negotiated with the City of Muskegon.
Muskegon County Road Commission (MCRC)
MCRC is the conduit for a number of cooperative endeavors, primarily related to mass
purchasing. Both county-wide road striping and traffic signal maintenance contracts are bid
through MCRC, and a number of the municipalities “piggy back” for road salt purchase, sign
materials and plow blades. In regard to services, MCRC has provided chip sealing for the Cities
of Norton Shores and North Muskegon, among others.
For construction purposes, MCRC maintains a licensed survey crew. MCRC can justify this
resource through its construction workload in summer and design activities in winter. However,
with less construction activity, there may be workload capacity that could be outsourced to
others. Related to this, reasonable cost parameters would need to be established for survey and
construction inspection work if these services were to be provided to other Muskegon County
governments. The private sector can be expected to be competitive in offering a cost-efficient
III - 34
alternative. However, if a reasonable cost can be established, this is a viable shared-service that
could benefit both MCRC and the user municipalities.
The City of Muskegon
The City of Muskegon has four Engineering Technicians and a vacant Assistant Engineer
position. Additionally, the Director of Public Works is a licensed Professional Engineer. The
Muskegon DPW has reportedly provided engineering services in the past to the Cities of Norton
Shores, Roosevelt Park and Muskegon Heights related to design and construction.
As mentioned, the demand for engineering services can be cyclical and also vary between
seasons. In this sense, it can be challenging to maintain employees at peak productivity levels.
The City of Muskegon has an excellent track record in identifying opportunities to market its
excess resource capacity to others. Engineering services could be a prime area for a broader
application of shared-services – presuming the market price is competitive.
Issues Pertaining to Inspection Services
In conducting the study, we heard repeatedly that a consolidated building department should be
considered as a potential target for shared-services. The suggested approach for this arrangement
would be a centralized service that would be operated through Muskegon County. Grand
Traverse County has a model of this type – serving many local jurisdictions with construction
plan review, permitting and inspection services encompassing building, electrical, mechanical
and plumbing.
With the housing market collapse, new construction has declined markedly across the state. In
this situation, many building departments have experienced cutbacks. Other municipalities have
retained staff to be used for code enforcement, rental unit inspections or other duties. Simply
put, it is not a good point-in-time to be considering the formation of a large-scale building
department.
From the County’s perspective there could also be financial risk. PA 230 of 1972 requires public
entities to account for revenues earmarked for building construction activities. The intent of this
and later legislation is to guarantee that revenues do not exceed operating costs. In turn, permit
fees must be limited to a level that assures that undue excesses do not occur. Consequently, from
the County’s perspective there is limited upside potential to consolidating this service and the
potential downside of continued economic stagnation and corresponding operating losses.
In fact, the majority of the studies municipalities contract for this service with the private sector.
This is illustrated in Exhibit 30.
III - 35
Exhibit 30
Building Inspection Arrangements
Building Inspection and Construction Trades:
Community In-house or Outsourced
Muskegon All trades in-house
North Muskegon Contract
Roosevelt Park Contract
Norton Shores One inspector in house, trades are contracted
Fruitport Contract
Whitehall Contract
Montague Contract through Board
Note: Data not available for City of Muskegon Heights and Muskegon Charter Township
Source: Applicable municipalities
Under the contracts, the inspectors are self-employed and receive a percentage of the inspection
or plan review fee. If activity declines (as has been the case) the impact to the community is
limited to the loss of its portion of the inspection fee. This makes a strong case for retaining the
current system.
Another area of inspection activity focuses on rental properties. The City of Muskegon has a
rental inspection program – a proven tool for maintaining minimum standards, identifying
substandard housing and stabilizing neighborhoods. The City of Norton Shores has no rental
inspection program despite the presence of a fairly significant number of rental units (i.e. 4,200).
With a full-time building and trades inspection contingent as well as rental inspectors, the City of
Muskegon could have the workload capacity to service the City of Norton Shores under contract.
Though unpopular with landlords, a rental inspection fee could be used to finance the contract
services received. A rental inspection ordinance would be required to implement an associated
program.
D. CENTRAL SERVICES
Central services can be defined in a number of ways. For our purposes, it refers to those services
provided by internal operations or administered from a central perspective.
As seen in Appendix A, a number of central services are currently consolidated through the
County – available to municipalities who wish to enter into contract. As examples, Muskegon
County Equalization performs assessment services for four of the nine studied communities and
five additional townships. Geographic Information Services (GIS) are provided to five of the
nine studied communities. The County also serves as the bonding agent for the municipalities in
securing debt issues.
In regard to other central services, there are constraints that should be noted. Specifically:
Automated systems and capabilities differ between the communities. As discussed in the
following pages, these differences limit the ability to consolidate some central services.
III - 36
The "payback" may be limited for other services. In the smaller communities, payroll,
tax collection and other financial duties are handled by very limited numbers of staff. In
some cases, overflow work is absorbed by inexpensive part-time help. In these cases,
very nominal cost savings, if any, would be achieved. Moreover, some duties may be
removed from a productive position that will still be required. The City of North
Muskegon is a good example of this. The Treasurer would still be required even if some
nominal duties were removed. In its present form, it is a highly productive position.
For the larger cities, differences in benefit costs and pension obligation have derailed
previous attempts to consider consolidation of tax billing or other standard processes.
Several cities cited the high cost of County workers as an effective deterrent to
consolidating these services through the County.
Essentially, there are limitations on what can be realistically achieved through central services
consolidation. Our discussion seeks to illustrate this point as well as identify areas where
meaningful cost or service advantages can be realized. Toward this end, we have divided the
discussion into the following subsections:
Information technology and phones
Joint purchasing
Geographic Information System (GIS)
Combined income tax administration.
Each is discussed separately below.
Information Technology and Phones
At present, each of the seven municipalities participating in the study has a separate phone
system. In regard to information technology (IT), Exhibit 31 illustrates the methods used for IT
support.
Exhibit 31
Information Technology
General Ledger Information Technology
Community Software Support
Muskegon Harris/GEMS In-house
North Muskegon BS&A From Muskegon
Roosevelt Park BS&A Contractor
Norton Shores Fund Balance Contractor
Fruitport BS&A Contractor
Whitehall BS&A Contractor
Montague BS&A Contractor
Note: Data not available for City of Muskegon Heights and Muskegon Township
Source: Applicable municipalities
As seen in the exhibit, all communities except for the City of Muskegon contract for this service.
The City of Muskegon has an in-house staff of three and provides IT support to the City of North
III - 37
Muskegon. This has been set up remotely to provide system back-up and help desk assistance.
Web publishing assistance is also provided. The negotiated cost is $85 per hour. The spirit of
the agreement has been to empower system users and act in a support role only. Site visits are
used only as a last resort.
Muskegon County also has an IT operation serving the various County departments. The County
has discussed providing services to others, but has not taken any action. In fact, any large scale
initiative by either the County or City of Muskegon would be dependent on the availability of a
reliable conduit (fiber or some form of wide area network connection). This type of connectivity
does not currently exist on a consistent large-scale basis. Lacking a good conduit, shared-
services from one location (for data hosting) could not be maintained on a remote basis. Support
calls would require a "tech in a truck" to go from one location to another – an ineffective
solution.
As a result, the consolidation of IT services can only be seen as a long-range future objective. A
good starting point would be the inventory of existing fiber in the County. Essentially,
determine where it is, how far it would need to run to connect offices and decide if a network is
practical.
The consolidation of telephone systems may be a more practical objective. During our
evaluation we were approached by a representative of Star2Star Communications, a company
that promotes using a location's internet connection to provide a full featured system that
connects telephones within an organization as well as connecting it to the public-switched
telephone system. Essentially, phone lines become a pooled resource within the system.
A system of this type could potentially be used to provide consolidated phone service for
communities in Muskegon County. Reportedly, a number of large organizations with multiple
sites are using the system, including the U.S. Postal Service. The State of Michigan is also
investigating the service. Should the municipalities wish to consider this option, logical first
steps would be to research the issue, meet with credible service vendors, identify potential cost
savings and ultimately issue a request for proposals.
Joint Purchasing
At present, Muskegon's local governments coordinate and/or take advantage of a myriad of joint
purchasing opportunities. These include:
Utilizing the State bid process for purchase of vehicles and other listed commodities
(MIDEAL).
Similarly, taking advantage of joint purchasing opportunities through Oakland County's
bid process or bids organized through Muskegon County or the Muskegon County Road
Commission.
Working cooperatively between governments or professional associations (such as fire)
to consolidate bids and purchases.
III - 38
The obvious objective is to lower the unit price of a purchase by increasing quantity. The
studied communities appear to be utilizing every available option to achieve this objective.
The next logical step would be the centralization of the purchasing function – ideally through
Muskegon County. This could be an expensive process to initiate and implement, consequently
it has never gotten beyond the discussion stage.
However, Kent County has implemented a purchasing model that Muskegon County could use to
begin the centralization of the purchasing function. Known as a "reverse auction system", this
purchasing model consolidates desired item quantities from the various municipalities for an "E-
Bay style" bidding process among registered bidders. The system has been in place since
August, 2009 and more than 650 auctions have been conducted since that time. To date,
auctions have encompassed office supplies and equipment, electronics, furniture and some
vehicles. All County departments use the system as well as twelve communities.
Kent County reports the auction process as easy to implement and efficient to conduct. Rather
than adding staff, it has allowed for staff-time reductions. Savings have been significant with
smaller communities initially realizing cost savings of 40% on average. The County and larger
communities realized initial savings of approximately 15%. Over time, prices have been driven
down, with minimum bids (as set by the County) reduced correspondingly. Shipping and
accounts receivable are handled by the individual municipalities – not through the County.
Summarily, the reverse auction system would provide Muskegon County with an additional
"tool" for mass purchasing. It may also be a further step toward a truly centralized purchasing
function. A field trip to Kent County to view and discuss the system is suggested.
Geographic Information System
A Geographic Information System (GIS) is a software program that can be used to capture, store,
analyze and present data that is linked to location. Essentially, it is an automated mapping
system. For local government, a GIS project typically begins with a digital aerial photo on
which roads and property boundaries can be determined. Overlay maps can then be created for
virtually every municipal function, using location as the constant. Infrastructure maps, showing
the location of in-ground utilities are a typical objective – but data can also be collected and
analyzed for other municipal services ranging from police calls-for-service to forestry
inventories and workload planning.
With the ever expanding capabilities and applications of GIS, many municipalities and counties
are working diligently to implement these systems. However, in Muskegon County, GIS is still
in the developmental stage.
Muskegon County has taken the initiative to coordinate the GIS effort. The GIS data is centrally
hosted and municipalities can purchase a basic level of service contract. The contract provides
for digital formatting and zoning, land use and specific project mapping. At present, 17 of the 27
municipalities participate. Among the nine studied communities, five participants participate,
including the Cities of Muskegon, Norton Shores, Montague and Whitehall, and Muskegon
III - 39
Township. Reportedly, the City of Whitehall has made significant progress in the mapping of
infrastructure, supported by the service. Others also report positive results.
Ideally, all communities would participate. Annual fees for the four non-participating
municipalities included in this study range from roughly $1,500-$6,000. Ultimately, all
municipalities will have, and depend on GIS applications. A coordinated effort in Muskegon
County will hasten this process and should be a primary objective of all local governments.
Combined Income Tax Administration
Of the nine communities targeted for this study, two have a local income tax: The Cities of
Muskegon and Muskegon Heights. The cities are among 18 communities state-wide that levy an
income tax. The tax rates are 1% for residents and 0.5% for non-residents employed in the City.
The City of Muskegon Heights was not a participant in this study, consequently our knowledge
of administrative operations is very limited. Regarding income tax administration we have
learned or presume the following:
Income tax is administered by one employee.
The City budgeted for $1,100,000 in income tax revenue for FY 2009 (the last audited
fiscal year).
$806,971 was collected or 73.4% of the budgeted amount in FY 2009.
We are not privy to the specifics of the budget process in the City of Muskegon Heights, and in
turn, cannot evaluate the accuracy of the budgeted income tax total. However, a collection rate
of 73.4% should be a cause of some concern. With only one employee involved in income tax
administration, it is conceivable that some tax dollars are being lost from lack of income tax
planning and enforcement.
In contrast, the City of Muskegon has a staff of five in the income tax division including an
Income Tax Auditor. Income tax collections totaled $6,482,290 in FY 2009, a 4.5% positive
variance from the budgeted amount.
Related to the above, this would appear to be an ideal situation for a service contract in which the
City of Muskegon would administer the income tax function for the City of Muskegon Heights.
With increased focus on withholding, collection and compliance, revenues would likely increase.
The result could be a situation in which each City gains.
E. WATER PRODUCTION
Water facilities, water contracts and water rates have been ongoing topics of discussion, and in
some cases litigation among the Muskegon area communities. This is not uncommon for water
services in Michigan – relationships between water providers and wholesale customers can easily
be strained by rate increases, representation or other matters that affect cost and service.
III - 40
Presently, there are four municipal water production facilities utilized by the nine studied
communities. These are owned and operated by the following:
City of Muskegon, serving:
- City of Roosevelt Park
- City of North Muskegon
- Muskegon Charter Township (portion south of Muskegon River)
- County Northside System (includes portions of Dalton Township, Laketon
Township, Fruitland Township and Muskegon Charter Township)
City of Muskegon Heights, serving:
- City of Norton Shores
- Fruitport Township
City of Montague
City of Whitehall.
While there is the opportunity and much desire for service sharing or consolidation in the water
area, it is important to note that developing an optimal arrangement will be complex, due to a
number of factors that include engineering requirements, legal matters and financial
considerations. Within the context of these limitations, we have summarized several options for
shared water service arrangements, and noted the potential benefits and challenges of each
option. These are discussed in the following pages.
The Cities of Montague and Whitehall have stated they have no interest or need to engage in
discussion of water consolidation, as they believe their current municipal water systems are
sufficient to meet the needs of their communities. Additionally, they believe the cost of water to
their customers would increase substantially if they moved to a more regional water delivery
approach, given the distance from the other water production facilities in Muskegon and
Muskegon Heights. For these reasons, we have not included Montague and Whitehall in our
evaluation of water consolidation and shared-service options.
Current Water Production Facilities
Prior to any discussion on water services consolidation, it is important to understand the current
and expected future water capacity needs of the area. At the present time, the Muskegon and
Muskegon Heights plants reportedly have a combined capacity of 65 million gallons per day
(MGD). The design capacities of each plant are presented in the table below. The combined peak
daily flow requirement for the communities served by both plants is just less than 35 MGD,
while average daily flow is about 16 MGD.
Plant Average Peak Daily
Capacity Daily Flow Flow (MGD)
(MGD) (MGD)
40.0 9.3 20.8
Muskegon
25.2 6.3 14.0
Muskegon Heights
Totals 65.2 15.9 34.8
III - 41
The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission estimates population growth
countywide could increase by 12.5% between 2010 and 2035. Should the rate of water
consumption mirror the population forecast, peak daily flow for the communities currently
served by the Muskegon and Muskegon Heights water plants could reach 40 MGD in 25 years.
Further, the addition of any major commercial and industrial users could significantly increase
daily flow. In contrast, the loss of a major customer, water saving technologies or a change in
individual usage patterns could result in a reduction in daily flow. Summarily, we cannot predict
if both plants would be needed to service future need and what capacity upgrades are possible or
realistic.
Should the communities decide to explore a more regional water system, there may be benefits to
having two separate production facilities, including redundancy and easily expandable
production capabilities. Conversely, a significant downside of operating two water plants would
be the higher costs associated with maintaining the two plants, rather than one, for the region.
Current Water Rates
The City of Muskegon’s rate structure is currently comprised of three separate commodity rates:
In-city customers: $1.872/1,000 gallons
Wholesale rate to Roosevelt Park, Muskegon Charter Township and North Muskegon:
$2.527/1,000 gallons
Wholesale rate to County Northside system: $2.340/1,000 gallons.
The City of Muskegon Heights also charges a separate rate for in-city customers and wholesale
customers:
In-city customers: $1.42/1,000 gallons
Wholesale rate to Norton Shores and Fruitport Township: $1.775/1,000 gallons
It should be noted that it is not uncommon to see different rates for wholesale customers, due to
the individual needs and contractual arrangements of each wholesale community.
In addition to the above commodity rates, each customer community also charges customers for
debt service and distribution costs. These costs can vary substantially between communities,
depending on customer base, design and age of system, size and geography of distribution area,
water storage needs, and other factors, and in turn, add substantially to the customer rate. As an
example, Norton Shores and Fruitport Township both have significant debt resulting from the
upgrade of the Muskegon Heights facility – these costs add significantly to the cost of water.
The variation in wholesale rates among the communities in the region could be reduced with a
shared services arrangement. The degree of rate equalization possible would depend on the
service sharing arrangement implemented.
III - 42
Options Related to Shared Water Service for the Muskegon Area
There are multiple options for water service consolidation or service-sharing in the Muskegon
area. We have provided information on five of these options below. First, an outline of the
requirements and potential outcomes is presented. Secondly, Exhibits 32-34 summarize the
impacts on each community. As noted, this is a very preliminary evaluation, intended to capture
and summarize information that can be used to guide future decision-making. Specific options
for water service include the following:
1. Create a New Water Authority Consisting of All Communities Currently Served by
the Muskegon and Muskegon Heights Systems
Will require time to implement:
- Need to determine the enabling legislation under which the authority would be
created (there are several options, each with its own benefits and limitations)
- The assets of the different utilities would have to be appraised
- Articles of incorporation and bylaws would have to be drafted, revised and
approved by all member communities
- Governance/voting power issues could require time to negotiate
- Financing would have to be arranged.
Initial costs could be higher than a system owned by an existing municipality:
- Debt costs would be higher (no bond rating/experience of the authority)
- Operational inefficiencies are common in newly formed organizations.
Would need to determine if the Muskegon Heights plant continues operation.
Financial and legal analyses would be required to determine feasibility of selling
water plant(s) to a regional authority:
- Some bond/grant provisions may restrict ability to transfer ownership of the plant
- See notes below regarding existing debt on the Muskegon Heights plant.
2. Create a New Water Authority Consisting of Muskegon Heights, Norton Shores and
Fruitport Township
As with Option 1, requires time to implement and could face political roadblocks on
various issues.
Significantly less costly option than building a new plant to serve Norton Shores and
Fruitport Township.
Could provide a cash infusion to Muskegon Heights, amount depending on the net
asset value of the plant.
Financing costs could potentially be higher, given the lack of bond rating of the
authority.
III - 43
Financial and legal analyses could be required to determine feasibility of selling water
plant to a regional authority
- Some bond/grant provisions may restrict ability to transfer ownership of the plant
- See notes below regarding existing debt on the Muskegon Heights plant.
Fruitport Township and Norton Shores have formed the West Michigan Regional
Water Authority in an attempt to look at this option as the potential water source of
the future.
3. County Purchases and Operates both Muskegon and Muskegon Heights Plants
Authorized under County Public Improvements Act (similar arrangement to the
Muskegon County wastewater utility).
Potential cash infusion for Muskegon and Muskegon Heights.
See notes below regarding existing debt on the Muskegon Heights plant.
Muskegon Heights plant may not be required to meet water demand, which calls into
question its economic value in this option.
Financial and legal analyses would be required to determine feasibility of selling
water plant(s) to the County:
- Some bond/grant provisions may restrict ability to transfer ownership of the plant
- See notes below regarding existing debt on the Muskegon Heights plant.
4. City of Muskegon Expands Distribution to Include Muskegon Heights, Norton
Shores and Fruitport Township
Muskegon plant may have sufficient capacity to serve expanded customer base.
Muskegon Heights water plant may or may not be required to meet capacity needs:
- Potential for Muskegon Heights to sell asset/land, which could benefit General
Fund.
Of all options, this may be the most expedient, since no new authority would need to
be created, and there would be no change in ownership of either water plant.
Operational efficiencies could be achieved:
- Marginal operating costs of serving larger area would likely be minimal
- Reduces redundancies associated with operating two separate systems
- Fixed costs spread over larger customer base.
Current Muskegon wholesale customers could see a reduced wholesale rate, due to
larger customer base over which to spread costs.
III - 44
Further considerations required:
- Determination of role of wholesale customers in influencing operating and
financial decisions
- Engineering study to determine:
Capacity of Muskegon plant to ensure sufficiency of meeting maximum
day and maximum hour water needs of enlarged service area
Required changes to connect Muskegon system with Muskegon Heights
and Norton Shores/Fruitport Township systems
Necessary changes to water storage capacity to meet volume and pressure
requirements
Additional pumping power required to provide sufficient pressure to
expanded service area
Costs associated with expanding service area (both capital and operating
costs)
- Resolution of Muskegon Heights water revenue bonds
- Clarification of disposition of Muskegon Heights’ water plant assets
- Rate analysis
Revised retail and wholesale rates
Updated rate methodology
- Development of clearly defined utility financial policies.
The City of Muskegon has expressed an interest in working with its existing
wholesale customers, as well as Muskegon Heights, Norton Shores and Fruitport
Township, to identify potential terms which could result in rates comparable to or
lower than what each of these customers currently pays.
5. Norton Shores and Fruitport Terminate Agreement with Muskegon Heights and
Construct a New Water Plant to Service These Communities
Most costly of any of the options being considered (2010 engineering study suggests
construction costs could exceed $51 million).
Norton Shores and Fruitport Township would see an increase in control of water plant
operations and capital expenditures. The future impact on rates will require further
analysis.
Requires a four-year notice of termination of Muskegon Heights water service
agreement (termination notice has been submitted by Fruitport Township). Related to
the impending contract termination, Norton Shores and Fruitport Township have
created the West Michigan Regional Water Authority, and established a framework
“to acquire, own, improve, enlarge, extend, and operate a water supply system.” The
authority could also elect to purchase water from the City of Muskegon, in lieu of
constructing a new plant.
Adds unnecessary production capacity to the region, at significant cost.
III - 45
Customers in Norton Shores and Fruitport Township could see increases in rates to
fund water production, due to construction costs of new plant, and debt settlement
costs with Muskegon Heights (Note: the 2010 Prein & Newhof Water Supply
Alternative Study did not include debt settlement costs associated with the Muskegon
Heights plant in their comparison of potential rates under the four alternatives
presented – this would be an additional cost.).
The cost of water to Muskegon Heights customers could increase substantially, due to
the increase in fixed costs that must be recovered from a smaller customer base.
Muskegon Heights plant would likely become financially unsustainable with loss of
Norton Shores and Fruitport.
Environmental impact of a new water plant may not be justifiable, given capacity
available in the region.
Notes related to Muskegon Heights existing debt and water services agreement:
Existing debt on Muskegon Heights plant/system would need to be addressed before undertaking any change in wholesale
customers, ownership or ceasing plant operations. Specifically:
Existing bonds were issued as water system revenue bonds (assumes Muskegon Heights has a water system
through which it can recover debt costs).
A cost sharing agreement is in place between Muskegon Heights, Norton Shores and Fruitport Township ,
governing each community’s financial obligation for the bond payments.
If original water services agreement is terminated, there is a requirement that “Norton Shores and Fruitport
Township agree to make payments to Muskegon Heights sufficient to service their portion of the debt”.
An amendment to the agreement provides further clarification and requirements in the event of termination:
“Norton Shores and Fruitport each agree as a condition of termination to make a termination payment to
Muskegon Heights in an amount equal to (i) all its unpaid water bills… plus (ii) the then present value of its
portion of the remaining debt”.
Norton Shores and Fruitport are required to give four years notice of intent to terminate.
Simply put, a change in the water service agreement would result in a defeasance of the bonds. The first
opportunity to call the bonds appears to be 11/1/2015.
The following exhibits 32-34 summarize the above discussion in the following manner:
Exhibit 32: Summary of Potential Financial Impacts for each Community
Exhibit 33: Summary of Capacity Impacts for each Community
Exhibit 34: Summary of Potential Impacts on Community Control for each
Community
In regard to color coding:
Green indicates an improved position for the particular community
Yellow indicates no real change from status quo
III - 46
Lighter red indicates the potential for some negative impact
Red indicates the potential for a negative impact for the community.
III - 47
Exhibit 32
Water Plant Ownership/Operations Arrangement Options
Summary of Potential Financial Impacts of
Each Option, By Affected Community
Create a New Water
Authority Consisting Create a New Water
of All Communities Authority County Purchases City of Muskegon Norton Shores and
Options Currently Served by Consisting of and Operates both Expands Distribution Fruitport Construct
Financial Muskegon and Muskegon Heights, Muskegon and to Include Muskegon a New Water Plant
Impacts on Muskegon Heights Norton Shores and Muskegon Heights Heights, Norton to Service These
Systems Fruitport Plants Shores and Fruitport Communities
Communities
Costs may be higher if Cost of water treatment Cost of water may be Some increased costs Significant costs of new
Authority owns & & debt could remain higher if County owns & associated with construction & settling
Fruitport
operates 2 water plants close to current levels operates 2 water plants connection to Muskegon portion of MH plant debt
May realize a financial May realize a financial
Could be fiscally neutral
gain from sale of water Not included in option gain from sale of water Not included in option
Muskegon
for City
plant to authority plant to County
Should be structured to
Not included in option Not included in option be fiscally neutral for Not included in option Not included in option
Muskegon County
County
Significant loss of
May realize a financial May realize a financial May realize a financial Retains water plant
customer base,
gain from sale of water gain from sale of water gain from sale of water assets/property. Could
Muskegon Heights
resulting in large
plant to authority plant to authority plant to County be sold to pay off debt
increase in rates
Costs may be higher if Cost of water may be Potential for reduced
Muskegon
Authority owns & Not included in option higher if County owns & wholesale rate, due to Not included in option
Township operates 2 water plants operates 2 water plants larger customer base
Costs may be higher if Cost of water may be Potential for reduced
Authority owns & Not included in option higher if County owns & wholesale rate, due to Not included in option
North Muskegon
operates 2 water plants operates 2 water plants larger customer base
Costs may be higher if Cost of water may be Potential for reduced
Authority owns & Not included in option higher if County owns & wholesale rate, due to Not included in option
Northside System
operates 2 water plants operates 2 water plants larger customer base
Costs may be higher if Cost of water treatment Cost of water may be Some increased costs Significant costs of new
Authority owns & & debt could remain higher if County owns & associated with construction & settling
Norton Shores
operates 2 water plants close to current levels operates 2 water plants connection to Muskegon portion of MH plant debt
Costs may be higher if Cost of water may be Potential for reduced
Authority owns & Not included in option higher if County owns & wholesale rate, due to Not included in option
Roosevelt Park
operates 2 water plants operates 2 water plants larger customer base
III - 48
Exhibit 33
Water Plant Ownership/Operations Arrangement Options
Summary of Potential Capacity Impacts of
Each Option, By Affected Community
Create a New Water
Authority Consisting
of All Communities Create a New Water County Purchases and City of Muskegon Norton Shores and
Options
Currently Served by Authority Consisting Operates both Expands Distribution Fruitport Construct
Capacity
Muskegon and of Muskegon Heights, Muskegon and to Include Muskegon a New Water Plant
Impacts on
Muskegon Heights Norton Shores and Muskegon Heights Heights, Norton to Service These
Communities Systems Fruitport Plants Shores and Fruitport Communities
MH plant may be forced No change to production No change to production MH plant would be put MH plant may be forced
to shut down. New plant capacity with ownership capacity if County keeps offline, unless capacity to shut down. New plant
Fruitport
lower capacity change in plant both plants in operation study indicates need lower capacity
MH plant may be forced No change to production No change to production MH plant would be put MH plant may be forced
to shut down. New plant capacity with ownership capacity if County keeps offline, unless capacity to shut down. New plant
Muskegon
lower capacity change in plant both plants in operation study indicates need lower capacity
MH plant may be forced No change to production No change to production MH plant would be put MH plant may be forced
to shut down. New plant capacity with ownership capacity if County keeps offline, unless capacity to shut down. New plant
Muskegon County
lower capacity change in plant both plants in operation study indicates need lower capacity
MH plant may be forced No change to production No change to production MH plant would be put MH plant may be forced
to shut down. New plant capacity with ownership capacity if County keeps offline, unless capacity to shut down. New plant
Muskegon Heights
lower capacity change in plant both plants in operation study indicates need lower capacity
MH plant may be forced No change to production No change to production MH plant would be put MH plant may be forced
Muskegon
to shut down. New plant capacity with ownership capacity if County keeps offline, unless capacity to shut down. New plant
Township lower capacity change in plant both plants in operation study indicates need lower capacity
MH plant may be forced No change to production No change to production MH plant would be put MH plant may be forced
to shut down. New plant capacity with ownership capacity if County keeps offline, unless capacity to shut down. New plant
North Muskegon
lower capacity change in plant both plants in operation study indicates need lower capacity
MH plant may be forced No change to production No change to production MH plant would be put MH plant may be forced
to shut down. New plant capacity with ownership capacity if County keeps offline, unless capacity to shut down. New plant
Northside System
lower capacity change in plant both plants in operation study indicates need lower capacity
MH plant may be forced No change to production No change to production MH plant would be put MH plant may be forced
to shut down. New plant capacity with ownership capacity if County keeps offline, unless capacity to shut down. New plant
Norton Shores
lower capacity change in plant both plants in operation study indicates need lower capacity
MH plant may be forced No change to production No change to production MH plant would be put MH plant may be forced
to shut down. New plant capacity with ownership capacity if County keeps offline, unless capacity to shut down. New plant
Roosevelt Park
lower capacity change in plant both plants in operation study indicates need lower capacity
III - 49
Exhibit 34
Water Plant Ownership/Operations Arrangement Options
Summary of Potential Impacts on Community Control Under
Each Option, By Affected Community
Create a New Water City of Muskegon
Authority Consisting Create a New Water Expands
of All Communities Authority County Purchases Distribution to Norton Shores and
Options Currently Served by Consisting of and Operates both Include Muskegon Fruitport Construct
Degree of Muskegon and Muskegon Heights, Muskegon and Heights, Norton a New Water Plant
Control in Each Muskegon Heights Norton Shores and Muskegon Heights Shores and to Service These
Systems Fruitport Plants Fruitport Communities
Community
Greater control & Greater control &
Greater control & No change under this No change under this
decision making decision making
Fruitport
decision making authority option option
authority authority
Lower degree of control Expands control of
No change under this Loss of control of asset No change under this
& decision making water production in
Muskegon
option and operations option
authority region
Gains ownership and
No change under this No change under this control of regional No change under this No change under this
Muskegon County option option water production option option
services
Lower degree of control Lower degree of control
Loss of control of asset Loss of control of asset Loss of control of asset
& decision making & decision making
Muskegon Heights and operations and operations and operations
authority authority
Muskegon Greater control & No change under this No change under this No change under this No change under this
decision making authority option option option option
Township
No change under this
Greater control & No change under this No change under this No change under this
option
North Muskegon
decision making authority option option option
No change under this
Greater control & No change under this No change under this No change under this
option
Northside System
decision making authority option option option
Greater control & Greater control &
Greater control & No change under this No change under this
decision making decision making
Norton Shores
decision making authority option option
authority authority
Greater control & No change under this No change under this No change under this No change under this
Roosevelt Park
decision making authority option option option option
III - 50
Summary and Conclusion
Cooperative efforts related to water services (and other utilities) are not uncommon in the
Muskegon area. Existing arrangements demonstrate the feasibility of sharing this vital municipal
service among neighboring communities. Some examples of service sharing include:
The City of Norton Shores and Fruitport Township jointly own and operate an elevated
storage tank, which serves both communities.
While Muskegon Heights retains ownership and operating discretion of its water plant,
Norton Shores and Fruitport Township have a voice in some decisions, as outlined in the
1997 water service agreement between the three communities. The current disagreements
between Muskegon Heights and its wholesale customers demonstrate the challenges that
can arise from disproportionate representation in such a significant service area.
Norton Shores and Fruitport Township have recently formed a new water authority,
establishing a potential framework for future shared municipal water services in the
region. These municipalities hope to attract other communities to join in this cooperative
effort.
The Northside Water System and Eastside Water System are cooperative efforts between
Muskegon County and Dalton Township, Laketon Township, Fruitland Township and
Muskegon Charter Township, in which the County owns and operates the transmission
and distribution lines, and is responsible for all debt issuance and repayment.
Muskegon County also owns and operates the regional wastewater collection and
treatment facility, which has been a successful example of shared municipal services for
nearly 40 years.
Given these and other shared-service arrangements in the region, it would seem likely that an
arrangement could be agreed-upon for regional water provision. As noted earlier, there are
significant engineering, financial and legal issues that must first be addressed before a successful
operating and governance structure could be concluded. Despite these challenges, it is our
conclusion that there appears to be sufficient evidence to suggest that combining water services
in the Muskegon area as opposed to continuing the current arrangements is a direction that
should be explored. Option 4, (i.e. City of Muskegon expands distribution to include Muskegon
Heights, Norton Shores and Fruitport Township) is the least encumbered alternative and, as such,
would provide a logical starting point.
* * * * *
In the following Section IV we present an overview of the suggestions for shared-service targets
summarized in matrix form.
III - 51
SECTION IV
SUMMARY OF SHARED-SERVICE TARGETS
SECTION IV
SUMMARY OF SHARED-SERVICE TARGETS
In this section of the report, we summarize shared-services opportunities identified and discussed
in the previous section. As discussed, some opportunities may be more readily achieved. Others
will require an incremental approach and some may be found to have limited value and will be
discarded. In all cases, our suggestions are presented as a “starting point” to facilitate additional
analysis and evaluation and provide a framework for the Community Service Improvement Plan.
Within this context, our nineteen suggested targets for shared-services are summarized in the
following Table A.
IV - 1
Table A
Summary of Shared-Services Targets
Main
Potential Shared-Service - Opportunity Municipalities or Departments Affected Reference
Page
Fire Contract-for-Services Muskegon Heights contracts fire services to Muskegon or Norton Shores III-10
Ladder Truck Joint Purchase/Deployment Muskegon-Area Fire Departments determine location and specifics III-11
Police and Fire Training Facility All county-wide police and fire agencies utilize - funding must be determined III-12
Police Contract-for-Services Roosevelt Park contracts police services to Norton Shores III-20
Police Contract-for-Services Muskegon Heights contracts police services to Muskegon or Muskegon County III-21
Collaborative Community Policing Muskegon Heights collaborates on community policing with Muskegon III-23
Police Authority Montague and Whitehall form a police authority III-23
Solid Waste Authority All or most communities form a solid waste authority III-28
Public Works Contract-for-Services Roosevelt Park contracts remaining public works operations to Muskegon III-30
Combined Public Works Operations Montague and Whitehall incrementally combine public works operations III-32
Contract for Meter Reading and Billing North Muskegon contracts water meter reading and billing to Muskegon III-34
Contract for Survey Services Muskegon County Road Commission contracts survey services to others on demand III-34
Contract for Engineering Services Muskegon contracts engineering services to others on demand III-35
Contract for Rental Inspections Norton Shores contracts with Muskegon for rental inspections III-36
Consolidated Telecommunications Muskegon area communities combine phone systems III-37
Centralized Purchasing Muskegon County institutes Reverse Auction purchasing process for all communities III-38
Centralized Geographic Information System Ten non-participating communities join County's GIS initiative III-39
Contract for Income Tax Administration Muskegon Heights contracts with Muskegon for income tax administration III-40
One Water Production System All Muskegon area communities joined in one common water production system III-40
IV - 1
APPENDIX A
EXISTING SHARED-SERVICES
APPENDIX A-1
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF MUSKEGON
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of Provided to the City of of Muskegon to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Muskegon by: Muskegon: Municipalities: Services:
Muskegon County is bonding
agent. Also, contract for mail
and copiers and printers with
Muskegon County Muskegon County
Administration/Finance
Muskegon County Property assessment
Assessing
Quantity purchase of election
materials through County and
County-wide election notices
Elections
Trucks and road material -
consolidated bid through Road
Trucks and road material - Commission, some cooperative
consolidated bid through Road purchasing though Muskegon
Commission County
Purchasing
IT support to North Muskegon
(possibly Dalton Township and Hardware shared with
City of Whitehall in the future) Muskegon County
Information Technology
GIS mapping and related
Muskegon County services
GIS
Muskegon Area First, West
Michigan Shoreline Regional
Development Commission Economic development services
Economic Development
Provide CDBG administration
Community
for Norton Shores
Development/Planning
County-wide mutual aid
Fire services
West Michigan Enforcement
Install and inspect firing Team, Muskegon Cold Case
Use County Prosecutor for civil mechanisms for Muskegon Team, West Michigan Criminal
Muskegon County violations Township Justice Training Consortium
Police services
Police, fire and other emergency
Central Dispatch Authority dispatch services
911- Dispatch
A-1
APPENDIX A-1 (CONT’D)
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF MUSKEGON
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of Provided to the City of of Muskegon to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Muskegon by: Muskegon: Municipalities: Services:
BLS and ALS response and
PROMED medical transport
Ambulance services
Design and survey work to
Norton Shores, Roosevelt Park,
Engineering and survey
North Muskegon
services
Muskegon County Road Road Commission provides Trunk line maintenance to State "Piggybacks" on Norton Shores
Commission various road repair services of Michigan snow plow blade purchases
Road repair
Muskegon County Road Road Commission coordinates
Commission county-wide bid
Traffic signals
Service to Roosevelt Park,
Fruitport Township, Laketon
Vactor and sewer
Township
jetting
Service to Muskegon Township,
Roosevelt Park, possibly
Muskegon Heights in 2011
Crack sealing
Service to North Muskegon,
though also use private
contractor
Street sweeping
Muskegon County Road Road Commission coordinates
Commission county-wide bid
Centerline/Striping
Muskegon Township, Roosevelt
Park, Muskegon Heights
Vehicle maintenance
County facility services haulers
Landfill or transfer
Muskegon County and others
station
Household hazardous
Muskegon County County-wide program
waste program
Roosevelt Park, North
Muskegon, Northside System, Interconnect with Muskegon
Muskegon Township (south) Heights system
Water production
Muskegon Township, Northside
System, Laketon Township,
Dalton Township- also 2"+ taps
to many, and stand-by
Water distribution
emergency for Roosevelt Park
system
A-2
APPENDIX A-1 (CONT’D)
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF MUSKEGON
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of Provided to the City of of Muskegon to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Muskegon by: Muskegon: Municipalities: Services:
Roosevelt Park
Water testing
Elevated tanks and
pump house
Northside System
maintenance
On-call to North Muskegon for
major sewer back-up, sanitary
sewer repair for Muskegon
Township, sewer maintenance
for Laketon Township,
emergency service for Roosevelt
Muskegon County County-wide system Park
Wastewater processing
Provides bus service to the City West Michigan Shoreline
of Muskegon, Muskegon Regional Development
Muskegon Area Transit Heights, Roosevelt Park, Norton Commission for Transportation
Authority Shores and Muskegon Township Planning
Transportation service
Emergency management
Emergency
Muskegon County services under Act 381
Management
Joint agreement with Muskegon
County and North Muskegon to
maintain Veterans Memorial
Park
Parks and Recreation
Airport services for all local
Muskegon County communities
Airport
County-wide service at varying
service levels among
Muskegon County communities
Animal services
Source: Interviews with administration and department heads
A-3
APPENDIX A-2
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF NORTH MUSKEGON
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City of Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of North Provided to the City of North North Muskegon to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Muskegon by: Muskegon: Municipalities: Services:
Muskegon County is bonding
agent
Administration/Finance Muskegon County
Quantity purchase of election
materials through County and
County-wide election notices
Elections
Trucks and road material -
consolidated bid through Road
Commission, some cooperative
purchasing though Muskegon
County
Purchasing
IT support and website
Information
Muskegon maintenance
Technology
Muskegon Area First, West
Michigan Shoreline Regional
Economic development services
Economic Development Development Commission
County-wide mutual aid and auto
aid agreement, joint equipment
purchase and use with Muskegon
Township, as well as shared fire
inspection services.
Fire services
West Michigan Criminal Justice
Training Consortium
Police services
Police, fire and other emergency
Central Dispatch Authority dispatch services
911- Dispatch
BLS and ALS response and
PROMED medical transport
Ambulance services
Engineering and survey
Muskegon Design and survey services
services
Chip seal - also purchase sign
materials from the Road
Muskegon County Road Commission and City of Grand "Piggybacks" on Norton Shores
Commission Haven snow plow blade purchases
Road repair
Muskegon County Road Road Commission coordinates
Commission county-wide bid
Traffic signals
A-4
APPENDIX A-2 (CONT’D)
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF NORTH MUSKEGON
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City of Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of North Provided to the City of North North Muskegon to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Muskegon by: Muskegon: Municipalities: Services:
Service from Muskegon and
Muskegon and private private contractor
Street sweeping
Muskegon County Road Road Commission coordinates
Commission county-wide bid
Centerline/Striping
County facility services haulers
Landfill or transfer
Muskegon County and others
station
Household hazardous
Muskegon County County-wide program
waste program
Muskegon Wholesale water purchase
Water production
Muskegon on-call for major sewer
County-wide system back-ups
Wastewater processing Muskegon County
West Michigan Shoreline
Regional Development
Commission for Transportation
Planning
Transportation service
Emergency management services
Emergency
Muskegon County under Act 381
Management
Provides service to Muskegon and
the majority of studied
Muskegon Area District Library communities
Library
Joint agreement with Muskegon
County and Muskegon to have
Muskegon maintain Veterans
Muskegon Memorial Park
Parks and Recreation
Airport services for all local
Muskegon County communities
Airport
County-wide service at varying
Muskegon County service levels among communities
Animal services
Source: Interviews with administration and department heads
A-5
APPENDIX A-3
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF NORTON SHORES
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of Provided to the City of Norton of Norton Shores to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Norton Shores by: Shores: Municipalities: Services:
Muskegon County is bonding
Muskegon County agent
Administration/Finance
Muskegon County Property assessment
Assessing
Quantity purchase of election
materials through County and
County-wide election notices
Elections
Trucks and road material -
consolidated bid through State,
some cooperative purchasing
though Muskegon County
Purchasing
GIS mapping and related
Muskegon County services
GIS
Muskegon Area First, West
Michigan Shoreline Regional
Development Commission Economic development services
Economic Development
Community
Muskegon CDBG administration
Development/Planning
A-6
APPENDIX A-3 (CONT’D)
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF NORTON SHORES
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of Norton Provided to the City of Norton of Norton Shores to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Shores by: Shores: Municipalities: Services:
County-wide mutual aid. Also,
cooperative training with White
Lake, Dalton, Holton, Blue
Lake, Egelston, Muskegon and
Fruitport Townships, and
Muskegon Heights. Fire auto aid
to most of Fruitport and
Muskegon Heights, member of
Muskegon County Emergency
Response Team and Michigan
Full service to Roosevelt Park Region 6 Incident Management
and Muskegon Airport Team.
Fire services
West Michigan Enforcement
Team, Muskegon County
Emergency Response Team,
Muskegon County Cold Case
Team, Muskegon County
Incident Management
Assistance Team, Michigan
Region 6 Incident Management
Team and West Michigan
Airport security contract with Criminal Justice Training
Muskegon County Consortium.
Police services
Police, fire and other emergency
Central Dispatch Authority dispatch services
911- Dispatch
BLS and ALS response and
PROMED medical transport
Ambulance services
Street sweeping to Roosevelt
Park
Street sweeping
Engineering and
Muskegon Design and survey services
survey services
A-7
APPENDIX A-3 (CONT’D)
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF NORTON SHORES
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of Norton Provided to the City of Norton of Norton Shores to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Shores by: Shores: Municipalities: Services:
Allows Muskegon, North
Muskegon, County Wastewater,
Spring Lake and Ludington to
"piggyback" on snow plow
blade purchases. Montague and
Muskegon County Road Whitehall for microsurfacing
Commission Chip seal bids.
Road repair
Muskegon County Road Road Commission coordinates
Commission county-wide bid
Traffic signals
Service to Roosevelt Park
Street sweeping
Muskegon County Road Road Commission coordinates
Commission county-wide bid
Centerline/Striping
Also, Landfill Authority -
Transfer Station: Norton Shores,
County facility services haulers Muskegon Township, Eggleston
Landfill or transfer
Muskegon County and others Township
station
Household hazardous
Muskegon County County-wide program
waste program
Muskegon Heights Wholesale water purchase
Water production
Water tower shared with
Fruitport Township and joint
purchase of mains
Water distribution
Muskegon Heights Water testing
Water testing
Muskegon County County-wide system
Wastewater processing
Provides bus service to the City
of Muskegon, Muskegon West Michigan Shoreline
Heights, Roosevelt Park, Norton Regional Development
Muskegon Area Transit Shores and Muskegon Commision for Transportation
Authority Township Planning
Transportation service
Emergency management
Emergency
Muskegon County services under Act 381
Management
A-8
APPENDIX A-3 (CONT’D)
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF NORTON SHORES
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of Norton Provided to the City of Norton of Norton Shores to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Shores by: Shores: Municipalities: Services:
Provides service to Muskegon
and the majority of studied
Muskegon Area District Library communities
Library
Provide youth recreation
services to Roosevelt Park -latter
pays non-resident fee portion.
Parks and Recreation
Airport services for all local Provides deicing service to the
Muskegon County communities Airport
Airport
County-wide service at varying
service levels among
Muskegon County communities
Animal services
Source: Interviews with administration and department heads
A-9
APPENDIX A-4
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF ROOSEVELT PARK
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of Provided to the City of of Roosevelt Park to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Roosevelt Park by: Roosevelt Park: Municipalities: Services:
Muskegon County is bonding
Muskegon County agent
Administration/Finance
Muskegon County Property assessment
Assessing
Quantity purchase of election
materials through County and
County-wide election notices
Elections
Trucks and road material -
consolidated bid through Road
Commission, some cooperative
purchasing though Muskegon
County
Purchasing
Muskegon Area First, West
Michigan Shoreline Regional
Development Commission Economic development services
Economic Development
Full-service fire and emergency
Norton Shores protection
Fire services
West Michigan Criminal Justice
Training Consortium
Police services
Police, fire and other emergency
Central Dispatch Authority dispatch services
911- Dispatch
BLS and ALS response and
PROMED medical transport
Ambulance services
Engineering and survey
Muskegon
services
Muskegon County Road Road Commission coordinates
Commission county-wide bid
Traffic signals
Muskegon County Road Road Commission coordinates
Commission county-wide bid
Centerline/Striping
Muskegon Full motorized equipment repair
Vehicle maintenance
County facility services haulers
Landfill or transfer
Muskegon County and others
station
Household hazardous
Muskegon County County-wide program
waste program
A - 10
APPENDIX A-4 (CONT’D)
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF ROOSEVELT PARK
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of Provided to the City of of Roosevelt Park to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Roosevelt Park by: Roosevelt Park: Municipalities: Services:
Muskegon Wholesale water purchase
Water production
Water sampling and testing and
Muskegon stand-by utility emergency
Water testing
Muskegon provides emergency
Muskegon County County-wide system back-up service
Wastewater processing
Provides bus service to the City
of Muskegon, Muskegon West Michigan Shoreline
Heights, Roosevelt Park, Norton Regional Development
Muskegon Area Transit Shores and Muskegon Commission for Transportation
Authority Township Planning
Transportation service
Emergency management
Emergency
Muskegon County services under Act 381
Management
Provides service to Muskegon
and the majority of studied
Muskegon Area District Library communities
Library
Norton Shores Street sweeping
Street sweeping
Norton Shores provides youth
recreation services, Roosevelt
Park pays non-resident fee
portion
Parks and Recreation
Airport services for all local
Muskegon County communities
Airport
County-wide service at varying
service levels among
Muskegon County communities
Animal services
Source: Interviews with administration and department heads
A - 11
APPENDIX A-5
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY FRUITPORT TOWNSHIP
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to Fruitport Provided to Fruitport Fruitport Township to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Township by: Township: Municipalities: Services:
Muskegon County is bonding
Muskegon County agent
Administration/Finance
Quantity purchase of election
materials through County and
County-wide election notices
Elections
Trucks and road material -
consolidated bid through Road
Commission, some cooperative
purchasing though Muskegon
County
Purchasing
Muskegon Area First, West
Michigan Shoreline Regional
Development Commission Economic development services
Economic Development
County-wide mutual aid and
cooperative training with
Muskegon Township and
Provides service to Sullivan Norton Shores and fire auto aid
Township and Fruitport Village with Norton Shores
Fire services
West Michigan Criminal Justice
Service to Fruitport Village Training Consortium
Police services
Police, fire and other emergency
Central Dispatch Authority dispatch services
911- Dispatch
BLS and ALS response and
PROMED medical transport
Ambulance services
Muskegon Vactor and sewer jetting
Vactor sewer jetting
County facility services haulers
Landfill or transfer
Muskegon County and others
station
Household hazardous
Muskegon County County-wide program
waste program
Muskegon Heights Wholesale water purchase
Water production
Water tower shared with Norton
Shores and joint purchase of
mains
Water distribution
A - 12
APPENDIX A-5 (CONT’D)
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY FRUITPORT TOWNSHIP
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to Fruitport Provided to Fruitport Fruitport Township to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Township by: Township: Municipalities: Services:
Muskegon County County-wide system
Wastewater processing
West Michigan Shoreline
Regional Development
Commission for Transportation
Planning
Transportation service
Emergency management
Emergency
Muskegon County services under Act 381
Management
Provides service to Muskegon
and the majority of studied
Muskegon Area District Library communities
Library
Airport services for all local
Muskegon County communities
Airport
County-wide service at varying
service levels among
Muskegon County communities
Animal services
Source: Interviews with administration and department heads
A - 13
APPENDIX A-6
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF WHITEHALL
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of Provided to the City of of Whitehall to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Whitehall by: Whitehall: Municipalities: Services:
Muskegon County is bonding
Muskegon County agent
Administration/Finance
Muskegon County Property assessment
Assessing
Quantity purchase of election
materials through County and
County-wide election notices
Elections
Trucks and road material -
consolidated bid through Road
Commission, some cooperative
purchasing though Muskegon
County
Purchasing
GIS mapping and related
Muskegon County services
GIS
Muskegon Area First, West
Michigan Shoreline Regional Economic development
Development Commission services
Economic Development
(Includes Whitehall Township, White Lake Fire Authority is in
Fruitland Township and County-wide mutual aid
White Lake Fire Authority Whitehall) agreement
Fire services
West Michigan Criminal Justice
Training Consortium
Police services
Police, fire and other
Central Dispatch Authority emergency dispatch services
911- Dispatch
White Lake Ambulance
Authority: Muskegon County
White Lake Ambulance BLS and ALS response and Incident Management Assistance
Authority medical transport Team
Ambulance services
Joint hot patch purchase with
Montague, and paver purchase.
"Piggyback" on Norton Shores
microsurfacing bids.
Road repair
Muskegon County Road Road Commission coordinates
Commission county-wide bid
Traffic signals
Laketon Township on request
Street sweeping
A - 14
APPENDIX A-6 (CONT’D)
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF WHITEHALL
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of Provided to the City of of Whitehall to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Whitehall by: Whitehall: Municipalities: Services:
Muskegon County Road Road Commission coordinates
Commission county-wide bid
Centerline/Striping
County facility services haulers
White Lake Solid Waste and others. White Lake is a
Transfer Authority and small transfer station that can
Landfill or transfer
Muskegon County service residents.
station
Household hazardous
Muskegon County County-wide program
waste program
Shared reading equipment with
Meter reading and/or
Montague
billing
Water interconnect with
Montague
Water production
Muskegon County County-wide system
Wastewater processing
West Michigan Shoreline
Regional Development
Commission for Transportation
Planning
Transportation service
Emergency management
Emergency
Muskegon County services under Act 381
Management
White Lake Community Provides service to residents in
Library the White Lake School District
Library
Fireworks, parades, events
jointly with Montague
Parks and Recreation
White Lake Senior Center Senior services
Senior services
Airport services for all local
Muskegon County communities
Airport
County-wide service at varying
service levels among
Muskegon County communities
Animal services
Source: Interviews with administration and department heads
A - 15
APPENDIX A-7
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF MONTAGUE
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of Provided to the City of of Montague to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Montague by: Montague: Municipalities: Services:
Muskegon County is bonding
Muskegon County agent
Administration/Finance
Quantity purchase of election
materials through County and
County-wide election notices
Elections
Trucks and road material -
consolidated bid through Road
Commission, some cooperative
purchasing though Muskegon
County
Purchasing
Information
Technology
GIS mapping and related
Muskegon County services
GIS
Muskegon Area First, West
Michigan Shoreline Regional
Development Commission Economic development services
Economic Development
Joint inspection Board with
Montague Township
Building Inspection
Joint inspection Board with
Montague Township
Trades Inspection
(Includes Montague Township,
White River Township,
Montague Fire District Montague) County-wide mutual aid
Fire Service
West Michigan Criminal Justice
Training Consortium
Police Service
Police, fire and other emergency
Central Dispatch Authority dispatch services
911- Dispatch
White Lake Ambulance BLS and ALS response and
Authority medical transport
Ambulance Services
A - 16
APPENDIX A-7 (CONT’D)
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF MONTAGUE
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of Provided to the City of of Montague to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Montague by: Montague: Municipalities: Services:
Joint hot patch purchase with
Whitehall, and paver purchase.
"Piggyback" on Norton Shores
microsurfacing bids.
Road repair
Muskegon County Road Road Commission coordinates
Commission county-wide bid
Traffic signals
Muskegon County Road Road Commission coordinates
Commission county-wide bid
Centerline/Striping
Private contract
Solid waste collection
County facility services haulers
White Lake Solid Waste and others. White Lake is a
Transfer Authority and small transfer station that can
Landfill or transfer
Muskegon County service residents.
station
Household hazardous
Muskegon County County-wide program
waste program
Shared reading equipment with
Meter reading and/or
Whitehall
billing
Montague Township , White Water interconnect with
In-house service River Township Whitehall
Water production
In-house service
Water distribution
Muskegon County County-wide system
Wastewater processing
West Michigan Shoreline
Regional Development
Commission for Transportation
Planning
Transportation service
Emergency management
Emergency
Muskegon County services under Act 381
Management
Provides service to Muskegon
and the majority of studied
Muskegon Area District Library communities
Library
Fireworks, parades, events
jointly with Whitehall
Parks and Recreation
A - 17
APPENDIX A-7 (CONT’D)
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF MONTAGUE
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of Provided to the City of of Montague to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Montague by: Montague: Municipalities: Services:
White Lake Senior Center Senior services
Senior services
Airport services for all local
Muskegon County communities
Airport
County-wide service at varying
service levels among
Muskegon County communities
Animal services
Source: Interviews with administration and department heads
A - 18
APPENDIX A-8
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF MUSKEGON HEIGHTS
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of Provided to the City of of Muskegon Heights to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Muskegon Heights by: Muskegon Heights: Municipalities: Services:
Muskegon County is bonding
Muskegon County agent
Administration/Finance
Quantity purchase of election
materials through County and
County-wide election notices
Elections
Trucks and road material -
consolidated bid through Road
Commission, some cooperative
purchasing though Muskegon
County
Purchasing
Muskegon Area First, West
Michigan Shoreline Regional
Development Commission Economic development services
Economic Development
County-wide mutual aid
Fire services
Muskegon Cold Case Team,
West Michigan Criminal Justice
Training Consortium
Police services
Police, fire and other emergency
Central Dispatch Authority dispatch services
911- Dispatch
BLS and ALS response and
PROMED medical transport
Ambulance services
Muskegon County Road Road Commission coordinates
Commission county-wide bid
Traffic signals
Possibly Muskegon will do in
Muskegon 2011
Crack sealing
Muskegon County Road Road Commission coordinates
Commission county-wide bid
Centerline/Striping
Muskegon Full motorized equipment repair
Vehicle maintenance
County facility services haulers
Landfill or transfer
Muskegon County and others
station
Household hazardous
Muskegon County County-wide program
waste program
A - 19
APPENDIX A-8 (CONT’D)
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF MUSKEGON HEIGHTS
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the City Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the City of Provided to the City of of Muskegon Heights to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Muskegon Heights by: Muskegon Heights: Municipalities: Services:
Norton Shores, Fruitport Interconnect with Muskegon
Township system
Water production
Muskegon Some water taps
Water distribution
Norton Shores
Water testing
Muskegon County County-wide system
Wastewater processing
Provides bus service to the City
of Muskegon, Muskegon West Michigan Shoreline
Heights, Roosevelt Park, Norton Regional Development
Muskegon Area Transit Shores and Muskegon Commission for Transportation
Authority Township Planning
Transportation service
Provides service to Muskegon
and the majority of studied
Muskegon Area District Library communities
Library
Airport services for all local
Muskegon County communities
Airport
County-wide service at varying
service levels among
Muskegon County communities
Animal services
Source: Secondary sources, list is not complete or verified
A - 20
APPENDIX A-9
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY MUSKEGON TOWNSHIP
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to Muskegon Provided to Muskegon Muskegon Township to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Township by: Township By: Municipalities: Services:
Muskegon County is bonding
Muskegon County agent
Administration/Finance
Quantity purchase of election
materials through County and
County-wide election notices
Elections
Trucks and road material -
consolidated bid through Road
Commission, some cooperative
purchasing though Muskegon
County
Purchasing
GIS mapping and related
Muskegon County services
GIS
Muskegon Area First, West
Michigan Shoreline Regional
Development Commission Economic development services
Economic Development
County-wide mutual aid. Also,
cooperative training with
Fruitport Township and Norton
Shores. Joint equipment use
with North Muskegon.
Muskegon County Incident
Management Assistance Team
Service to Laketon and Cedar and Michigan Region 6 Incident
Creek Townships Management Team.
Fire services
Muskegon County Incident
Management Assistance Team
Police services
Police, fire and other emergency
Central Dispatch Authority dispatch services
911- Dispatch
BLS and ALS response and
PROMED medical transport
Ambulance Services
Muskegon Crack sealing services
Crack sealing
Muskegon Some fleet maintenance
Vehicle maintenance
A - 21
APPENDIX A-9 (CONT’D)
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY MUSKEGON TOWNSHIP
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by the Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to Muskegon Provided to Muskegon Muskegon Township to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: Township by: Township By: Municipalities: Services:
Also, Landfill Authority -
Transfer Station: Norton Shores,
County facility services haulers Muskegon Township, Eggleston
Landfill or transfer
Muskegon County and others Township
station
Household hazardous
Muskegon County County-wide program
waste program
Muskegon Wholesale water purchase
Water production
Muskegon System maintenance
Water distribution
Muskegon County and County-wide system, sanitary
Muskegon sewer repair by Muskegon
Wastewater processing
Provides bus service to the City
of Muskegon, Muskegon West Michigan Shoreline
Heights, Roosevelt Park, Norton Regional Development
Muskegon Area Transit Shores and Muskegon Commission for Transportation
Authority Township Planning
Transportation service
Provides service to Muskegon
and the majority of studied
Muskegon Area District Library communities
Library
Emergency management
Emergency
Muskegon County services under Act 381
Management
Airport services for all local
Muskegon County communities
Airport
County-wide service at varying
service levels among
Muskegon County communities
Animal services
Source: Secondary sources, list is not complete or verified
A - 22
APPENDIX A-10
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY MUSKEGON COUNTY
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to Muskegon Provided to Muskegon Muskegon County to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: County by: County: Municipalities: Services:
Contract for copiers and printers
to Muskegon and provide mail
service, also bonding agent for
municipalities
Administration/Finance
Assessing Services to Cities of
Muskegon, Whitehall, Norton
Shores and Roosevelt Park - and
Townships of Egelston, Holton,
Moorland, Sullivan and
Montague
Assessing
Provides central point for some
cooperative purchasing
Purchasing
Quantity purchase of election
materials through County and
County-wide election notices
Elections
Hardware shared with
Information
Muskegon
Technology
Provide GIS mapping and
related services to participating
municipalities including
Muskegon, Norton Shores,
Muskegon Township, Montague
and Whitehall
GIS
Muskegon Area First, West
Michigan Shoreline Regional
Development Commission Economic development services
Economic Development
Police contracts with three non-
study entities, Prosecutor West Michigan Enforcement
handles civil violations for Team, Muskegon Cold Case
Muskegon Team
Police services
Police, fire and other emergency
Central Dispatch Authority dispatch services
911- Dispatch
PROMED and White Lake BLS and ALS response and
Ambulance Authority medical transport
Ambulance Services
A - 23
APPENDIX A-10 (CONT’D)
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY MUSKEGON COUNTY
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Services Provided by Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to Muskegon Provided to Muskegon Muskegon County to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: County by: County: Municipalities: Services:
County Wastewater
"piggybacks" on Norton Shores
snow plow blade purchases
Road repair
Wholesale water purchase for
Muskegon Northside system
Water production
System repair and maintenance
Muskegon for Northside System
Water distribution
County facility services haulers
Landfill or transfer
and others
station
Household hazardous
County-wide HHW program
waste program
Norton Shores Police
Police services
Fire Department emergency
Norton Shores services
Fire services
County-wide system
Wastewater processing
West Michigan Shoreline
Regional Development
Commission for Transportation
Planning
Transportation service
County-wide emergency
management services under Act
Emergency
381
Management
Joint agreement with North
Muskegon and Muskegon to
have Muskegon maintain
Muskegon Veterans Memorial Park
Parks and Recreation
Provides service to most
Muskegon Area District Library Muskegon County residents
Library
Airport services for all local
communities
Airport
County-wide service at varying
service levels among
communities
Animal services
Source: Interviews with administration and department heads
A - 24
APPENDIX A-11
SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY MUSKEGON COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION
Services Provided by the
All, Some or Select Services Description(s) of the Services Muskegon County Road Cooperative Arrangements
Provided to the Muskegon Provided to the Muskegon Commission to Other With Other Municipalities for
Service Area: County Road Commission By: County Road Commission: Municipalities: Services:
Trucks and road material -
consolidated bid through Road
Commission
Purchasing
Muskegon Area First, West
Michigan Shoreline Regional
Development Commission Economic development services
Economic Development
Central Dispatch Authority Emergency dispatch Emergency dispatch services
911- Dispatch
Shared cost arrangements with
select municipalities
Road construction
Chip sealing to Norton Shores,
Lakewood Club, North
Muskegon, various road repair
services to Muskegon
Road repair
Road Commission coordinates
county-wide bid
Traffic signals
Road Commission coordinates
county-wide bid
Centerline/Striping
Source: Interview with administration
A - 25
APPENDIX B
FIRE DEPARTMENT SCHEDULING
Appendix B-1
Muskegon County Fire House Locations
B-1
Appendix B-2
Estimated Distance (ISO Travel Time) From Muskegon County Fire Houses
B-2
B-2
APPENDIX C
POSSIBLE POLICE SCHEDULES
Appendix C-1
Whitehall - Montague Police Department
OPTION A: Operate With 10 Full-Time Officers
12 Hour Schedule, 42 Hour Work Week
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F
Chief 8A-4P 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
\ \ \ \ \ \
8A-4P 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
Staffing
A Shift 7A-7P M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F
P.O. D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
P.O. D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
B Shift 7A-7P
P.O. D D D D D D D D D D D D
P.O. D D D D D D D D D D D D
7A-3P 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
W/O Admin
Sergeant 3P-11P A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
\ \ \ \ \ \
Part-time 3P-11P A A A A A A A
Part-time 7P-3A N N N N N N N
C Shift 7P-7A M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F
P.O. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
P.O. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
D Shift 7P-7A
P.O. N N N N N N N N N N N N
P.O. N N N N N N N N N N N N
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Staffing 7P-7A
7P-11P 3 3 3 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 5
W/Sgt/PT
11P-3A 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3
W/Part-time
3A-7A 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
C-1
Appendix C-1
Whitehall - Montague Police Department
OPTION A: Operate With 10 Full-Time Officers
12 Hour Schedule, 42 Hour Work Week
Notes:
Four (4) platoon system, steady shifts, officers selection
Ten full-time positions supplemented by part-time (1 Chief, 1 Sgt., 8-FT P.O.s, P/T officers)
Eliminates 1 Chief position
Eliminates 1 SRO position
Eliminates 1 Detective position
Maintains Sgt. position with adjusted schedule to provide supervision on the afternoon shift
Hours TBD by Chief 3P-11P, 4P- Midnight, 7P-3A, etc.
Sgt. should be included in minimum shift staffing levels
Platoons made up of two (2) police officers
Sergeant can provide coverage for vacancies created by benefit time off during summer months, vacation periods, etc.
All officers are assigned to work on the same day, maximizing staffing levels barring benefit time off vacancies
Chief to determine appropriate shift start and end times for platoons, 7A-7P/7P-7A or 8A-8P/8P-8A, or 6A-6P
Chief to work road patrol and to fill in on shift vacancies when necessary
Maintains minimum staffing of 2 officers per shift with supplemental staff (Sgt and part-time officers)
Chief to determine part-time staff hours
Part-time officers are shown as working Friday and Saturday evenings and nights
Utilizes part-time officers to supplement patrol staff
C-2
Appendix C-2
Whitehall - Montague Police Department
OPTION B: Operate With 9 Full-Time Officers
12 Hour Schedule, 42 Hour Work Week
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S
Chief 8A-4P 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Detective 8A-4P 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0
Staffing 8A-4P
7A-7P M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S
A Shift P.O. D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
P.O. D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
B Shift P.O. D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
P.O. D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
Part-time 7A-3P 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
If needed
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
W/O Admin. 7A-3P
Sergeant 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
3P-11P \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
7P-7A M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S
C Shift P.O. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
D Shift P.O. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
F/T Staffing
PT 3P-11P 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
PT 11P-7A 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Weekends only PT 11P-7A 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
W/Sgt. 3P-7P 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2
W/Sgt. & PT 7P-11P 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2
W/Part-time 11p-7A 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2
C-3
Appendix C-2
Whitehall - Montague Police Department
OPTION B: Operate With 9 Full-Time Officers
12 Hour Schedule, 42 Hour Work Week
Notes:
Four (4) platoon system, steady shifts, officers selection
Nine (9) full-time positions supplemented by part-time (1- Chief, 1- Sgt., 1- Detective, 6- P.O.s, P/T officers to supplement staff)
Eliminates four (4) full time positions (1-Chief., 2-P.O.s, 1- school Resource Officer
Utilizes part-time officers to supplement patrol staff
Maintains Detective position
SRO position eliminated
Maintains Sgt. position with adjusted schedule to provide supervision on the afternoon shift
Hours TBD by Chief 3P-11P, 4P- Midnight, 7P-3A, etc.
Sgt. should be included in minimum shift staffing levels.
Day shift platoons made up of two (2)-full-time P.O. per platoon and 1 part-time officer to supplement staffing
Night shift platoons made up of one (1) full-time P.O. per platoon and part-time officer to supplement staffing
Increase weekend coverage by adding part-time patrol officers as needed
Only one (1) officer is allowed off at a time for vacation, compensatory or personal time
Allows for adequate leave time and weekends off, 26 scheduled weekends off per year
Full-time platoon officers get every other weekend off, 26 - 3 day weekends off per year
Work 182 days per year, leave days 182 days per year
42 hour work week
Full-time platoon officers workday/off day cycle, 2 on 2 off, 3 on 2 off, 2 on 3 off
Chief to determine appropriate shift start and end times for platoons, 7A-7P/7P-7A or 8A-8P/8P-8A, or 6A-6P
Chief to work road patrol and to fill in on shift vacancies when necessary
Maintains minimum staffing of 2 officers per shift with supplemental staff (Sgt. and part-time officers)
Chief to determine part-time staff hours
Chief can adjust part-time schedules as necessary, i.e. 8A-4P, 7P-3A, 11P-7A to supplement vacancies
Part-time officers can be added to supplement any of the shifts as needed or determined by the Chief
C-4
Appendix C-3
Whitehall - Montague Police Department
OPTION C: Operate With 8 Full-Time Officers
12 Hour Schedule, 42 Hour Work Week
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F
Chief 8A-4P 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
\ \ \ \ \ \
8A-4P 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
Staffing
7A-7P M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F
A Shift P.O. D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
B Shift P.O. D D D D D D D D D D D D
Part-time 7A-3P 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Part-time 3P-11P 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
7A-3P 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
W/O Admin
Sergeant 3P-11P 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
\ \ \ \ \ \
C Shift 7P-7A M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F
P.O. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
P.O. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
D Shift 7P-7A M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F
P.O. N N N N N N N N N N N N
P.O. N N N N N N N N N N N N
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
F/T Staffing
Part-time 11P-7A 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
W/Sgt. 3P-7P 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
W/Part-time 7P-11P 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4
W/Part-time 11p-7A 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
C-5
Appendix C-3
Whitehall - Montague Police Department
OPTION C: Operate With 8 Full-Time Officers
12 Hour Schedule, 42 Hour Work Week
Notes:
Four (4) platoon system, steady shifts, officers selection
Eight (8) full-time positions supplemented by part-time (1- Chief, 1- Sgt., 6- P.O.s, P/T officers to supplement staffing)
Eliminates five (5) full time positions (1-Chief., 2-P.O.'s, 1 Detective, 1-School Resource Officer)
Utilizes part-time officers to supplement patrol staff
SRO position eliminated
Maintains Sgt. position with adjusted schedule to provide supervision on the afternoon shift
Hours TBD by Chief 3P-11P, 4P- Midnight, 7P-3A, etc.
Sgt. should be included in minimum shift staffing levels
Day shift platoons made up of 1 full-time P.O. and 1 part-time officer as supplemental staff
Night shift platoons made up of two (2) full-time P.O.'s with part-time officers as supplemental staff
Only one (1) officer is allowed off at a time for vacation, compensatory or personal time
Allows for adequate leave time and weekends off, 26 scheduled weekends off per year
Full-time platoon officers get every other weekend off, 26 - 3 day weekends off per year
Work 182 days per year, leave days 182 days per year
42 hour work week
Full-time platoon officers workday/off day cycle, 2 on 2 off, 3 on 2 off, 2 on 3 off,
Chief to determine appropriate shift start and end times for platoons, 7A-7P/7P-7A or 8A-8P/8P-8A, or 6A-6P
Chief to work road patrol and to fill in on shift vacancies when necessary
Maintains minimum staffing of 2 officers per shift with supplemental staff (Sgt and part-time officers)
Chief to determine part-time staff hours
Currently listed to work 7A-3P day shift and 3P-11 P afternoon shift
Chief can adjust part-time schedules as necessary, i.e. 8A-4P, 7P-3A, 11P-7A to supplement vacancies
Part-time officers can be added to supplement any of the shifts as needed or determined by the Chief
C-6
Appendix C-4
Whitehall - Montague Police Department
OPTION D: Operate With 7 Full-Time Officers
12 Hour Schedule, 42 Hour Work Week
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S
Chief 8A-4P 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Detective 8A-4P 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
8A-4P 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0
Staffing
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
7A-7P M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S
A Shift P.O. D D DDD D D D D D D D D D
B Shift P.O. D D DD D D D D D D D D D D
Part-time 7A-3P 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
W/O Admin 7A-3P
4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2
W/Admin 8A-4P
Sergeant 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
3P-11P \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
7P-7A M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S
C Shift P.O. N N NNN N N N N N N N N N
D Shift P.O. N N NN N N N N N N N N N N
Part-time 3P-11P 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Part-time 11P-7A 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Staffing
W/Sgt & PT. 3P-7P 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2
W/Sgt & PT. 7P -11P 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2
W/Part-time 11p-7A 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
C-7
Appendix C-4
Whitehall - Montague Police Department
OPTION D: Operate With 7 Full-Time Officers
12 Hour Schedule, 42 Hour Work Week
Notes:
Four (4) platoon system, steady shifts, officers selection
Seven (7) full-time positions supplemented by part-time (1- Chief, 1- Sgt., 1- Detective, 4-P.O.'s, P/T officers to supplement staffing)
Eliminates six (6) full time positions (Chief, 4-P.O.'s, 1-School Resource Officer
Utilizes part-time officers to supplement patrol staff
Maintains Detective position
SRO position eliminated
Maintains Sgt. position with adjusted schedule to provide supervision on the afternoon shift
Hours TBD by Chief 3P-11P, 4P- Midnight, 7P-3A, etc.
Sgt. should be included in minimum shift staffing levels.
Day and night shift platoons made up of 1-Full-time P.O. and 1 Part-time officers as supplemental staff
Chief to determine appropriate shift start and end times for platoons, 7A-7P/7P-7A or 8A-8P/8P-8A, or 6A-6P
Chief to work road patrol and to fill in on shift vacancies when necessary
Maintains minimum staffing of 2 officers per shift with supplemental staff (Sgt and Part-time officers)
Chief to determine part-time staff hours
Chief can adjust part-time schedules as necessary, i.e. 8A-4P, 7P-3A, 11P-7A to supplement vacancies
Part-time officers can be added to supplement any of the shifts as needed or determined by the Chief
C-8
Date: December 13, 2011
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Ann Cummings, City Clerk
RE: 2012 National League of Cities
Membership Dues
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The 2012 National League of Cities
Membership Renewal Notice has been received.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: $3,813.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: This has not been budgeted for.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None.