View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 11, 2022 @ 5:30 P.M.
MUSKEGON CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
933 TERRACE STREET, MUSKEGON, MI 49440
AGENDA
□ CALL TO ORDER:
□ PRAYER:
□ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
□ ROLL CALL:
□ HONORS, AWARDS, AND PRESENTATIONS:
□ PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS:
□ CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Approval of Minutes City Clerk
B. MERS – Police Command DB Pension Multiplier Finance
C. Transportation Asset Management Plan Public Works
D. Combination Sewer Truck Public Works
E. Parks Donation Policy DPW/Parks
F. Rezoning 398 Catawba Avenue Planning
G. Firefighting Turnout Set Public Safety/Fire
H. Ten Month Extension to Complete Construction of Home at 1210 Morgan
Avenue Planning
□ PUBLIC HEARINGS:
□ UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
□ NEW BUSINESS:
A. Ordinance Amendment – Reduced Housing Unit Size Minimums
Planning
□ ANY OTHER BUSINESS:
□ PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
► 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.
Page 1 of 2
► 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 MEISCH, CITY CLERK, 933 TERRACE STREET, MUSKEGON, MI 49440 OR BY CALLING (231) 724-
6705 OR TTY/TDD DIAL 7-1-1-22 TO REQUEST A REPRESENTATIVE TO DIAL (231) 724-6705.
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: October 11, 2022 Title: Approval of Minutes
Submitted By: Ann Marie Meisch, MMC Department: City Clerk
Brief Summary: To approve the minutes of the September 12, 2022 Work Session and
September 13, 2022 Regular Meeting.
Detailed Summary: N/A
Amount Requested: N/A Amount Budgeted: N/A
Fund(s) or Account(s): N/A Fund(s) or Account(s): N/A
Recommended Motion: To approve the minutes.
For City Clerk Use Only:
Commission Action:
CITY OF MUSKEGON
CITY COMMISSION WORKSESSION
Monday, September 12, 2022
5:30 p.m.
City Commission Chambers
933 Terrace Street, Muskegon, MI 49440
MINUTES
2022-78
Present: Mayor Johnson, Vice Mayor German, Commissioners Gorman, St.Clair, Hood,
Ramsey, and Emory
Adelaide Pointe Cooperative Use Agreement
Staff is seeking approval of the updated cooperative use agreement and rescission of
the former development agreement for the Adelaide Pointe development.
A development agreement for the Adelaide Pointe development was approved by the
commission on October 26, 2021. Staff and legal counsel are negotiating with the
developer on revised terms and seek to rescind the former agreement.
Staff is seeking approval of the revised cooperative use agreement as the first step in a
final development agreement for the property. The cooperative use agreement
addresses the various property exchanges, how property will be accessible to the
public, and collaborative pursuit of funding. Staff and legal counsel have worked through
numerous iterations of this agreement with the developer and have reached an
agreement that all can support.
Staff will seek approval of a revised development agreement at a future meeting.
Ryan Leetsma, the developer/owner of the Adelaide Pointe property and project,
provided an overview of the project. Commissioners asked questions of Mr. Leetsma,
there was discussion of public access.
This item will be on the September 13, 2022 regular meeting agenda for consideration.
Public Comment
Public comments were received regarding the proposed Adelaide Point Cooperative
Use Agreement
The Portal
Judy Hayner, Project Manager for the Muskegon City Public Art Initiative, provided an
update to the City Commission regarding the status of the planned ten new significant
high-quality works of art to be installed. Six of the ten are complete. One of the next
proposed pieces to be installed is The Portal. The Portal is a monumentally scaled, 60-
foot diameter ring of Corten steel with LED lights installed inside of the ring, motion-
activated; height from sidewalk to inside top of ring approximately 54-feet. The Portal
represents Muskegon’s renaissance of BIG dreams and aspirations, unity, strength,
unbroken love, and with its incorporation into the urban bike park, FUN!
We are proposing this remarkable collaboration between the City of Muskegon,
Michigan’s Edge Mountain Biking Association, and the MuskegonCity Public Art
Initiative. Funds for both the bike park and the art would be privately raised.
Shaw Walker Furniture Property
Parkland Properties of Michigan, located in Muskegon, has requested to provide an
update on their pursuit of acquiring the former Shaw-Walker Furniture property located
at 930 Washington.
The 702,470 sq ft former Shaw-Walker Furniture property has remained shuttered for
decades despite its rich historical contributions to this community. The developer has
expressed a desire to repurpose and preserve one of the few remaining blights in the
downtown into an adaptive reuse project.
At present, Parkland Properties is currently in the due diligence phase and conducting
environmental research on the site. A potential property closing could occur later this
fall.
Jake Eckholm, Economic Development Director provided an update on the status of the
property ownership. John Rooks, Parkland Properties owner and local developer
addressed the city commission and talked about some of the ideas he has for the
property. Discussion took place regarding this update and it was requested to put an
item on the agenda for a special meeting scheduled for Friday, September 16, 2022 to
consider financial assistance for Shaw Walker Environmental Assessment.
Rezoning of 2043, 2051, 2065, and 2075 Dowd to Form Based Code, Urban Residential
Staff initiated request to rezone the properties of 2043, 2051, 2065 and 2075 Dowd
Street from R-3, High Density Single Family Residential to Form Based Code, Urban
Residential.
Staff is in discussions with a developer that is requesting to build duplexes on the lots.
These properties are located about 600 feet north of the duplexes currently being
constructed at the corner of Hackley & Dowd. Those properties were approved for a
rezoning in 2021. There are also large apartment complexes located just to the
southwest of these parcels. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
rezoning by a 5-0 vote at their August 11 meeting.
Planning Manager, Mike Franzak, provided an overview of this agenda item and
discussion too place. This item will appear on the September 13, 2022 regular meeting
agenda for consideration.
Public Comment
Public Comments were received.
Adjournment: The City Commission Worksession Meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ann Marie Meisch, MMC – City Clerk
CITY OF MUSKEGON
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 @ 5:30 P.M.
MUSKEGON CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
933 TERRACE STREET, MUSKEGON, MI 49440
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, September 13,
2022, Vice Mayor Willie German, Jr., opened the meeting with prayer, after
which the Commission and public recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Present: Mayor Ken Johnson, Vice Mayor Willie German, Jr., Commissioners
Teresa Emory, Rebecca St.Clair, Rachel Gorman, Michael Ramsey, and Eric
Hood, Interim City Manager LeighAnn Mikesell, City Attorney John Schrier, and
City Clerk Ann Meisch.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments were received.
2022-79 CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Approval of Minutes City Clerk
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To approve the minutes of the August 8, 2022 and the
August 9, 2022 Regular Meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the minutes.
C. General Fund Transfers for FY2021-22 Finance
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: During the close out of fiscal year 2021-22 and based on
the financial results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022 we want to transfer
$115,000 from the General Fund to the Trinity health Arena Fund to eliminate a
fund balance deficit. Also, we want to transfer $2,500 from the General Fund to
the Tree Fund to eliminate a fund balance deficit. Finally, we want to transfer
$40,750.14 from the General Fund to the State Grants fund to cover bad debt.
Staff is requesting formal approval of these General Fund transfers.
At the close of FY2021-22 three funds that required a transfer from the General
Fund. (1) the FY2021-22 budget called for a General Fund transfer of $115,000 to
the Trinity health Arena Fund to avoid a fund balance deficit. The original
budget REQUESTED A $350,000 TRANSFER TO THE Trinity Health Arena. The
Arena’s revenue was better than projected and we thought the Arena did not
need any transfer from the General Fund. However, at the end of the 2021-22
Page 1 of 9
year the expenditures exceeded revenue by approximately $115,000. (2) The
Tree fund has a small deficit that needs to be covered by the General Fund of
$2,500 to avoid a fund balance deficit. (3) The FY2021-22 budget called for
General Fund transfer of $40,750.41 to the State Grant fund to write off bad debt
from the CMI Site Assessment and Hendrickson Brownfield loan. Commission
previously approve the debt write off at the July 26, 2022 meeting. Now we are
officially asking to transfer the funds from the General Fund to complete the
debt write off.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the General Fund transfers of $115,000 to
the Trinity Health Fund, $40,750.14 to the State Grants Fund, and $2,500 to the
Tree Replacement Fund.
D. PowerMIFleet Enrollment Public Works
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Staff is requesting authorization to enroll in the
PowerMIFleet Program.
The PowerMIFleet program through Consumers Energy provides assistance to
the City in seeking to begin consideration for electrifying the city’s fleet of
vehicles. Through the program Consumers Energy will provide a number of
services to assist the city in a number of ways.
• Review of existing fleet to determine the vehicles best suited for
electrification.
• Review of existing facilities to determine the best location for installation of
charging infrastructure.
• Identification and pursuit of grants and rebates to support the initiative.
There is no immediate cost for enrollment in the program, however in exchange
for enrollment in the program, the city is making a commitment to purchase and
deploy at least one (1) electric vehicle through the program. There is no set
timeline for when that needs to be accomplished but note that the current FY
budget did not propose any EV so if there is opportunity to take action yet this
FY there could be unbudgeted costs with minimal modification provided they
are not excessive.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to enroll in the PowerMIFleet Program
with Consumers Energy.
F. Wastewater Committee Public Works
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Staff is requesting approval of the resolution to
designate the representatives for the County Wastewater Committee.
Staff is requesting to update this resolution to replace the City Manager with the
Deputy DPW Director as the alternate representative on the County Wastewater
Committee.
Page 2 of 9
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution appointing the DPW Director
as the representative to the County Wastewater Committee and the Deputy
DPW Director as the alternate representative and authorize the Clerk to sign.
H. MDEGLE Grant Agreement Public Works
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Staff is requesting authorization to sign the grant
agreement with MDEGLE.
The City of Muskegon was awarded a $687,000 grant from the Michigan
Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (MDEGLE) through their
Drinking Water Infrastructure (DWI) Program. The grant is tied to the 2023 project
on Sanford Street; with the remainder of the project expenses financed through
the state revolving fund programs which provide additional principal forgiveness
in addition to the grant dollars awarded through the DWI program.
The grant and revolving fund programs continue to help ensure we can deliver
an efficient and effective capital program within our water/sewer systems. Even
though the programs require additional work to meet compliance along with
carrying several provisions that would otherwise be optional for the city (Buy
America for Iron/Steel Components & Prevailing Wage) the grants, principal
forgiveness, and financing terms available to the city through these programs
have provided immense benefit.
Accepting the grant will not run concurrent with our other work on Sanford
Street and does not add any expenses to the City.
Staff is recommending acceptance of the grant and plans to continue pursuing
additional opportunities for future financing within the state programs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To authorize staff to sign and accept the grant
agreement with MDEGLE.
I. Back Hoe Purchase DPW/Equipment
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Backhoe purchase from Michigan Cat, the MI-Deal
State contract holder for a price of $121,000. The Equipment Division is seeking
permission to purchase one new backhoe form Michigan Caterpillar, the Mi-
Deal contract holder for a price of $121,000 coming from the 2022/23 budget.
This backhoe will replace one of our older machines.
AMOUNT REQUESTED: $121,000 AMOUNT BUDGETED: $121,000
FUND OR ACCOUNT: Equipment Account
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the Equipment Division to proceed with
the purchase.
K. US Army Corps of Engineers Lease City Manager
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Staff is requesting approval to renew the lease with the
US Army Corps of Engineers for use of the navigation structures at the Muskegon
Page 3 of 9
Harbor Federal Navigation Project.
The lease would authorize the continuation of passive recreational activities on
the US South Breakwater, the US South Revetment and Pier, and allow for the
operation and maintenance of pier safety devices on the US North and South
Breakwaters
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the lease renewal with the US Army
Corps of Engineers and authorize the mayor and clerk to sign.
L. Juneteenth Holiday City Manager
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Staff is seeking approval to add the federally recognized
Juneteenth holiday as a recognized for all city staff starting in 2023.
The holiday will be observed on the same date as the federal Juneteenth
holiday each year.
Each union’s language relating to holiday pay, time off for holidays,
compensatory time, and overtime on a holiday will apply to the Juneteenth
holiday as it would to any other recognized holiday for that union.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the inclusion of Juneteenth as a
recognized holiday for all city staff beginning in 2023.
M. Email Migration to the Cloud with Enhanced Security, Backup, and User
Training Information Technology
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Authorize the migration of our on-prem systems to a
cloud-hosted solution adding advanced email protection, backup, archival,
and user security awareness training.
To improve the security and functionality of the user email experience. The I.T.
Department would like to upgrade and move our email systems to Microsoft’s
government cloud protected by a Barracuda Networks advanced email
security solution. This migration provides benefits such as larger mailbox storage
(50GB per mailbox), advanced net-gen AI threat protection, cloud-to-cloud
backup and archival, and end-user security awareness training. The initial cost
for the first year of cloud-hosted services and full implementation is $64,000. The
yearly cloud subscription fee for subsequent years will be $49,000. Broken down,
these subscriptions amounts are $4 per user per month for email and $10.89 per
user per month for protection, training, archival and backup. Amounts are
budgeted.
AMOUNT REQUESTED: $64,000 AMOUNT BUDGETED: $64,000
FUND OR ACCOUNT: 101-228
STAFF RECOMMENATION: To approve the implementation of cloud-hosted email
with added advanced protection, archival, backup, and training.
Page 4 of 9
N. District Library Board Appointment City Clerk
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To appoint Clayton Hardiman to the District Library
Board, term expiring June 30, 2026.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To make the appointment.
Motion by Vice Mayor German, second by Commissioner Ramsey, to accept
the consent agenda as presented, minus items B, E, G, and J.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Gorman, Emory, St.Clair, Johnson, Hood, Ramsey, and
German
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
2022-80 REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA:
B. Flag Policy City Clerk
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To adopt the updated flag policy.
Based on the Attorney’s recommendation, staff felt it necessary to recommend
changes tour current flag policy. The proposed policy would not allow the flying
of any flags with the exception of United States of America, State of Michigan,
the County of Muskegon, the City of Muskegon flag, a Sister Cities of the City of
Muskegon flag, and visiting dignitaries from the Embassy and/or Consulate that
are formally acknowledged by the Mayor and/or City Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To adopt the amended flag policy as presented.
Motion by Commissioner St.Clair, second by Commissioner Hood, to adopt the
amended flag policy as presented.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Emory, St.Clair, Johnson, Hood, Ramsey, German, and
Gorman
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
E. Shoreline Drive Engineering Amendment Public Works
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Staff is requesting authorization to sign the amendment
to the professional services agreement with Progressive AE in relation to the
Shoreline Drive Road Diet.
ProgressiveAE is requesting an amendment to the professional services
agreement related to a change on the Shoreline Drive project outside of the
original scope. The amendment requests an additional $13,700 which represents
a 28% increase on the original $49,090 contract and requires commission
approval based on the percentage increase.
The additional costs are related to a change in the project scope to complete
Page 5 of 9
the pilot in tow separate phases rather than a single phase. The split phasing
required the engineer to develop additional sets of plans and also provides an
opportunity for additional data collection during both phases which was not
originally anticipated in the scope.
AMOUNT REQUESTED: $13,700 (INCREASE) AMOUNT BUDGETED: $115,000
$62,790 (TOTAL) (21/22 & 22/23)
FUND OR ACCOUNT: 202
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to approve the amendment request
with ProgressiveAE for Shoreline Drive Traffic Engineering.
Motion by Vice Mayor German, second by Commissioner Emory, to approve the
amendment request with ProgressiveAE for Shoreline Drive Traffic Engineering.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: St.Clair, Johnson, Hood, Ramsey, Gorman, and Emory
Nays: German
MOTION PASSES
G. Shoreline Drive Traffic Control Public Works
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Staff is requesting authorization to accept the bid from
Give Em A Brake Safety in the amount of $31,075.00 to provide the Traffic
Control services for the Shoreline Drive Road Diet Pilot.
Staff solicited bids for traffic control services for the Shoreline Drive Road Diet
project based on a split phase approach with a portion to be completed during
the Fall of 2022 and a second portion to be completed in the Spring/Summer of
2023.
One (1) bid was received as follows:
• $31,075.00 – Give Em A Brake Safety (Grandville, MI)
Staff is recommending the contract be awarded to the low bidder for the
project.
The bid will provide the traffic control necessary for both stages of the pilot and
likely represents the largest cost aside from the traffic engineering and study
components of the project.
There will be at least one additional item to consider for this project which is still
being developed and refined by staff. The additional item will include features
that invite users to imagine future uses of the reclaimed space. Staff is still
working to secure commitments and pricing for those features and anticipates
having that back for discussion at a later date if the price warrants additional
commission action.
AMOUNT REQUESTED: $31,075.00 AMOUNT BUDGETED: $115,000
Page 6 of 9
(21/22 & 22/23)
FUND OR ACCOUNT: 202
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to accept the bid from Give Em A
Brake Safety in the amount of $31,075 to provide traffic control services in
conjunction with the Shoreline Drive Road Diet Pilot.
Motion by Commissioner St.Clair, second by Commissioner Ramsey, to authorize
staff to accept the bid from Give Em A Brake Safety only for Phase 1 and Phase 2
Traffic Control during the Fall of 2022 in the amount of $16,825 in conjunction with
the Shoreline Drive Road Diet Pilot and delay a decision on Phase 3 Traffic
Control until results of the Fall Pilot are available for consideration.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Johnson, Hood, Ramsey, Gorman, Emory, and St.Clair
Nays: German
MOTION PASSES
J. Rezoning of 2043, 2051, 2065, and 2075 Dowd to Form Based Code, Urban
Residential Planning
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Staff-initiated request to rezone the properties at 2043,
2051, 2065 and 2075 Dowd Street from R-3, High Density Single Family Residential
to Form Based Code, Urban Residential.
Staff is in discussions with a developer that is requesting to build duplexes on the
lots. These properties are located about 600 feet north of the duplexes currently
being constructed at the corner of Hackley/Dowd. Those properties were
approved for a rezoning in 2021. There are also large apartment complexes
located just to the southwest of these parcels. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the rezoning by a 5-0 vote at their August 11
meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the request to rezone the properties at
2043, 2051, 2065 and 2075 Dowd from R-3, High Density Single Family Residential
to Form Based Code, Urban Residential.
Motion by Commissioner Emory, second by Commissioner Ramsey, to approve
the request to rezone the properties at 2043, 2051, 2065, and 2075 Dowd from
R-3, High Density Single Family Residential to Form Based Code, Urban
Residential.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Hood, Ramsey, German, Gorman, Emory, St.Clair, and
Johnson
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
Page 7 of 9
2022-81 NEW BUSINESS:
A. Adelaide Pointe Cooperative Use Agreement City Manager
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Staff is seeking approval of the updated cooperative
use agreement and rescission of the former development agreement for the
Adelaide Pointe development.
A development agreement for the Adelaide Pointe development was
approved by the commission on October 26, 2021. Staff and legal counsel are
negotiating with the developer on revised terms and seek to rescind the former
agreement.
Staff is seeking approval of the revised cooperative use agreement as the first
step in a final development agreement for the property. The cooperative use
agreement addresses the various property exchanges, how property will be
accessible to the public, and collaborative pursuit of funding. Staff and legal
counsel have worked through numerous iterations of this agreement with the
developer and have reached agreement that all can support.
Staff will seek approval of a revised development agreement at a future
meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the updated cooperative use
agreement and rescind the development agreement formerly approved on
October 26, 2021 for the Adelaide Pointe development.
Motion by Commissioner Emory, second by Commissioner Ramsey, to approve
the request to rezone the properties at 2043, 2051, 2065, and 2075 Dowd from
R-3, High Density Single Family Residential to Form Based Code, Urban
Residential.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Ramsey, German, Gorman, Emory, St.Clair, Johnson, and
Hood
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
B. Designation of Voting Delegates for the Michigan Municipal League
Annual Meeting City Commission
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To designate, by action of the Commission, one of our
officials who will be in attendance at the Convention as an official
representative to cast the vote of the municipality at the Annual Meeting; and,
if possible, to designate one other official to serve as an alternate.
Motion by Commissioner Ramsey, second by Commissioner Hood, to appoint
Mayor Ken Johnson and alternate Clerk Ann Meisch, to be in attendance and to
cast the vote of the municipality at the Annual Business meeting of the Michigan
Municipal League Convention.
Page 8 of 9
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: German, Gorman, Emory, St.Clair, Johnson, Hood, and
Ramsey
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
ANY OTHER BUSINESS:
Commissioner Ramsey requested and received an update from Leo Evans,
Director of the Department of Public Works, on the project on Terrace Street to
hopefully clear up any questions or concerns by the residents and neighbors. It is
intended to have construction complete on Terrace by mid-November to early
December with the ability to plant grass in the Spring. Access to all business is still
able to be achieved by use of side streets.
Mayor Johnson invited Public Safety Director, Tim Kozal, to introduce himself and
talk about how his first couple of weeks on the job has gone.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments were received.
ADJOURNMENT: The City Commission meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ann Marie Meisch, MMC - City Clerk
Page 9 of 9
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: October 11, 2022 Title: MERS- Police
Command DB pension
multiplier
Submitted By: Kenneth D. Grant Department: Finance
Brief Summary: The City seeks to reduce the Police Command Defined Benefit multiplier from 3.0% to
2.67% per the Union Contract effective December 31, 2022
Detailed Summary & Background:
The Finance Department wants permission to sign a Defined Benefit Plan Adoption Agreement to
reduce the multiplier for Police Command as follows:
An employee who was hired before July 28, 2006 and became member of the Police Command
unit between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 shall receive a retirement benefit as
determined by the Police Officer’s Labor Council contract with the City of Muskegon the following.
An employee who retires on or after December 31, 2022 shall receive a bridged benefit as follows:
a) A pensions multiplier of 3.0% for service prior to December 31, 2022 times the employee’s
“frozen final average compensation”.
b) A pension multiplier of 2.67% for service on or after December 31, 2022 times the
employee’s “termination final average compensation”.
c) The total pension shall not exceed 80% of the “termination final average compensation”.
Goal/Focus Area/Action Item Addressed:
Amount Requested: Amount Budgeted:
Fund(s) or Account(s): Fund(s) or Account(s):
Recommended Motion: To reduced Defined Benefit pension multiplier from 3.0% to 2.67% for the
Police Command Unit.
Approvals: Guest(s) Invited / Presenting
Immediate Division Head Information Technology
Yes
Other Division Heads Communication
Legal Review No
For City Clerk Use Only:
Commission Action:
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: October 10, 2022 Title: Transportation Asset Management Plan
Submitted By: Dan VanderHeide Department: Public Works
Brief Summary: Staff will present the recently completed Transportation Asset Management Plan
(TAMP) for review by the Commission and discussion of it’s benefits and recommendations.
Detailed Summary & Background: Public Act 325 of 2018 began a process which requires all road
maintaining agencies with at least 100 centerline miles to prepare and have on file with the state a
Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) that is updated every three years. To that end,
and recognizing the value of asset management principles applied to City infrastructure, the
Commission authorized Prein & Newhof to create a plan for the City at the May 24, 2022 meeting.
As defined by the act, asset management is “an ongoing process of maintaining, preserving,
upgrading, and operating physical assets cost effectively, based on a continuous physical
inventory and condition assessment and investment to achieve established performance goals.” In
more practical terms the plan provides a detailed inventory of roads, bridges, culverts and traffic
signals in the City, sets goals for maintaining the overall condition of the City’s transportation
infrastructure, and makes recommendations on how to achieve the goals in the context of the
funds expected to be available.
As a part of the obligations to the state, the Commission must certify the plan, including a resolution
designating the mayor and chief financial officer (Finance Director) as the City’s authorized signers.
Goal/Focus Area/Action Item Addressed:
Focus Area – Sustainability of financial practices and infrastructure
Amount Requested: N/A Amount Budgeted: N/A
Fund(s) or Account(s): Fund(s) or Account(s):
Recommended Motion: To adopt a resolution authorizing the mayor and Finance Director to certify
to the state that the City has a Transportation Asset Management Plan, and to adopt the plan.
Approvals: Guest(s) Invited / Presenting
Immediate Division Head Information Technology
Other Division Heads Communication Yes
Legal Review No
For City Clerk Use Only:
Commission Action:
City of Muskegon
2022 Transportation
Asset Management Plan
A plan describing the City of Muskegon’s transportation assets and conditions
Prepared by:
CONTENTS
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ ii
Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ iii
Asset Management Plan Summary .............................................................................................................. iv
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Pavement Assets ................................................................................................................................... 2
Inventory of Assets ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Condition, Goals, and Trend......................................................................................................................................... 4
Modelled Trends, Gap Analysis, and Planned Projects ................................................................................................ 7
2. Bridge Assets ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Inventory of Assets ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
Condition, Goals, and Trend....................................................................................................................................... 11
Programmed/Funded Projects, Gap Analysis, and Planned Projects ........................................................................ 12
3. Culvert Assets ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Inventory of Assets ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
Goals ........................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Planned Projects ......................................................................................................................................................... 15
4. Signal Assets ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Inventory of Assets ...................................................................................................................................................... 17
Goals ........................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Planned Projects ......................................................................................................................................................... 18
5. Financial Resources ................................................................................................................................ 19
Anticipated Revenues & Expenses .............................................................................................................................. 19
6. Risk of Failure Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 22
7. Coordination with Other Entities ............................................................................................................ 23
8. Proof of Acceptance ................................................................................................................................ 25
Proof of Acceptance .................................................................................................................................... 26
APPENDIX A. Pavement Asset Management Plan ................................................................................... 28
APPENDIX B. Bridge Asset Management Plan ........................................................................................ 29
APPENDIX C. Culvert Asset Management Plan Supplement ................................................................... 30
Culvert Primer ............................................................................................................................................................ 30
APPENDIX D. Traffic Signals Asset Management Plan Supplement ....................................................... 32
Traffic Signals Primer................................................................................................................................................. 32
APPENDIX E. Glossary & Acronyms ....................................................................................................... 33
Glossary ...................................................................................................................................................................... 33
List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................................... 42
APPENDIX F. MAPS FROM FIGURES .................................................................................................. 43
i
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Map showing location or roads managed by the City and PASER Rating..................................................... 3
Figure 2: Pavement type by percentage maintained by the City of Muskegon.............................................................. 4
Figure 3: City major network condition, goals, and trend ............................................................................................. 5
Figure 4: City local network condition, goals, and trend ............................................................................................... 5
Figure 5: Map showing locations of City of Muskegon unpaved roads ........................................................................ 6
Figure 6: Map illustrating planned projects for pavement assets ................................................................................... 8
Figure 7: Map illustrating locations of the City’s bridge assets................................................................................... 10
Figure 8: Map showing locations of City of Muskegon owned culverts ..................................................................... 14
Figure 9: Map showing locations of City of Muskegon owned signals ....................................................................... 17
ii
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Roadsoft Modelled Trends, Planned Projects, and Gap Analysis for City's Road Assets ............................... 7
Table 2: Bridge Assets by Type: Inventory, Size, and Condition................................................................................ 11
Table 3: Planned Projects and Gap Analysis ............................................................................................................... 12
Table 4: Annual Fiscal-Year Revenues & Expenditures per Fiscal Year .................................................................... 21
iii
ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY
As conduits for commerce and connections to vital services, roads and bridges are among the most
important assets in any community. Other assets like culverts, traffic signs, traffic signals, and utilities
support and affect roads and bridges. The City of Muskegon’s roads, bridges, and support systems are
also some of the most valuable and extensive public assets, all of which are paid for with taxes collected
from citizens and businesses. The cost of building and maintaining these assets, their importance to
society, and the investment made by taxpayers all place a high level of responsibility on local agencies to
plan, build, and maintain roads, bridges, and support assets in an efficient and effective manner.
An asset management plan is required by Michigan Public Act 325 of 2018, and this document represents
fulfillment of some of the City’s obligations towards meeting these requirements. However, this plan and
its supporting documents are intended to be much more than a fulfillment of required reporting. This asset
management plan helps to demonstrate the City’s responsible use of public funds by providing elected
and appointed officials as well as the general public with the inventory and condition information of the
City’s road and bridge assets, and gives taxpayers the information they need to make informed decisions
about investing in the City’s essential transportation infrastructure.
iv
INTRODUCTION
Asset management is defined by Public Act 325 of 2018 as “an ongoing process of maintaining,
preserving, upgrading, and operating physical assets cost effectively, based on a continuous physical
inventory and condition assessment and investment to achieve established performance goals”. In other
words, asset management is a process that uses data to manage and track assets, like roads and bridges, in
a cost-effective manner using a combination of engineering and business principles. This process is
endorsed by leaders in municipal planning and transportation infrastructure, including the Michigan
Municipal League, County Road Association of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Transportation
(MDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The City of Muskegon is supported in its
use of asset management principles and processes by the Michigan Transportation Asset Management
Council (TAMC), formed by the State of Michigan.
Asset management, in the context of this plan, ensures that public funds are spent as effectively as
possible to maximize the condition of the road and bridge network. Asset management also provides a
transparent decision-making process that allows the public to understand the technical and financial
challenges of managing transportation infrastructure with a limited budget.
The City of Muskegon has adopted an “asset management” business process to overcome the challenges
presented by having limited financial, staffing, and other resources while needing to meet road users’
expectations. The City is responsible for maintaining and operating over 184.70 centerline miles of roads
and 3 bridge structures. The City is responsible for 29 separated storm culverts. Culvert data was
collected during the EGLE Stormwater, Asset Management, and Wastewater (SAW) Grant Program
between 2015-2017. The City owns and is responsible for maintaining 25 signals.
This 2022 plan identifies the City’s transportation assets and their condition as well as the strategy that
the City of Muskegon uses to maintain and upgrade particular assets given the City’s condition goals,
priorities of network’s road users, and resources. An updated plan is to be released approximately every
three years both to comply with Public Act 325 and to reflect changes in road and bridge conditions,
finances, and priorities.
Questions regarding the use or content of this plan should be directed to Dan VanderHeide at 1350 E.
Keating Avenue, Muskegon, MI 49442, [email protected], or at (231) 724-4100.
1
1. PAVEMENT ASSETS
2
The City of Muskegon is responsible for 184.70 centerline miles of public roads. An inventory of these
miles divides them into different network classes based on road purpose/use and funding priorities as
identified at the state level: city major road network, which is prioritized for state-level funding, and city
local road network.
Inventory of Assets
Of the City’s 184.70 miles of road, 73.88 miles are classified as city major and 110.82 miles are classified
as city local. Figure 1 identifies these paved roads in green, yellow, and red with the colors being
determined based on the road segment’s condition. Figure 1 shows unrated roads in blue. The City also
manages 11.20 miles that are classified as part of the National Highway System (NHS); the NHS is
subject to special rules and regulations and has its own performance metrics dictated by the FHWA. In
addition, the City has 7.175 miles of unpaved roads.
Figure 1: Map showing location or roads managed by the City and PASER Rating
Please refer to Appendix F which shows a more detailed map of roads managed by the City and their
current PASER Rating condition.
Additional detail about these road assets can be found in Appendix A, the City’s Roadsoft database, or by
contacting the City.
3
Types
The City of Muskegon has multiple types of pavements in its jurisdiction, including asphalt and concrete;
it also has unpaved roads (i.e., gravel and earth). Figure 2 shows a breakdown of these pavement types for
all of the City’s road assets.
Surface Type
Earth
1% Gravel
Concrete 3%
23%
Asphalt
73%
Figure 2: Pavement type by percentage maintained by the City of Muskegon.
Condition, Goals, and Trend
Paved Roads
Paved roads in Michigan are rated using the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) system,
which is a 1 to 10 scale with 10 being a newly constructed surface and 1 being a completely failed
surface. PASER scores are grouped into TAMC definition categories of good (8-10), fair (5-7), and poor
(1-4) categories. The City collects PASER data every two years on 100 percent of those portions of its
city major and city local networks that are eligible for federal funding and plan to rate pavements every
three years on the non-federal aid roads. The non-federal aid roads will be rated again in 2023.
Of the city major roads that are PASER rated, the city has been consistently maintaining approximately
25% of its roads in good condition, 30% in fair condition, and 45% in poor condition, and the city local
network in 2019 has 3% of its roads in good condition, 46% in fair condition, and 51% in poor condition
(Figure 3 and Figure 4).
4
The City’s long-range goal is to continue to maintain the current condition of the city major network by
having at least 55% of roads in good and fair condition (shown below in Figure 3). The long-range goal
for the city local network is to stabilize the network by maintaining current PASER rating trends. (Figure
4). Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate the historical and current condition (solid bars) of the City’s major
and local networks, respectively; they also illustrate the projected trend (shaded bars), the overall trend in
condition (trendlines), and the City’s goal (final solid bar). Additional information and goals for the City
of Muskegon’s roads are included in the Pavement Asset Management Plan in Appendix A.
Figure 3: City major network condition, goals, and trend
Figure 4: City local network condition, goals, and trend
5
Unpaved Roads
The condition of unpaved roads rapidly change which makes it difficult to obtain a consistent surface
condition rating over the course of a season or even weeks. The City of Muskegon highway supervisor
visually assesses their gravel roadways at various times of the year and schedules required maintenance
and work as needed.
If the City ever decided to rate their unpaved roads, they would rate them with the Inventory-based Rating
System™ receive an IBR number ranging from 1 to 10, with a 9 or 10 (less than one year old) having
good surface width, good or fair drainage, and good structural adequacy and a 1 having poor surface
width, poor drainage, and poor structural adequacy. IBR numbers can be grouped in a similar fashion as
the TAMC definitions into good (8-10), fair (5-7), and poor (1-4) categories. Refer to Figure 5 below
which shows the locations of unpaved roads in blue. Please refer to Appendix F for more detailed maps
which show unpaved roads.
Figure 5: Map showing locations of City of Muskegon unpaved roads
6
Modelled Trends, Gap Analysis, and Planned Projects
Table 1: Roadsoft Modelled Trends, Planned Projects, and Gap Analysis for City's Road
Assets
Network 1 – City Majors (73.88 miles)
Additional Work
Necessary to Overcome
Planned Projects Deficit
Average Mile-Years
Average Average
Yearly
Yearly Years Min. Max. Yearly
Miles of
Miles of of Mile- Trigger Trigger Miles of Mile-
Treatment
Treatment Treatment Life Years Reset Reset Reset Treatment Years
Complete 1.53 25 38.33 1 3 10 1.53 38.33
Reconstruct
Crush & Shape, 25 1 3 10
3.5”
3” Mill & Overlay 15 3 4 9
2” Overlay 10 3 6 9
1.5” Mill & 7 4 6 9 2 14
Overlay
1.5” Overlay 7 4 6 9
Chip Seal & Fog 5 4 7 8 3 15
Crack Seal 2 7 7 8 5 10
Total
Gap Analysis: -35.55 39
(Deficit)/Surplus
Network 2 – City Local (110.82 miles)
Additional Work
Necessary to Overcome
Planned Projects Deficit
Average Minimu Maxim Average Average Mile-Years
Yearly Years m um Yearly Yearly
Miles of of Mile- Trigger Trigger Miles of Mile- Miles of
Treatment Treatment Life Years Reset Reset Reset Treatment Years Treatment
Complete 0.5 25 12.5 1 3 10 0.5 12.5
Reconstruct
Crush & Shape, 25 1 3 10 0.5 12.5
3.5”
3” Mill & Overlay 15 3 4 9
2” Overlay 10 3 6 9 1 10
1.5” Mill & 7 4 6 9 1.5 10.5
Overlay
1.5” Overlay 7 4 6 9
Chip Seal & Fog 5 4 7 8 10 50
Crack Seal 2 7 7 8 2 4
Total
Gap Analysis: -85.82 87
(Deficit)/Surplus
Modelled Trends & Gap Analysis
The Roadsoft network analysis of the City of Muskegon’s planned projects for the city major and city
local networks for their currently available budget does not allow the City to reach its pavement condition
goals given the projects planned for the next three years. To maintain current road conditions, this deficit
must be overcome with a combination of maintenance and rehabilitation/reconstruction work which
would require additional funding. Table 1 (above) is an example strategy that displays the additional road
work that would be necessary to overcome the deficit.
7
Planned Projects
The City has projects planned for the next three years. These projects are shown in red in Figure 6. The
total cost of the projects is approximately $14,050,000. This cost includes road related items such as
curb and gutter, gravel, asphalt, traffic control, contractor mobilization, as well as everything else
included in the reconstruction of each project such as utilities, driveway approaches, sidewalk, ADA
ramps, restoration, signing, and pavement markings. Please refer to Appendix F which shows a more
detailed map and list of future projects.
Figure 6: Map illustrating planned projects for pavement assets
8
2. BRIDGE ASSETS
9
The City is responsible for 3 bridges that provide safe service to road users across the agency network.
The City seeks to implement a cost-effective program of preventive maintenance to maximize the useful
service life and safety of the local bridges under its jurisdiction.
Inventory of Assets
Figure 7: Map illustrating locations of the City’s bridge assets
The City has 3 total bridges in its road and bridge network; these bridges connect various points of the
road network, as illustrated in Figure 7. These bridge structures can be summarized by type, size, and
condition, which are detailed in Table 2. More information about each of these structures can be found in
Appendix B, the City’s MiBRIDGE database, or by contacting the City.
10
Table 2: Bridge Assets by Type: Inventory, Size, and Condition
Condition: Structurally
Total Total
Number Deck
Deficient, Posted, Closed 2020 Condition
of Area Struct.
Bridge Type Bridges (sq ft) Defic Posted Closed Poor Fair Good
Concrete – Culvert 1 1,970 0 0 0 0 0 1
Steel – Multistringer 1 2,007 1 0 1 1 0 0
Steel continuous – 1 3,202 1 0 0 1 0 0
Multistringer
Total 2 0 1
SD/Posted/Closed
Total 3 7,179 2 0 1
Percentage (%) 67% 0 33 67 0 33
Condition, Goals, and Trend
Bridges in Michigan are given a good, fair, or poor rating based on the National Bridge Inspection
Standards (NBIS) rating scale, which was created by the Federal Highway Administration to evaluate a
bridge’s deficiencies and to ensure the safety of road users. The current condition of the City’s bridge
network is 1 (33%) is good and 2 (67%) are poor or lower with none being poor.
Bridges are designed to carry legal loads in terms of vehicles and traffic. Due to a decline in condition, a
bridge may be “posted” with a restriction for what would be considered safe loads passing over the
bridge. On occasion, posting a bridge may also restrict other load-capacity-related elements like speed
and number of vehicles on the bridge, but this type of posting designates the bridge differently. The City
has 0 structures that are posted for load restriction (Table 2). Designating a bridge as “posted” has no
influence on its condition rating. A “closed” bridge is one that is closed to all traffic. Closing a bridge is
contingent upon its ability to carry a set minimum live load. The City has 1 closed structure. (Table 2).
The goal of the program is the preservation and safety of the City’s bridge network. Additional
information and goals for the City of Muskegon’s bridges are included in the Bridge Asset Management
Plan in Appendix B.
11
Programmed/Funded Projects, Gap Analysis, and Planned
Projects
The City received $250,000 from MDOT’s Local Bridge Program towards Bridge #7700 Ottawa Street
over the Muskegon River. The City has plans to remove this bridge in 2024. The City will provide a local
match. The projected cost for this project is $500,000.
The City is planning to remove Bridge #7699 along Amity Avenue and replace it with an at-grade
crossing. This project has not received funding however the City will apply for MDOT’s Local Bridge
Program Call for Projects and include a local match. The projected cost for this work is $600,000. The
City is tentatively planning for 2026 if funding is obtained.
Bridge #7698 along Lakeshore Drive was reconstructed in 2019. Routine maintenance will be performed
as necessary. Maintenance would include activies such as deck sweeping, tree/brush trimming, joint
replacement, and crack sealing. Funding for maintenance will be included in the City’s routine
maintenance budget.
Table 3 illustrates the programmed/funded projects that will be undertaken in order to achieve the City’s
goal. These programmed/funded projects are juxtaposed with priority projects that remain unfunded.
Table 3: Planned Projects and Gap Analysis for City’s Bridge Assets
Strategy 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 GAP
Scheduled Maintenance
Subtotal $0 $1,000 $500 $500 $500 $0
Other - Demolition
Subtotal $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $600,000 $600,000
12
3. CULVERT ASSETS
13
The City of Muskegon exercises awareness of its culvert assets. Culvert data was collected during the
EGLE Stormwater, Asset Management, and Wastewater (SAW) Grant Program between 2015-2017.
Inventory of Assets
At present, the City tracks inventory data of its culvert assets only. The City has inventoried 29 culverts,
which is 100 percent of their known culverts. 23 of the 29 have been rated via a pole-mounted Zoom
Camera.
Of the 23 rated culverts, the City has 22 culverts in good condition and 1 culvert in fair condition. There
are no culverts considered poor or failed based on the culvert rating system that the City uses (see
Appendix C Culvert Asset Management Plan Supplement). Ratings were performed in 2017 during the
City’s SAW Grant. The 6 unrated culverts were submerged and therefore not rated. Please refer to Figure
8 below which shows the locations of the City’s rated culverts in red and unrated culverts in green.
Located in Appendix F are more detailed maps which show culverts owned by the City of Muskegon.
Figure 8: Map showing locations of City of Muskegon owned culverts
More detail about these culvert assets can be found in the City’s Roadsoft database or by contacting the
City.
14
Goals
The goal of the City’s asset management program is the preservation of its culvert network. The City is
responsible for preserving 29 inventoried culverts as well as any un-inventoried culverts that underlie its
entire road network.
The second goal is to rate the condition of the remaining 6 culverts within the next 5 years. The City plans
to work towards having the condition of all culverts rated and inspected on a routine basis. The
inspection of the larger culverts that are under the length considered ‘bridges’, 15’ to 20’, plan to be
added to the list of inspections completed by a qualified bridge inspector on a 5 year cycle. This will
provide a condition inspection that includes maintenance recommendations.
The City’s goal is to mitigate future storm disasters by removing multiple culverts that are placed closely
together when replacement occurs. Water is more likely to enter the backfill between closely spaced
culverts causing erosion. Over time, the loss of material may cause potential washout of culverts and
collapsing of the road above. When the condition of an existing double or triple culvert is rated poor and
has reached a point of necessary replacement, engineering review of the crossing will occur to replace
with a single adequately sized culvert.
Planned Projects
The City’s policy is to replace or repair culvert assets concurrent with projects affecting road segments
carried by the particular culverts. The City also includes culvert assets in scheduled maintenance projects
affecting road segments carried by the particular culverts.
15
4. SIGNAL ASSETS
16
The City of Muskegon exercises awareness of its traffic sign and signal assets. The City regularly reviews
signals for warrants and removes or modifies signals when appropriate.
Inventory of Assets
At present, the City tracks location, signal head configuration, pole configuration, notation of pedestrian
signals, flashing beacons, and whether cameras or loop detection systems are in place for each traffic
signal. The City has inventoried 100% of the 25 traffic signal locations that the City owns. Please refer to
Figure 9 below which shows locations of the inventoried traffic signals.
Figure 9: Map showing locations of City of Muskegon owned signals
More detail about these traffic signal assets can be found in Appendix D or by contacting the City.
Goals
The goal of the City’s asset management program is the preservation and continual operation of its traffic
signals and flashing beacons. The City is responsible for preserving 25 inventoried traffic signals and
flashing beacons as well as providing upgrades deemed necessary based on traffic or geometric needs.
Another goal of the City’s is to systematically and proactively review upgrades in technology to
financially prepare for large signal replacement projects.
17
Planned Projects
The City’s policy is to evaluate traffic signal assets based on condition assessment for replacement or
repair during any reconstruction, rehabilitation, preventive maintenance, or scheduled maintenance
activities on the roadway affected by the particular signal. The City contracts with Muskegon County
Signal Maintenance Group to annually inspect and maintain each signal. They conduct replacements or
repairs for traffic signal assets reported as non-functional or as performing with reduced function. The
City adheres to regular maintenance and servicing policies outlined in the Michigan Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices.
The City also plans to remove two signals along Terrace Street with a road diet project within the next
three years.
18
5. FINANCIAL
RESOURCES
Public entities must balance the quality and extent of services they can provide with the tax resources
provided by citizens and businesses, all while maximizing how efficiently funds are used. Therefore, the
City will overview its general expenditures and financial resources currently devoted to transportation
infrastructure maintenance. This financial information is not intended to be a full financial disclosure or a
formal report. Full details of the City’s financial status can be found by request submitted to our agency
contact (listed in this plan).
Anticipated Revenues & Expenses
The City of Muskegon receives funding from the following sources:
State funds – The City’s principal source of transportation funding is received from the Michigan
Transportation Fund (MTF). This fund is supported by vehicle registration fees and the state’s
per-gallon gas tax. Allocations from the MTF are distributed to state and local governmental units
based on a legislated formula, which includes factors such as population, miles of certified roads,
and vehicle registration fees for vehicles registered in the agency’s jurisdiction. The City also
receives revenue from the Michigan Department of Transportation to maintain (e.g. plow, patch,
mow) the state trunklines within its jurisdictional boundary. Revenue from these maintenance
contracts are received on a time and materials basis as resources are expended to maintain the
State’s roads. While these contracts do not allow for capital gain (profit) and only bring in
revenue to cover the cost of the work, they do provide a benefit to the City by allowing an
economy of scale that enables us to provide better service at a lower cost for the City’s roads
while allowing the same for the State of Michigan. Examples of state grants also include local
bridge grants, economic development funds, and metro funds.
19
Federal and state grants for individual projects – These are typically competitive funding
applications that are targeted at a specific project type to accomplish a specific purpose. These
may include safety enhancement projects, economic development projects, or other targeted
funding. Examples of federal funds include Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds, C and
D funds, bridge funds, MDOT payments to private contractors, and negotiated contracts.
Local government entities or private developer contributions to construction projects for
specific improvements – This category includes funding received to mitigate the impact of
commercial developments as a condition of construction of a specific development project, and
can also include funding from a special assessment district levied by another governmental unit.
Examples of contributions from local units include city, village, and township contributions to the
county; special assessments; county appropriations; bond and note proceeds; contributions from
counties to cities and villages; city general fund transfers; city municipal street funds; capital
improvement funds; and tax millages (see below).
Local tax millages – Many local agencies in Michigan use local tax millages to supplement their
road-funding budget. These taxes can provide for additional construction and maintenance for
new or existing roads that are also funded using MTF or MDOT funds. The City does not have
local tax millages in its road-funding budget.
Interest – Interest from invested funds.
Permit fees – Generally, permit fees cover the cost of a permit application review.
Other – Other revenues can be gained through salvage sales, property rentals, land and building
sales, sundry refunds, equipment disposition or installation, private sources, and financing.
Charges for services – Funds from partner agencies who contract with the City to construct or
maintain its roads, or roads under joint or neighboring jurisdictions, including state trunkline
maintenance and non-maintenance services and preservation.
The City is required to report transportation fund expenditures to the State of Michigan using a prescribed
format with predefined expenditure categories. The definitions of these categories according to Public Act
51 of 1951 may differ from common pavement management nomenclature and practice. For the purposes
of reporting under PA 51, the expenditure categories are:
Construction/Capacity Improvement Funds – According to PA 51 of 1951, this financial
classification of projects includes, “new construction of highways, roads, streets, or bridges, a
project that increases the capacity of a highway facility to accommodate that part of traffic having
neither an origin nor destination within the local area, widening of a lane width or more, or
adding turn lanes of more than 1/2 mile in length.”1
Preservation and Structural Improvement Funds – Preservation and structural improvements
are “activit[ies] undertaken to preserve the integrity of the existing roadway system.”2
1
Public Act 51 of 1951, 247.660c Definitions
2
Public Act 51 of 1951, 247.660c Definitions
20
Preservation includes items such as a reconstruction of an existing road or bridge, or adding
structure to an existing road.
Routine and Preventive Maintenance Funds – Routine maintenance activities are “actions
performed on a regular or controllable basis or in response to uncontrollable events upon a
highway, road, street, or bridge”.3 Preventive maintenance activities are “planned strategy[ies] of
cost-effective treatments to an existing roadway system and its appurtenances that preserve assets
by retarding deterioration and maintaining functional condition without significantly increasing
structural capacity”.4
Winter Maintenance Funds – Expenditures for snow and ice control.
Trunkline Maintenance Funds – Expenditures spent under the City’s maintenance agreement
with MDOT for maintenance it performs on MDOT trunkline routes.
Administrative Funds – There are specific items that can and cannot be included in
administrative expenditures as specified in PA 51 of 1951. The law also states that the amount of
MTF revenues that are spent on administrative expenditures is limited to 10 percent of the annual
MTF funds that are received.
Other Funds – Expenditures for equipment, capital outlay, debt principal payment, interest
expense, contributions to adjacent governmental units, principal, interest and bank fees, and
miscellaneous for cities and villages.
The Table (below) details the 2020 revenues and expenditures for the City.
Table 4: Annual Fiscal-Year Revenues & Expenditures per Fiscal Year
REVENUES EXPENDITURES
Estimated Percent Estimated Percent
Item $ of Total Item $ of Total
State funds Construction & capacity
$5,280,251 77.2% $0 0%
improvement (CCI)
Federal funds Preservation & structural
$1,049,653 15.3% $6,558,002 85.7%
improvement (PSI)
Contributions for local units Routine maintenance 2.4%
$250,000 3.7% $180,160
Interest, rents, and other Winter maintenance 4.2%
$91,647 1.3% $318,134
Charges for services Trunkline maintenance 2.2%
169,968 2.5% $169,968
Administrative $197,750 2.6%
Other $231,873 3%
TOTAL $6,841,519 100% TOTAL $7,655,887 100%
Verify the information in this table. You can find your agency’s information in the TAMC dashboard at
https://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/mitrp/tamcDashboards.
3
Public Act 51 of 1951, 247.660c Definitions
4
Public Act 51 of 1951, 247.660c Definitions
21
6. RISK OF FAILURE
ANALYSIS
Transportation infrastructure is designed to be resilient. The system of interconnecting roads and bridges
maintained by the City provides road users with multiple alternate options in the event of an unplanned
disruption of one part of the system. There are, however, key links in the transportation system that may
cause significant inconvenience to users if they are unexpectedly closed to traffic. Shown in Appendix F
is a map of the City of Muskegon key transportation links in our network, including the ones who meet
the following types of situations:
Geographic divides: Areas where a geographic feature (river, lake, hilly terrain, or limited
access road) limits crossing points of the feature. This includes the Lakeshore Drive bridge over
Ruddiman Creek.
Emergency alternate routes for high-volume roads and bridges: Roads and bridges that are
routinely used as alternate routes for high-volume assets are included in an emergency response
plan. This includes roads such as Sherman Boulevard, Laketon Avenue, Getty Street, and Peck
Street.
Limited access areas: Roads and bridges that serve remote or limited access areas that result in
long detours if closed. This includes Beach Street, Keating Avenue, and Lakeshore Drive.
Main access to key commercial districts: Areas with a large concentration of businesses or
where large-size business will be significantly impacted if a road is unavailable. This includes
Keating Avenue, Latimer Drive, Black Creek Road, Olthoff Street, and Sheridan Road.
22
7. COORDINATION WITH
OTHER ENTITIES
An asset management plan provides a significant value for infrastructure owners because it serves as a
platform to engage other infrastructure owners using the same shared right of way space. The City of
Muskegon communicates with both public and private infrastructure owners to coordinate work in the
following ways:
The City of Muskegon maintains drinking water, sanitary, and storm sewer assets in addition to
transportation assets. The City follows an asset management process for all of its assets by coordinating
the upgrade, maintenance, and operation of all major assets.
Planned projects for sub-surface infrastructure that the City owns are listed in the following asset
management plans: drinking water distribution system asset management plan, wastewater collection
system asset management plan, and storm sewer system asset management plan. These three sub-surface
utility plans are coordinated with the transportation infrastructure plans to maximize value and minimize
service disruptions and cost to the public.
The City Utility Department and the Streets Department meet yearly to develop the rolling 6-year CIP.
City staff discuss planned projects that would disrupt transportation services or cause damage to
pavements. Projects which may cause damage to pavements in good or fair condition are discussed and
mitigation measures are proposed to minimize the impact to pavements. Mitigation measures could
include rescheduling and coordinating projects to maximize value and minimize disruptions and cost to
the public.
The City takes advantage of coordinated infrastructure work to reduce cost and maximize value using the
following policies:
23
Roads which are in poor condition that have a subsurface infrastructure project planned which
will destroy more than half the lane width will be rehabilitated or reconstructed full width using
transportation funds to repair the balance of the road width.
Subsurface infrastructure projects which will cause damage to pavements in good condition will
be delayed as long as possible, or methods that do not require pavement cuts will be considered.
Subsurface utility projects will be coordinated to allow all under pavement assets to be upgraded
in the same project regardless of ownership.
Projects on roads which share a border with an adjacent community will have an agreement
created during the planning process which defines the formal split for cost sharing. These
communities include Roosevelt Park, Norton Shores, Muskegon Heights, as well as the
Muskegon County Road Commission.
24
8. PROOF OF
ACCEPTANCE
PUBLIC ACT 325
CERTIFICATION OF TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
25
PROOF OF ACCEPTANCE
PUBLIC ACT 325
CERTIFICATION OF TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
Certification Year: 2022
Local Road-owning Agency Name: City of Muskegon
Beginning October 2022 and on a three-year cycle thereafter, certification must be made for
compliance to Public Act 325. A local road-owning agency with 100 certified miles or more must
certify that it has developed an asset management plan for the road and bridge assets. Signing this
form certifies that the hitherto referred agency meets with minimum requirements as outlined by
Public Act 325 and agency-defined goals and objectives.
This form must be signed by the mayor of the local road-owning agency and the chief financial
officer of the local road-owning agency.
Signature
Printed Name: Ken Johnson, Mayor
Date: _____________________, 2022
Signature
Printed Name: Ken Grant, Finance Director
Date: _____________________, 2022
Due every three years based on agency submission schedule.
Submittal Date: _______________________, 2022.
See attached resolution.
26
CITY OF MUSKEGON
RESOLUTION
Certification of 2022 Compliance Asset Management Plan
WHEREAS, Beginning October, 2022 and on a three-year cycle thereafter, certification must be
made for compliance of Public Act 325; and
WHEREAS, A local road-owning agency with 100 certified miles or more must certify that it has
developed an asset management plan for the road, bridge, culvert and traffic signal assets.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT BE RESOLVED; the City of Muskegon hereby certifies the 2022
Compliance Asset Management Plan and authorizes the Mayor and Finance Director to sign the
Proof of Acceptance form.
Yeas:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
I certify that the above Resolution was adopted by the City Commission of the City of Muskegon
on _________________________, 2022.
BY: Ann Meisch, City Clerk
________________________________________________________________________
Signature Date
27
APPENDIX A. PAVEMENT ASSET MANAGEMENT
PLAN
An attached Pavement Asset Management Plan follows.
28
City of Muskegon
2022 Pavement
Asset Management Plan
A plan describing the City of Muskegon’s roadway assets and conditions
Prepared by:
Pavement AMP
CONTENTS
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ ii
Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ iv
Pavement Asset Management Plan Summary............................................................................................... v
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Pavement Primer ........................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Pavement Assets ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Inventory ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Goals ........................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Modelled Trends ......................................................................................................................................................... 24
Planned Projects .......................................................................................................................................................... 29
Gap Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................... 30
2. Financial Resources ................................................................................................................................ 31
Anticipated Revenues & Expenses ............................................................................................................................. 31
3. Risk of Failure Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 35
4. Coordination with Other Entities ............................................................................................................ 36
Appendix A: A Quick Check of Your Highway Network Health .............................................................. 38
Appendix B: Roadsoft model inputs & outputs .......................................................................................... 44
i
Pavement AMP
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Top image, right– PASER 8 road that is considered “good” by the TAMC exhibit only
minor defects. Second image, right– PASER 5 road that is considered “fair” by the
TAMC. Exhibiting structural soundness but could benefit from CPM. Third image, right–
PASER 6 road that is considered “fair” by the TAMC. Bottom image, right– PASER 2
road that is considered “poor” by the TAMC exhibiting significant structural distress. ................................. 5
Figure 2: Examples of reconstruction treatments—(left) reconstructing a road and (right) road
prepared for full-depth repair. ......................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Examples of structural improvement treatments—(from left) HMA overlay on an
unmilled pavement, milling asphalt pavement, and pulverization of a road during a crush-
and-shape project............................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 4: Examples of capital preventive maintenance treatments—(from left) crack seal, fog seal,
chip seal, and slurry seal/microsurface. ........................................................................................................... 8
Figure 5: Examples of capital preventive maintenance treatments, cont’d—(from left) concrete
road prepared for partial-depth repair, gravel road undergoing maintenance grading, and
gravel road receiving dust control application (dust control photo courtesy of Weld
County, Colorado, weldgov.the City)............................................................................................................ 10
Figure 6: Map showing location of the City’s paved roads (i.e., those managed by the City) and
their current condition for paved roads with green for good (i.e., PASER 10, 9, 8), yellow
for fair (i.e., PASER 7, 6, 5), and red for poor (i.e., PASER 4, 3, 2, 1), as well as the
location of the City’s unrated roads in blue................................................................................................... 12
Figure 7: Percentage of city major and city local roads for the City. .......................................................................... 13
Figure 8: Miles of roads managed by the City that are part of the National Highway System and
condition. ....................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 9: Pavement type by percentage maintained by the City of Muskegon ............................................................ 14
Figure 10: (A) Left: The City paved city major road network conditions by percentage of good,
fair, or poor, and (B) Right: paved city local road network conditions by percentage of
good, fair, or poor .......................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 11: (A) Left: Statewide paved city major road network conditions by percentage of good,
fair, or poor, and (B) Right: paved city local road network conditions by percentage of
good, fair, or poor .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 12: The City paved city major road network conditions. Bar graph colors correspond to
good/fair/poor TAMC designations. ............................................................................................................. 17
Figure 13: The City paved city local network condition by PASER rating. Bar graph colors
correspond to good/fair/poor TAMC designations. ....................................................................................... 17
Figure 14: Map of the current paved road condition in good (PASER 10, 9, 8) shown in green, fair
(PASER 7, 6, 5) shown in yellow, and poor (PASER 4, 3, 2, 1) shown in red. Only Roads
owned by the City are shown. ....................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 15: Historical City of Muskegon paved city major road network condition trend ........................................... 19
Figure 16: Historical statewide federal-aid road network condition trend................................................................... 19
Figure 17: Historical paved city local road network condition trend........................................................................... 20
Figure 18: Historical statewide paved non-federal-aid road network condition trend ................................................. 20
Figure 19: Map of the unpaved roads. Unpaved roads owned by the City are shown in blue. .................................... 21
ii
Pavement AMP
Figure 20: The City’s 2019 city major road network condition by percentage of good/fair/poor ............................... 22
Figure 21: The City’s 2019 paved city local road network condition by percentage of
good/fair/poor ................................................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 22: Pavement condition forecast model in the software program Roadsoft. .................................................... 26
Figure 23: Forecast good/fair/poor changes to the city network condition from planned projects on
the City major road network. ......................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 24: Pavement condition forecast model in the software program Roadsoft. .................................................... 28
Figure 25: Forecast good/fair/poor changes to the city network condition from planned projects on
the paved city local road network. ................................................................................................................ 29
Figure 26. Map of 2023 – 2026 Construction Projects ..............................................................................................30
iii
Pavement AMP
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Service Life Extension (in Years) for Pavement Types Gained by Fix Type1 .............................................. 25
Table 2: Roadsoft Modelled Trends and Planned Projects: Roadsoft Annual Work Program for the
Paved City Major Road Network Forecast .................................................................................................... 27
Table 3: Roadsoft Modelled Trends and Planned Projects: Roadsoft Annual Work Program for the
Paved City Local Road Network Forecast .................................................................................................... 28
Table 4: Annual Fiscal-Year Revenues & Expenditures per Fiscal Year .................................................................... 35
iv
Pavement AMP
PAVEMENT ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY
As conduits for the commerce and connections to vital services, roads are among the most important
assets in any the community along with other assets like bridges, culverts, traffic signs, traffic signals, and
utilities that support and affect roads. The City of Muskegon’s roads, other transportation assets, and
support systems are also some of the most valuable and extensive public assets, all of which are paid for
with taxes collected from citizens and businesses. The cost of building and maintaining roads, their
importance to society, and the investment made by taxpayers all place a high level of responsibility on
local agencies to plan, build, and maintain the road network in an efficient and effective manner.
An asset management plan is required by Michigan Public Act 325 of 2018, and this document represents
fulfillment of some of the City’s obligations towards meeting these requirements. However, this plan and
its supporting documents are intended to be much more than a fulfillment of required reporting. This asset
management plan helps to demonstrate the City’s responsible use of public funds by providing elected
and appointed officials as well as the general public with the inventory and condition information of the
City’s road assets, and gives taxpayers the information they need to make informed decisions about
investing in the City’s essential transportation infrastructure.
This plan overviews the City’s road assets and condition, and explains how the City works to maintain
and improve the overall condition of those assets. These explanations can help answer the following
questions:
What kinds of road assets the City has in its jurisdiction and the different options for maintaining
these assets.
What tools and processes the City uses to track and manage road assets and funds.
What condition road assets are in the City compared to statewide averages.
Why some road assets are in better condition than others and the path to maintaining and
improving road asset conditions through proper planning and maintenance.
How transportation assets are funded and where those funds come from.
How funds are used and the costs incurred during the City’s road assets’ normal life cycle.
What condition the City expects the network to be if road assets continue to be funded at the
current funding levels.
How changes in funding levels can affect the overall condition of all of the City’s road assets.
The City owns and manages 184.70 centerline miles of roads. This road network can be divided into the
City major network, the City local network, the unpaved road network, and the National Highway System
(NHS) network based on the different factors these roads have that influence asset management decisions.
A summary of the City of Muskegon’s historical and current network conditions, projected trends, and
goals can be found in this document.
v
Pavement AMP
INTRODUCTION
Asset management is defined by Public Act 325 of 2018 as “an ongoing process of maintaining,
preserving, upgrading, and operating physical assets cost effectively, based on a continuous physical
inventory and condition assessment and investment to achieve established performance goals”. In other
words, asset management is a process that uses data to manage and track assets, like roads and bridges, in
a cost-effective manner using a combination of engineering and business principles. This process is
endorsed by leaders in municipal planning and transportation infrastructure, including the Michigan
Municipal League, County Road Association of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Transportation
(MDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The City of Muskegon is supported in its
use of asset management principles and processes by the Michigan Transportation Asset Management
Council (TAMC), formed by the State of Michigan.
Asset management, in the context of this plan, ensures that public funds are spent as effectively as
possible to maximize the condition of the road network. Asset management also provides a transparent
decision-making process that allows the public to understand the technical and financial challenges of
managing road infrastructure with a limited budget.
The City of Muskegon has adopted an “asset management” business process to overcome the challenges
presented by having limited financial, staffing, and other resources while needing to meet road users’
expectations. The City is responsible for maintaining and operating over 184.70 centerline miles of roads.
This 2022 plan identifies the City’s transportation assets and their condition as well as the strategy that
the City of Muskegon uses to maintain and upgrade particular assets given the City’s condition goals,
priorities of network’s road users, and resources. An updated plan is to be released approximately every
three years both to comply with Public Act 325 and to reflect changes in road conditions, finances, and
priorities.
Questions regarding the use or content of this plan should be directed to Dan VanderHeide at 1350 E.
Keating Avenue, Muskegon, MI 49442, [email protected], or at (231) 724-4100.
1
Pavement AMP
Key terms used in this plan are defined in the City’s comprehensive transportation asset management plan
(also known as the “Compliance Plan”) used for the compliance with PA 325 or 2018.
Knowing the basic features of the asset classes themselves is a crucial starting point to understanding the
rationale behind an asset management approach. The following primer provides an introduction to
pavements.
Pavement Primer
Roads come in two basic forms—paved and unpaved. Paved roads have hard surfaces. These hard
surfaces can be constructed from asphalt, concrete, composite (asphalt and concrete), sealcoat, and brick
and block materials. On the other hand, unpaved roads have no hard surfaces. Examples of these surfaces
are gravel and unimproved earth.
The decision to pave with a particular material as well as the decision to leave a road unpaved allows
road-owning agencies to tailor a road to a particular purpose, environment, and budget. Thus, selecting a
pavement type or leaving a road unpaved depends upon purpose, materials available, and budget. Each
choice represents a trade-off between budget and costs for construction and maintenance.
Maintenance enables the road to fulfill its particular purpose. To achieve the maximum service for a
pavement or an unpaved road, continual monitoring of a road’s pavement condition is essential for
choosing the right time to apply the right fix in the right place.
Here is a brief overview of the different types of pavements, how condition is assessed, and treatment
options that can lengthen a road’s service life.
Surfacing
Pavement type is influenced by several different factors, such as cost of construction, cost of
maintenance, frequency of maintenance, and type of maintenance. These factors can have benefits
affecting asset life and road user experience.
Paved Surfacing
Typical benefits and tradeoffs for hard surface types include:
Concrete pavement: Concrete pavement, which is sometimes called a rigid pavement, is durable
and lasts a long time when properly constructed and maintained. Concrete pavement can have
longer service periods between maintenance activities, which can help reduce maintenance-
related traffic disruptions. However, concrete pavements have a high initial cost and can be
challenging to rehabilitate and maintain at the end of their service life. A typical concrete
pavement design life will provide service for 30 years before major rehabilitation is necessary.
Hot-mix asphalt pavement (HMA): HMA pavement, sometimes known as asphalt or flexible
pavement, is currently less expensive to construct than concrete pavement (this is, in some part,
due to the closer link between HMA material costs and oil prices that HMA pavements have in
comparison with other pavement types). However, they require frequent maintenance activities to
2
Pavement AMP
maximize their service life. A typical HMA pavement design life will provide service for 18 years
before major rehabilitation is necessary. The vast majority of local-agency-owned pavements are
HMA pavements.
Composite pavements: Composite pavement is a combination of concrete and asphalt layers.
Typically, composite pavements are old concrete pavements exhibiting ride-related issues that
were overlaid by several inches of HMA in order to gain more service life from the pavement
before it would need reconstruction. Converting a concrete pavement to a composite pavement is
typically used as a “holding pattern” treatment to maintain the road in usable condition until
reconstruction funds become available.
Sealcoat pavement: Sealcoat pavement is a gravel road that has been sealed with a thin asphalt
binder coating that has stone chips spread on top (not to be confused with a chip seal treatment
over HMA pavement). This type of a pavement relies on the gravel layer to provide structure to
support traffic, and the asphalt binder coating and stone chips shed water and eliminate the need
for maintenance grading. Nonetheless, sealcoat pavement does require additional maintenance
steps that asphalt and gravel do not require and does not last as long as HMA pavement, but it
provides a low-cost alternative for lightly-trafficked areas and competes with asphalt for ride
quality when properly constructed and maintained. Sealcoat pavement can provide service for ten
or more years before the surface layer deteriorates and needs to be replaced.
Unpaved Surfacing
Typical benefits and tradeoffs for non-hard surfacing include:
Gravel: Gravel is a low-cost, easy-to-maintain road surface made from layers of soil and
aggregate (gravel). However, there are several potential drawbacks such as dust, mud, and ride
smoothness when maintenance is delayed or traffic volume exceeds design expectations. Gravel
roads require frequent low-cost maintenance activities. Gravel can be very cost effective for
lower-volume, lower-speed roads. In the right conditions, a properly constructed and maintained
gravel road can provide a service life comparable to an HMA pavement and can be significantly
less expensive than the other pavement types.
Pavement Condition
Besides traffic congestion, pavement condition is what road users typically notice most about the quality
of the roads that they regularly use—the better the pavement condition, the more satisfied users are with
the service provided by the roadwork performed by road-owning agencies. Pavement condition is also a
major factor in determining the most cost-effective treatment—that is, routine maintenance, capital
preventive maintenance, or structural improvement—for a given section of pavement. As pavements age,
they transition between “windows” of opportunity when a specific type of treatment can be applied to
gain an increase in quality and extension of service life. Routine maintenance is day-to-day, regularly-
scheduled, low-cost activity applied to “good” roads to prevent water or debris intrusion. Capital
preventive maintenance (CPM) is a planned set of cost-effective treatments for “fair” roads that corrects
pavement defects, slows further deterioration, and maintains the functional condition without increasing
3
Pavement AMP
structural capacity. The City of Muskegon uses pavement condition and age to anticipate when a specific
section of pavement will be a potential candidate for preventive maintenance. More detail on this topic is
included in the Pavement Treatment section of this primer.
Pavement condition data is also important because it allows road owners to evaluate the benefits of
preventive maintenance projects. This data helps road owners to identify the most cost-effective use of
road construction and maintenance dollars. Further, historic pavement condition data can enable road
owners to predict future road conditions based on budget constraints and to determine if a road network’s
condition will improve, stay the same, or degrade at the current or planned investment level. This analysis
can help determine how much additional funding is necessary to meet a network’s condition improvement
goals.
Paved Road Condition Rating System
The City of Muskegon is committed to monitoring the condition of its road network and using pavement
condition data to drive cost-effective decision-making and preservation of valuable road assets. The City
uses the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) system to assess its paved roads. PASER was
developed by the University of Wisconsin Transportation Information Center to provide a simple,
efficient, and consistent method for evaluating road condition through visual inspection. The widely-used
PASER system has specific criteria for assessing asphalt, concrete, sealcoat, and brick and block
pavements. Information regarding the PASER system and PASER manuals may be found on the TAMC
website at: http://www.michigan.gov/tamc/0,7308,7-356-82158_82627---,00.html.
The TAMC has adopted the PASER system for measuring statewide pavement conditions in Michigan for
asphalt, concrete, the composite, sealcoat, and brick-and-block paved roads. Broad use of the PASER
system means that data collected at the City is consistent with data collected statewide. PASER data is
collected using trained inspectors in a slow-moving vehicle using GPS-enabled data collection software
provided to road-owning agencies at no cost to them. The method does not require extensive training or
specialized equipment, and data can be collected rapidly, which minimizes the expense for collecting and
maintaining this data.
The PASER system rates surface condition using a 1-10 scale where 10 is a brand new road with no
defects that can be treated with routine maintenance, 5 is a road with distresses but is structurally sound
that can be treated with preventive maintenance, and 1 is a road with extensive surface and structural
distresses that is in need of total reconstruction.
Roads with lower PASER scores generally require costlier treatments to restore their quality than roads
with higher PASER scores. The cost effectiveness of treatments generally decreases as the PASER
number decreases. In other words, as a road deteriorates, it costs more dollars per mile to fix it, and the
dollars spent are less efficient in increasing the road’s service life. Nationwide experience and asset
management principles tell us that a road that has deteriorated to a PASER 4 or less will cost more to
improve and the dollars spent are less efficient. Understanding this cost principle helps to draw meaning
from the current PASER condition assessment.
4
Pavement AMP
The TAMC has developed statewide definitions of
road condition by creating three simplified condition
categories—“good”, “fair”, and “poor”—that
represent bin ranges of PASER scores having similar
contexts with regard to maintenance and/or
reconstruction. The definitions of these rating
conditions are:
“Good” roads, according to the TAMC, have
PASER scores of 8, 9, or 10. Roads in this
category have very few, if any, defects and
only require minimal maintenance; they may
be kept in this category longer using CPM.
These roads may include those that have been
recently seal coated or newly constructed.
Figure 1 illustrates an example of a road in
this category.
“Fair” roads, according to the TAMC, have
PASER scores of 5, 6, or 7. Roads in this
category still show good structural support,
but their surface is starting to deteriorate.
Figure 1 illustrates two road examples in this
category. CPM can be cost effective for
maintaining the road’s “fair” condition or
even raising it to “good” condition before the
structural integrity of the pavement has been
severely impacted. CPM treatments can be
likened to shingles on a roof of a house: while
the shingles add no structural value, they
protect the house from structural damage by
maintaining the protective function of a roof
covering.
“Poor” roads, according to the TAMC, have
PASER scores of 1, 2, 3, or 4. These roads Figure 1: Top image, right– PASER 8 road that is considered
“good” by the TAMC exhibit only minor defects. Second
exhibit evidence that the underlying structure
image, right– PASER 5 road that is considered “fair” by the
is failing, such as alligator cracking and TAMC. Exhibiting structural soundness but could benefit from
rutting. These roads must be rehabilitated CPM. Third image, right– PASER 6 road that is considered
“fair” by the TAMC. Bottom image, right– PASER 2 road that
with treatments like a heavy overlay, crush is considered “poor” by the TAMC exhibiting significant
and shape, or total reconstruction. Figure 1 structural distress.
illustrates a road in this category.
The TAMC’s good, fair, and poor categories are based solely on the definitions, above. Therefore, caution
should be exercised when comparing other condition assessments with these categories because other
5
Pavement AMP
condition assessments may have “good”, “fair”, or “poor” designations similar to the TAMC condition
categories but may not share the same definition. Often, other condition assessment systems define the
“good”, “fair”, and “poor” categories differently, thus rendering the data of little use for cross-system the
comparison. The TAMC’s definitions provide a statewide standard for all of Michigan’s road-owning
agencies to use for the comparison purposes.
PASER data is collected 100 percent every two years on all federal-aid-eligible roads in Michigan. The
TAMC dictates and funds the required training and the format for this collection, and it shares the data
regionally and statewide. In addition, the City collects its paved non-federal-aid-eligible network using its
own staff and resources. Past practice has been irregular, but plans are in place to collect every third year.
Unpaved Road Condition Rating System (IBR System™)
The condition of unpaved roads rapidly change which makes it difficult to obtain a consistent surface
condition rating over the course of a season or even weeks. The City of Muskegon’s highway supervisor
visually assesses their gravel roadways at various times of the year and schedules required maintenance
and work as needed.
If the City ever decided to rate their unpaved roads, they would rate them with the Inventory-based Rating
System™ receive an IBR number ranging from 1 to 10, with a 9 or 10 (less than one year old) having
good surface width, good or fair drainage, and good structural adequacy and a 1 having poor surface
width, poor drainage, and poor structural adequacy. IBR numbers can be grouped in a similar fashion as
the TAMC definitions into good (8-10), fair (5-7), and poor (1-4) categories.
Pavement Treatments
Selection of repair treatments for roads aims to balance costs, benefits, and road life expectancy. All
pavements are damaged by water, traffic weight, freeze/thaw cycles, and sunlight. Each of the following
treatments and strategies—reconstruction, structural improvements, capital preventive maintenance, and
others used by the City —counters at least one of these pavement-damaging forces.
Reconstruction
Pavement reconstruction treats failing or failed pavements by completely removing the old pavement and
base and constructing an entirely new road (Figure 2). Every pavement has to eventually be reconstructed
Figure 2: Examples of reconstruction treatments—(left) reconstructing a road and (right) road prepared for full-depth repair.
6
Pavement AMP
and it is usually done as a last resort after more cost-effective treatments have been applied, or if the road
requires significant changes to road geometry, base, or buried utilities. Compared to the other treatments,
which are all improvements of the existing road, reconstruction is the most extensive rehabilitation of the
roadway and therefore, also the most expensive per mile and most disruptive to regular traffic patterns.
Reconstructed pavement will subsequently require one or more of the previous maintenance treatments to
maximize service life and performance. A reconstructed road lasts approximately 25 years and costs
$380,000 per lane mile. The following descriptions outline the main reconstruction treatments used by the
City.
Full-depth Concrete Repair
A full-depth concrete repair removes sections of damaged concrete pavement and replaces it with new
concrete of the same dimensions (Figure 2). It is usually performed on isolated deteriorated joint locations
or entire slabs that are much further deteriorated than adjacent slabs. The purpose is to restore the riding
surface, delay water infiltration, restore load transfer from one slab to the next, and eliminate the need to
perform costly temporary patching. This repair lasts approximately twelve years and typically costs
$125,000 per mile.
Ditching (for Unpaved Roads)
Water needs to drain away from any roadway to delay softening of the pavement structure, and proper
drainage is critical for unpaved roads where there is no hard surface on top to stop water infiltration into
the road surface and base. To improve drainage, new ditches are dug or old ones are cleaned out.
Unpaved roads typically need to be re-ditched every 10 years at a cost of $10,000 per mile.
Gravel Overlay (for Unpaved Roads)
Unpaved roads will exhibit gravel loss over time due to traffic, wind, and rain. Gravel on an unpaved road
provides a wear surface and contributes to the structure of the entire road. Unpaved roads typically need
to be overlaid with four inches of new gravel every 10 years at a cost of $25,000 per mile.
Structural Improvement
Roads requiring structural improvements exhibit alligator cracking and rutting and rated poor in the
TAMC scale. Road rutting is evidence that the underlying structure is beginning to fail and it must be
either rehabilitated with a structural treatment. Examples of structural improvement treatments include
HMA overlay with or without milling, and crush and shape (Figure 3). The following descriptions outline
the main structural improvement treatments used by the City of Muskegon.
Figure 3: Examples of structural improvement treatments—(from left) HMA overlay on an unmilled pavement, milling asphalt
pavement, and pulverization of a road during a crush-and-shape project.
7
Pavement AMP
Hot-mix Asphalt (HMA) Overlay with/without Milling
An HMA overlay is a layer of new asphalt (liquid asphalt and stones) placed on an existing pavement
(Figure 3). Depending on the overlay thickness, this treatment can add significant structural strength. This
treatment also creates a new wearing surface for traffic and seals the pavement from water, debris, and
sunlight damage. An HMA overlay lasts approximately five to ten years and costs $125,000 to $175,000
per lane mile. The top layer of severely damaged pavement can be removed by cold milling, a technique
that helps prevent structural problems from being quickly reflected up through the new surface. Milling is
also done to keep roads matching the height of gutterpan that is not being raised or reinstalled in the
project. Milling adds $12,000 per lane mile to the HMA overlay cost.
Crush and Shape
During a crush and shape treatment, the existing pavement and base are pulverized and then the road
surface is reshaped to correct imperfections in the road’s profile (Figure 3). An additional layer of gravel
is often added and then paved with a new wearing surface such as an HMA overlay or chip seal.
Additional gravel and an HMA overlay give an increase in the pavements structural capacity. This
treatment is usually performed on roads with severe structural distress; adding gravel and a wearing
surface makes it more prohibitive for urban roads if the curb and gutter is not raised up. Crush and shape
treatments last approximately 15 years and cost $225,000 per lane mile.
Capital Preventive Maintenance
Capital preventive maintenance (CPM) addresses pavement problems of fair-rated roads before the
structural integrity of the pavement has been severely impacted. CPM is a planned set of cost-effective
treatments applied to an existing roadway that slows further deterioration and that maintains or improves
the functional condition of the system without significantly increasing the structural capacity. Examples
of such treatments include crack seal, fog seal, chip seal, slurry seal, and microsurface (Figure 4). The
purpose of the following CPM treatments is to protect the pavement structure, slow the rate of
deterioration, and/or correct pavement surface deficiencies. The following descriptions outline the
optional CPM treatments used by the City.
Figure 4: Examples of capital preventive maintenance treatments—(from left) crack seal, fog seal, chip seal, and slurry
seal/microsurface.
Crack Seal
Water that infiltrates the pavement surface softens the pavement structure and allows traffic loads to
cause more damage to the pavement than in normal dry conditions. Crack sealing helps prevent water
8
Pavement AMP
infiltration by sealing cracks in the pavement with asphalt sealant (Figure 4). The City seals pavement
cracks early in the life of the pavement to keep it functioning as strong as it can and for as long as it can.
Crack sealing lasts approximately two years and costs $2,000 per lane mile. Even though crack sealing
does not last very long the compared to other treatments, it isn’t very expensive for the value it provides.
This makes crack sealing a very cost-effective treatment when the City looks at what crack filling costs
per year of the treatment’s life.
Fog Seal
Fog sealing sprays a liquid asphalt coating onto the entire pavement surface to fill hairline cracks and
prevent damage from sunlight (Figure 4). Fog seals are best for good to very good pavements and last
approximately two years at a cost of $1,000 per lane mile.
Chip Seal
A chip seal, also known as a sealcoat, is a two-part treatment that starts with liquid asphalt sprayed onto
the old pavement surface followed by a single layer of small stone chips spread onto the wet liquid
asphalt layer (Figure 4). The liquid asphalt seals the pavement from water and debris and holds the stone
chips in place, providing a new wearing surface for traffic that can correct friction problems and helping
to prevent further surface deterioration. Chip seals are best applied to pavements that are not exhibiting
problems with strength, and their purpose is to help preserve that strength. These treatments last
approximately five years and cost $15,000 per lane mile.
Slurry Seal/Microsurface
A slurry seal or microsurface’s purpose is to protect existing pavement from being damaged by water and
sunlight. The primary ingredients are liquid asphalt (slurry seal) or modified liquid asphalt
(microsurface), small stones, water and Portland cement applied in a very thin (less than a half an inch)
layer (Figure 4). The main difference between a slurry seal and a microsurface is the modified liquid
asphalt used in microsurfacing provides different curing and durability properties, which allows
microsurfacing to be used for filling pavement ruts. Since the application is very thin, these treatments do
not add any strength to the pavement and only serves to protect the pavement’s existing strength by
sealing the pavement from sunlight and water damage. These treatments work best when applied before
cracks are too wide and too numerous. A slurry seal treatment lasts approximately four years and costs
$20,000 per lane mile, while a microsurface treatment tends to last for seven years and costs $25,000 per
lane mile.
Partial-Depth Concrete Repair
A partial-depth concrete repair involves removing spalled (i.e., fragmented) or delaminated (i.e.,
separated into layers) areas of concrete pavement, usually near joints and cracks and replacing with new
concrete (Figure 5). This is done to provide a new wearing surface in isolated areas, to slow down water
infiltration, and to help delay further freeze/thaw damage. This repair lasts approximately five years and
typically costs $20,000 per mile.
9
Pavement AMP
Maintenance Grading (for Unpaved Roads)
Maintenance grading involves regrading an unpaved road to remove isolated potholes, washboarding, and
ruts then restoring the compacted crust layer (Figure 5). Crust on an unpaved road is a very tightly
compacted surface that sheds water with ease but takes time to be created, so destroying a crusted surface
with maintenance grading requires a plan to restore the crust. Maintenance grading often needs to be
performed three to five times per year and each grading costs $300 per mile.
Dust Control (for Unpaved Roads)
Dust control typically involves spraying chloride, brine, or other chemicals on a gravel surface to reduce
dust loss, aggregate loss, and maintenance (Figure 5). This is a relatively short-term fix that helps create a
crusted surface. Chlorides work by attracting moisture from the air and existing gravel. This fix is not
effective if the surface is too dry or heavy rain is imminent, so timing is very important. Dust control is
performed two to four times per year and each application costs $700 per mile.
Figure 5: Examples of capital preventive maintenance treatments, cont’d—(from left) concrete road prepared for partial-depth
repair, gravel road undergoing maintenance grading, and gravel road receiving dust control application (dust control photo courtesy
of Weld County, Colorado, weldgov.the City).
Innovative Treatments
Innovative treatments are those newer, unique, non-standard treatments that provide ways of treating
pavements using established engineering principles in new and cost-effective ways. Occasionally
additional funding is available in exchange for implementing a non-standard treatment and documenting
deterioration for research purposes. The City is open to innovative pavement treatments when applied to
a road with the right level of deterioration and traffic volumes, if it saves taxpayer dollars.
The Sherman Street project is an example of an innovative treatment. Experimental sections of concrete
pavement will incorporate the use of crumb rubber in the concrete mix. An EGLE grant contributed extra
funding to the project to fund 1 lane of the 4 lane section. The pavement sections will be evaluated by
university researchers until 2042.
Maintenance
Maintenance is the most cost-effective strategy for managing road infrastructure and prevents good and
fair roads from reaching the poor category, which require costly rehabilitation and reconstruction
treatments to create a year of service life. It is most effective to spend money on routine maintenance and
CPM treatments, first; then, when all maintenance project candidates are treated, reconstruction and
rehabilitation can be performed as money is available. This strategy is called a “mix-of-fixes” approach to
managing pavements.
10
Pavement AMP
1. PAVEMENT ASSETS
Building a mile of new road can cost over $1 million due to the large volume of materials and equipment
that are necessary. The high cost of constructing road assets underlines the critical nature of properly
managing and maintaining the investments made in this vital infrastructure. The specific needs of every
mile of road within an agency’s overall road network is a complex assessment, especially when
considering rapidly changing conditions and the varying requisites of road users; understanding each
road-mile’s needs is an essential duty of the road-owning agency.
In Michigan, many different governmental units (or agencies) own and maintain roads, so it can be
difficult for the public to understand who is responsible for items such as planning and funding
construction projects, [patching] repairs, traffic control, safety, and winter maintenance for any given
road. MDOT is responsible for state trunkline roads, which are typically named with “M”, “I”, or “US”
designations regardless of their geographic location in Michigan. Cities and villages are typically
responsible for all public roads within their geographic boundary with the exception of the previously
mentioned state trunkline roads managed by MDOT. County Road Commissions (or departments) are
typically responsible for all public roads within the county’s geographic boundary, with the exception of
those managed by cities, villages, and MDOT.
In cases where non-trunkline roads fall along jurisdictional borders, local and intergovernmental
agreements dictate ownership and maintenance responsibility. Quite frequently, roads owned by one
agency may be maintained by another agency because of geographic features that make it more cost
effective for a neighboring agency to maintain the road instead of the actual road owner. Other times,
road-owning agencies may mutually agree to coordinate maintenance activities in order to create
economies of scale and take advantage of those efficiencies.
The City of Muskegon is responsible for a total of 184.70 centerline of public roads, as shown in Figure
6.
11
Pavement AMP
Figure 6: Map showing location of the City’s paved roads (i.e., those managed by the City) and their current condition for paved
roads with green for good (i.e., PASER 10, 9, 8), yellow for fair (i.e., PASER 7, 6, 5), and red for poor (i.e., PASER 4, 3, 2, 1), as
well as the location of the City’s unrated roads in blue
Inventory
Michigan Public Act 51 of 1951 (PA 51), which defines how funds from the Michigan Transportation
Fund (MTF) are distributed to and spent by road-owning agencies, classifies roads owned by the City of
Muskegon as either city major or city local roads.
The City of Muskegon is responsible for 184.70 centerline miles of public roads. An inventory of these
miles divides them into different network classes based on road purpose/use and funding priorities as
identified at the state level: city major road network, which is prioritized for state-level funding, and city
local road network.
Of the City’s 184.70 miles of road, 73.88 miles are classified as city major and 110.82 miles are classified
as city local. Approximately 82% of all Primary roads are classified as federal aid eligible, which allows
them to receive federal funding for their maintenance and construction. Only 1% of Local roads are
considered federal aid eligible, which means state and local funds must be used to manage the majority of
these roads.
Figure 6 identifies these paved roads in green, yellow, and red with the colors being determined based on
the road segment’s condition and shows unrated roads in blue.
12
Pavement AMP
Figure 7 illustrates the percentage of roads owned by the City that are classified as city major and city
local roads.
Figure 7: Percentage of city major and city local roads for the City.
The City manages 11.205 miles of roads that are part of the National Highway System (NHS)—in other
words, those roads that are critical to the nation’s economy, defense, and mobility—and monitors and
maintains their condition. The NHS is subject to special rules and regulations and has its own
performance metrics dictated by the FHWA. While most NHS roads in Michigan are managed by MDOT,
The City manages a percentage of those roads located in its jurisdiction, as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Miles of roads managed by the City that are part of the National Highway System and condition.
13
Pavement AMP
In addition, the City has 7.175 miles of unpaved roads.
Types
The City has multiple types of pavements in its jurisdiction, including asphalt and concrete; it also has
unpaved roads (i.e., gravel and earth). Factors influencing pavement type include cost of construction,
cost of maintenance, frequency of maintenance, type of maintenance, asset life, and road user experience.
More information on pavement types is available in the Introduction’s Pavement Primer.
Figure 9 illustrates the percentage of various pavement types that the City has in its network.
Surface Type
Earth
1% Gravel
Concrete 3%
23%
Asphalt
73%
Figure 9: Pavement type by percentage maintained by the City of Muskegon
Locations
Locations and sizes of each asset can be found in the City’s Roadsoft database. For more detail, please
refer to the agency contact listed in the Introduction of this pavement asset management plan.
Condition
The road characteristic that road users most readily notice is pavement condition and ride quality.
Pavement condition is a major factor in determining the most cost-effective treatment—that is, routine
maintenance, capital preventive maintenance, or structural improvement—for a given section of
pavement. The City uses pavement condition and age to anticipate when a specific section of pavement
will be a potential candidate for preventive maintenance. Pavement condition data enables the City to
evaluate the benefits of preventive maintenance projects and to identify the most cost-effective use of
road construction and maintenance dollars. Historic pavement condition data can be used to predict future
road conditions based on budget constraints and to determine if a road network’s condition will improve,
stay the same, or degrade at the current or planned investment level. This analysis helps to determine how
14
Pavement AMP
much additional funding is necessary to meet a network’s condition improvement goals. More detail on
this topic is included in the Introduction’s Pavement Primer.
Paved Roads
The City of Muskegon is committed to monitoring the condition of its road network and using pavement
condition data to drive cost-effective decision-making and preservation of valuable road assets. The City
uses the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) system, which has been adopted by the
TAMC for measuring statewide pavement conditions, to assess its paved roads. The PASER system
provides a simple, efficient, and consistent method for evaluating road condition through visual
inspection. More information regarding the PASER system can be found in the Introduction’s Pavement
Primer.
PASER data is collected 100 percent every two years on all federal-aid-eligible roads in Michigan. The
TAMC dictates and funds the required training and the format for this collection, and it shares the data
regionally and statewide. In addition, the City collects its paved non-federal-aid-eligible network using its
own staff and resources. Past data collection of the non-federal aid roads has been irregular, but plans are
in place to collect every third year.
The City’s 2019 paved city major road network has 26 percent of roads in the TAMC good condition
category, 32 percent in fair, and 42 percent in poor (Figure 10A). The paved city local road network has 2
percent in good, 46 percent in fair, and 52 percent in poor (Figure 10B).
Figure 10: (A) Left: The City paved city major road network conditions by percentage of good, fair, or poor, and (B) Right: paved city
local road network conditions by percentage of good, fair, or poor
In the comparison, the statewide paved city major road network has 30 percent of roads in the TAMC
good condition category, 30 percent in fair, and 40 percent in poor (Figure 11A). The statewide paved city
local road network has 30 percent in good, 30 percent in fair, and 40 percent in poor (Figure 11B).
Comparing Figure 10A and Figure 11A shows that the City’s paved major road network is in better shape
15
Pavement AMP
than similarly-classified roads in the rest of the state, while Figure 10B and Figure 11B show that the
City’s paved city local road network is in worse shape than similarly-classified roads in the rest of the
state. Other road condition graphs can be viewed on the TAMC pavement condition dashboard at:
http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/mitrp/Data/PaserDashboard.aspx.
Figure 11: (A) Left: Statewide paved city major road network conditions by percentage of good, fair, or poor, and (B) Right: paved
city local road network conditions by percentage of good, fair, or poor
Figure 12 and Figure 13 show the number of miles for the City’s roads with PASER scores expressed in
TAMC definition categories for the paved city major road network (Figure 12) and the paved city local
road network (Figure 13). The City considers road miles on the transition line between good and fair
(PASER 8) and the transition line between fair and poor (PASER 5) as representing parts of the road
network where there is a risk of losing the opportunity to apply less expensive treatments that gain
significant improvements in service life.
16
Pavement AMP
Figure 12: The City paved city major road network conditions. Bar graph colors correspond to good/fair/poor TAMC designations.
Figure 13: The City paved city local network condition by PASER rating. Bar graph colors correspond to good/fair/poor TAMC
designations.
17
Pavement AMP
Figure 14 provides a map illustrating the geographic location of paved roads and their respective PASER
condition. An online version of the most recent PASER data is located at
https://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/tamcMap/.
Figure 14: Map of the current paved road condition in good (PASER 10, 9, 8) shown in green, fair (PASER 7, 6, 5) shown in yellow,
and poor (PASER 4, 3, 2, 1) shown in red. Only Roads owned by the City are shown.
Historically, the overall quality of the City’s paved city major roads has been improving at a noticeable
rate as can be observed in Figure 15.
Comparing the City’s paved city major road condition trends illustrated in Figure 15 with overall
statewide condition trends for similarly-classified roads, which are illustrated in Figure 16, the City is
showing improvement in PASER scores whereas the statewide condition shows a very consistent trend.
18
Pavement AMP
Figure 15: Historical City of Muskegon paved city major road network condition trend
Figure 16: Historical statewide federal-aid road network condition trend
Historically, the overall quality of the City’s paved city local roads have been much worse than the paved
city major road network due to the lack of a source of state and federal funding. The local roads must be
supported locally. Figure 17 illustrates the condition of the paved city local road network while Figure 18
illustrates the non-Federal-Aid conditions statewide. With the lack of local data for the City of
Muskegon, it is hard to make any further comparison. Year to year variations in the paved city minor
network are usually due to the fact that only a portion of the network is collected each year, both locally
19
Pavement AMP
and statewide. This variation likely occurs as a result of reporting bias since a representative sample of
roads is not collected each year.
Figure 17: Historical paved city local road network condition trend
Figure 18: Historical statewide paved non-federal-aid road network condition trend
20
Pavement AMP
Unpaved Roads
The City of Muskegon has 7.175 miles of unpaved roads and are located on the map in Figure 19. The
condition of unpaved roads rapidly change which makes it difficult to obtain a consistent surface
condition rating over the course of a season or even weeks. The City of Muskegon’s highway supervisor
visually assesses their gravel roadways at various times of the year and schedules required maintenance
and work as needed.
Figure 19: Map of the unpaved roads. Unpaved roads owned by the City are shown in blue.
Goals
Goals help set expectations to how pavement conditions will change in the future. Pavement condition
changes are influenced by water infiltration, soil conditions, sunlight exposure, traffic loading, and repair
work performed. The City is not able to control any of these factors fully due to seasonal weather
changes, traffic pattern changes, and its limited budget. In spite of the uncontrollable variables, it is still
important to set realistic network condition goals that efficiently use budget resources to build and
maintain roads meeting taxpayer expectations. An assessment of the progress toward these goals is
provided in the 1. Pavement Assets: Gap Analysis section of this plan.
21
Pavement AMP
Goals for Paved City Major Roads
The overall goal for The City’s paved city major road network is to maintain or improve road conditions
network-wide at 2022 levels. The baseline condition for this goal is illustrated in Figure 20.
Figure 20: The City’s 2019 city major road network condition by percentage of good/fair/poor
The City’s network-level pavement condition strategy for paved city major roads is:
1. Maintain or improve current condition of city major roads.
2. Maintain the percentage of paved city major roads in the good and fair category (PASER 10 - 5)
and not increase the percentage in the poor category (PASER 4 - 1).
3. Introduce Preventive Maintenance fixes into our CIP through the annual road program.
4. Perform Roadway Report after PASER ratings are collected giving a snapshot of current
systemwide road health and conditions. This will be used to aid in the determination of future
road work.
22
Pavement AMP
Goals for Paved City Local Roads
The overall goal for the City’s paved city local road network is to maintain or improve road conditions
network-wide at 2022 levels. The baseline condition for this goal is illustrated in Figure 21.
Figure 21: The City’s 2019 paved city local road network condition by percentage of good/fair/poor
The City’s network-level pavement condition strategy for paved city local roads is:
1. Prevent the percentage of City’s good and fair (PASER 10 - 5) paved city local roads from
becoming poor (PASER 4 - 1).
2. Introduce Preventive Maintenance fixes into our CIP through the annual road program.
3. Increase funding for city local road program.
4. Move 3% percent of paved city local roads out of the poor category within 3 years.
5. Perform Roadway Report after PASER ratings are collected giving a snapshot of current
systemwide road health and conditions. This will be used to aid in the determination of future
road work.
23
Pavement AMP
Goals for Unpaved Roads
The City’s year-round unpaved roads will be maintained at their current structural adequacy assessments
and current drainage adequacy assessments for roads where these two IBR elements are assessed as good
or fair. Unpaved roads that have either or both of these two categories assessed as poor will be
strategically upgraded as funding is available to address. Our first priority will be drainage issues and
secondly structural issues. Surface widths will be addressed on an as-needed basis to provide service or to
address safety issues. Seasonal roads will be addressed to provide passability and safety but do not have a
goal associated with them.
An additional goal of the City is to pave problematic gravel roads to address maintenance issues which
are costly to continue fixing; such as washouts, controlling washed out gravel from entering and clogging
storm drains, and dust control.
Modelled Trends
Roads age and deteriorate just like any other asset. All pavements are damaged by water, traffic weight,
freeze/thaw cycles, sunlight, and traffic weight. To offset natural deterioration and normal wear-and-tear
on the road, must complete treatment projects that either protect and/or add life to its pavements. The
year-end condition of the whole network depends upon changes or preservation of individual road section
condition that preservation treatments have affected.
The City uses many types of repair treatments for its roads, each selected to balance costs, benefits, and
road life expectancy. When agency trends are modelled, any gap between goals and accomplishable work
becomes evident. Financial resources influence how much work can be accomplished across the network
within agency budget and what treatments and strategies can be afforded; a full discussion of The City’s
financial resources can be found in the 5. Financial Resources section.
Treatments and strategies that counter pavement-damaging forces include reconstruction, structural
improvement, capital preventive maintenance, innovative treatments, and maintenance. For a complete
discussion on the pavement treatment tools, refer to the 1. Introduction’s Pavement Primer.
Correlating with each PASER score are specific types of treatments best performed either to protect the
pavement (CPM) or to add strength back into the pavement (structural improvement) (Table 1). MDOT
provides guidance regarding when a specific pavement may be a candidate for a particular treatment.
These identified PASER scores “trigger” the timing of projects appropriately to direct the right pavement
fix at the right time, thereby providing the best chance for a successful project. The information provided
in Table 1 is a guide for identifying potential projects; however, this table should not be the sole criteria
for pavement treatment selection. Other information such as future development, traffic volume, utility
projects, and budget play a role in project selection. This table should not be a substitute for engineering
judgement.
24
Pavement AMP
Table 1: Service Life Extension (in Years) for Pavement Types Gained by Fix Type1
Life Extension (in years)*
Fix Type Flexible Composite Rigid PASER
HMA crack treatment 1-3 1-3 N/A 6-7
Overband crack filling 1-2 1-2 N/A 6-7
One course non-structural HMA overlay 5-7 4-7 N/A 4-5****
Mill and one course non-structural HMA overlay 5-7 4-7 N/A 3-5
Single course chip seal 3-6 N/A N/A 5-7†
Double chip seal 4-7 3-6 N/A 5-7†
Single course microsurface 3-5 ** N/A 5-6
Multiple course microsurface 4-6 ** N/A 4-6****
Ultra-thin HMA overlay 3-6 3-6 N/A 4-6****
Paver placed surface seal 4-6 ** N/A 5-7
Full-depth concrete repair N/A N/A 3-10 4-5***
Concrete joint resealing N/A N/A 1-3 5-8
Concrete spall repair N/A N/A 1-3 5-7
Concrete crack sealing N/A N/A 1-3 4-7
Diamond grinding N/A N/A 3-5 4-6
Dowel bar retrofit N/A N/A 2-3 3-5***
Longitudinal HMA wedge/scratch coat with 3-7 N/A N/A 3-5****
surface treatment
Flexible patching ** ** N/A N/A
Mastic joint repair 1-3 1-3 N/A 4-7
Cape seal 4-7 4-7 N/A 4-7
Flexible interlayer “A” 4-7 4-7 N/A 4-7
Flexible interlayer “B” (SAMI) 4-7 4-7 N/A 3-7
Flexible interlayer “C” 4-7 4-7 N/A 3-7
Fiber reinforced flexible membrane 4-7 4-7 N/A 3-7
Fog seal ** ** N/A 7-10
GSB 88 ** ** N/A 7-10
Mastic surface treatment ** ** N/A 7-10
Scrub seal ** ** N/A 4-8
* The time range is the expected life extending benefit given to the pavement, not the anticipated longevity of the
treatment.
** Data is not available to quantify the life extension.
*** The concrete slabs must be in fair to good condition.
**** Can be used on a pavement with a PASER equal to 3 when the sole reason for rating is rutting or severe
raveling of the surface asphalt layer.
†For PASER 4 or less providing structural soundness exists and that additional pre-treatment will be required for
example, wedging, bar seals, spot double chip seals, injection spray patching or other pre-treatments.
1Part of Appendix D-1 from MDOT Local Agency Programs Guidelines for Geometrics on Local Agency Projects
2017 Edition Approved Preventive Maintenance Treatments
25
Pavement AMP
Roadsoft Pavement Condition Forecast to Forecast Future Trends
The City of Muskegon uses Roadsoft, an asset management software suite, to manage road- and bridge-
related infrastructure. Roadsoft is developed by Michigan Technological University and is available for
Michigan local agencies at no cost to them. Roadsoft uses pavement condition data to drive network-level
deterioration models that forecast future road conditions based on planned construction and maintenance
work. A screenshot of Roadsoft’s pavement condition model and the associated output is shown in Figure
22.
Figure 22: Pavement condition forecast model in the software program Roadsoft.
Paved City Major Roads
Table 2 illustrates the network-level model inputs for Roadsoft on the paved city major road network.
Other pavement types in this network were neglected due to their small numbers relative to HMA
pavements. The treatments outlined in Table 2 are the average treatment volume of planned projects
scheduled to be completed in 2023-2026. It should be noted that Roadsoft only analyzes the traveling
lane portion of a project; the road/pavement costs. Incidental related costs are oftentimes 50% more in a
roadway reconstruction or rehabilitation project. These additional items include necessary elements such
as municipal utilities, drainage, traffic control, sidewalk improvements, guardrail, pavement markings,
signing, and restoration. Although the City’s annual road budget is $6.2 Million, only a portion of that
funding is applied to the actual roadway which is modeled in Roadsoft. See Appendix F of the
Compliance Asset Management Plan for details on planned projects. Full model inputs and outputs are
included in Appendix B.
26
Pavement AMP
Table 2: Roadsoft Modelled Trends and Planned Projects: Roadsoft Annual Work
Program for the Paved City Major Road Network Forecast
Treatment Name Years of Life Average Yearly Miles Trigger Life
of Treatment
Complete Reconstruction 25 1.5 1-3
Crush & Shape 25 1-3
3” Mill & Overlay 15 3-4
2” Overlay 10 3-6
1.5” Mill & Overlay 7 4-6
Chip Seal & Fog 5 4-7
Sealcoat 5 6-6
Crackseal 2 7-7
Results from the Roadsoft network condition model for the City major roads are shown in Figure 23. The
Roadsoft network analysis of the City’s planned projects from its currently-available budget of $6.2
Million does allow the City to reach and exceed its pavement condition goals given the projects planned
for the next three years. For modeling purposes, $4 Million of the budget was assumed to be applied to
the physical roadway.
Figure 23: Forecast good/fair/poor changes to the city network condition from planned projects on the City major road network.
27
Pavement AMP
Paved City Local Road
A screenshot of Roadsoft’s pavement condition model and the associated output is shown in Figure 24.
Figure 24: Pavement condition forecast model in the software program Roadsoft.
Table 3 illustrates the network-level model inputs for Roadsoft on the paved city local road network. The
City of Muskegon has a significant amount of local concrete pavements which needs to be addressed
along with the larger percentage of asphalt pavements. The treatments outlined in Table 3 are the average
treatment volume of planned projects scheduled to be completed in 2023-2026 with a budget of $250,000.
See Appendix F of the Compliance Asset Management Plan for details on planned projects. Full model
inputs and outputs are included in Appendix B.
Table 3: Roadsoft Modelled Trends and Planned Projects: Roadsoft Annual Work
Program for the Paved City Local Road Network Forecast
Treatment Name Years of Life Average Yearly Trigger Life
Miles of Treatment
Complete 25 0.25 1-3
Reconstruction
Crush & Shape 25 1-3
3” Mill & Overlay 15 3-4
2” Overlay 10 3-6
1.5” Mill & Overlay 7 4-6
Chip Seal & Fog 5 4-7
Sealcoat 5 6-6
Crackseal 2 7-7
28
Pavement AMP
Results from the Roadsoft network condition model for the paved city local roads are shown in Figure 25.
The Roadsoft network analysis of the City’s planned projects from its currently available budget of
$250,000. This budget does not allow the City to reach its pavement condition goal given the projects
planned for the next three years.
Figure 25: Forecast good/fair/poor changes to the city network condition from planned projects on the paved city local road network.
Planned Projects
The City of Muskegon plans construction and maintenance projects several years in advance. A multi-
year planning threshold is required due to the time necessary to plan, design, and finance construction and
maintenance projects on the paved city major road network. This includes planning and programming
requirements from state and federal agencies that must be met prior to starting a project and can include
studies on environmental and archeological impacts, review of construction and design documents and
plans, documentation of rights-of-way ownership, planning and permitting for storm water discharges,
and other regulatory and administrative requirements.
Per PA 499 of 2002 (later amended by PA 199 of 2007), road projects for the upcoming three years are
required to be reported annually to the TAMC. Planned projects represent the best estimate of future
activity; however, changes in design, funding, and permitting may require the City to alter initial plans.
Project planning information is used to predict the future condition of the road networks that the City
29
Pavement AMP
maintains. The 1. Pavement Assets: Modelled Trends section of this plan provides a detailed analysis of
the impact of the proposed projects on their respective road networks.
Planned Projects
The City has projects planned for the next three years. These projects are shown in red in Figure 26. The
total cost of the projects is approximately $14,050,000. Please refer to See Appendix F of the Compliance
Asset Management Plan for details on planned projects.
Figure 26. Map of 2023 – 2026 Construction Projects
Gap Analysis
The current funding levels that the City of Muskegon receives are not sufficient to meet the goals for the
paved city major road network, the paved city local road network, and the unpaved road network. The 1.
Pavement Assets: Goals section of this plan provides further detail about the goals and the 1. Pavement
Assets: Modelled Trends section provides further detail on the shortfall given the current budget.
However, the City believes that the overall condition of this network can be maintained or improved with
additional funding for construction and maintenance. Possible solutions are to reduce the amount of
funding put towards the major network and increase the spending on the local network, passing a millage
for the local road system, or consider reverting select paved local roads back to gravel. Alternate
strategies will need to be developed to overcome the current shortfall and meet the goals on the paved city
major road network, the paved city local road network, and the unpaved road network.
30
Pavement AMP
2. FINANCIAL
RESOURCES
Public entities must balance the quality and extent of services they can provide with the tax resources
provided by citizens and businesses, all while maximizing how efficiently funds are used. Therefore, the
City will overview its general expenditures and financial resources currently devoted to transportation
infrastructure maintenance. This financial information is not intended to be a full financial disclosure or a
formal report. Full details of the City’s financial status can be found by request submitted to our agency
contact (listed in this plan).
Anticipated Revenues & Expenses
The City of Muskegon receives funding from the following sources:
State funds – The City’s principal source of transportation funding is received from the Michigan
Transportation Fund (MTF). This fund is supported by vehicle registration fees and the state’s
per-gallon gas tax. Allocations from the MTF are distributed to state and local governmental units
based on a legislated formula, which includes factors such as population, miles of certified roads,
and vehicle registration fees for vehicles registered in the agency’s jurisdiction. The City also
receives revenue from the Michigan Department of Transportation to maintain (e.g. plow, patch,
mow) the state trunklines within its jurisdictional boundary. Revenue from these maintenance
contracts are received on a time and materials basis as resources are expended to maintain the
State’s roads. While these contracts do not allow for capital gain (profit) and only bring in
revenue to cover the cost of the work, they do provide a benefit to the City by allowing an
economy of scale that enables us to provide better service at a lower cost for the City’s roads
while allowing the same for the State of Michigan. Examples of state grants also include local
bridge grants, economic development funds, and metro funds.
31
Pavement AMP
Federal and state grants for individual projects – These are typically competitive funding
applications that are targeted at a specific project type to accomplish a specific purpose. These
may include safety enhancement projects, economic development projects, or other targeted
funding. Examples of federal funds include Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds, C and
D funds, bridge funds, MDOT payments to private contractors, and negotiated contracts.
Local government entities or private developer contributions to construction projects for
specific improvements – This category includes funding received to mitigate the impact of
commercial developments as a condition of construction of a specific development project, and
can also include funding from a special assessment district levied by another governmental unit.
Examples of contributions from local units include city, village, and township contributions to the
county; special assessments; county appropriations; bond and note proceeds; contributions from
counties to cities and villages; city general fund transfers; city municipal street funds; capital
improvement funds; and tax millages (see below).
Local tax millages – Many local agencies in Michigan use local tax millages to supplement their
road-funding budget. These taxes can provide for additional construction and maintenance for
new or existing roads that are also funded using MTF or MDOT funds. The City does not have
local tax millages in its road-funding budget.
Interest – Interest from invested funds.
Permit fees – Generally, permit fees cover the cost of a permit application review.
Other – Other revenues can be gained through salvage sales, property rentals, land and building
sales, sundry refunds, equipment disposition or installation, private sources, and financing.
Charges for services – Funds from partner agencies who contract with the City to construct or
maintain its roads, or roads under joint or neighboring jurisdictions, including state trunkline
maintenance and non-maintenance services and preservation.
The City is required to report transportation fund expenditures to the State of Michigan using a prescribed
format with predefined expenditure categories. The definitions of these categories according to Public Act
51 of 1951 may differ from common pavement management nomenclature and practice. For the purposes
of reporting under PA 51, the expenditure categories are:
Construction/Capacity Improvement Funds – According to PA 51 of 1951, this financial
classification of projects includes, “new construction of highways, roads, streets, or bridges, a
project that increases the capacity of a highway facility to accommodate that part of traffic having
neither an origin nor destination within the local area, widening of a lane width or more, or
adding turn lanes of more than 1/2 mile in length.”1
Preservation and Structural Improvement Funds – Preservation and structural improvements
are “activit[ies] undertaken to preserve the integrity of the existing roadway system.”2
1
Public Act 51 of 1951, 247.660c Definitions
2
Public Act 51 of 1951, 247.660c Definitions
32
Pavement AMP
Preservation includes items such as a reconstruction of an existing road or bridge, or adding
structure to an existing road.
Routine and Preventive Maintenance Funds – Routine maintenance activities are “actions
performed on a regular or controllable basis or in response to uncontrollable events upon a
highway, road, street, or bridge”.3 Preventive maintenance activities are “planned strategy[ies] of
cost-effective treatments to an existing roadway system and its appurtenances that preserve assets
by retarding deterioration and maintaining functional condition without significantly increasing
structural capacity”.4
Winter Maintenance Funds – Expenditures for snow and ice control.
Trunkline Maintenance Funds – Expenditures spent under the City’s maintenance agreement
with MDOT for maintenance it performs on MDOT trunkline routes.
Administrative Funds – There are specific items that can and cannot be included in
administrative expenditures as specified in PA 51 of 1951. The law also states that the amount of
MTF revenues that are spent on administrative expenditures is limited to 10 percent of the annual
MTF funds that are received.
Other Funds – Expenditures for equipment, capital outlay, debt principal payment, interest
expense, contributions to adjacent governmental units, principal, interest and bank fees, and
miscellaneous for cities and villages.
The Table (below) details the 2020 revenues and expenditures for the City.
Table 4: Annual Fiscal-Year Revenues & Expenditures per Fiscal Year
REVENUES EXPENDITURES
Estimated Percent Estimated Percent
Item $ of Total Item $ of Total
State funds Construction & capacity
$5,280,251 77.2% $0 0%
improvement (CCI)
Federal funds Preservation & structural
$1,049,653 15.3% $6,558,002 85.7%
improvement (PSI)
Contributions for local units Routine maintenance 2.4%
$250,000 3.7% $180,160
Interest, rents, and other Winter maintenance 4.2%
$91,647 1.3% $318,134
Charges for services Trunkline maintenance 2.2%
169,968 2.5% $169,968
Administrative $197,750 2.6%
Other $231,873 3%
TOTAL $6,841,519 100% TOTAL $7,655,887 100%
Verify the information in this table. You can find your agency’s information in the TAMC dashboard at
https://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/mitrp/tamcDashboards.
3
Public Act 51 of 1951, 247.660c Definitions
4
Public Act 51 of 1951, 247.660c Definitions
33
Pavement AMP
The City of Muskegon currently has a total budget for pavement asset management of $6,500,000.
Historically $6,200,000 is spent on city major-network projects consisting of, but not limited to,
reconstruction, overlay, culvert replacement, and preventive maintenance. $250,000 is spent on city
local-network projects historically. Spending on projects depends on revenue from Michigan
Transportation Fund (MTF).
34
Pavement AMP
3. RISK OF FAILURE
ANALYSIS
Transportation infrastructure is designed to be resilient. The system of interconnecting roads and bridges
maintained by the City provides road users with multiple alternate options in the event of an unplanned
disruption of one part of the system. There are, however, key links in the transportation system that may
cause significant inconvenience to users if they are unexpectedly closed to traffic. See Appendix F of the
Compliance Asset Management Plan for a map of the City of Muskegon’s key transportation links in our
network, including the ones who meet the following types of situations:
Geographic divides: Areas where a geographic feature (river, lake, hilly terrain, or limited
access road) limits crossing points of the feature. This includes the Lakeshore Drive bridge over
Ruddiman Creek.
Emergency alternate routes for high-volume roads and bridges: Roads and bridges that are
routinely used as alternate routes for high-volume assets are included in an emergency response
plan. This includes roads such as Sherman Boulevard, Laketon Avenue, Getty Street, and Peck
Street.
Limited access areas: Roads and bridges that serve remote or limited access areas that result in
long detours if closed. This includes Beach Street, Keating Avenue, and Lakeshore Drive.
Main access to key commercial districts: Areas with a large concentration of businesses or
where large-size business will be significantly impacted if a road is unavailable. This includes
Keating Avenue, Latimer Drive, Black Creek Road, Olthoff Street, and Sheridan Road.
35
Pavement AMP
4. COORDINATION WITH
OTHER ENTITIES
An asset management plan provides a significant value for infrastructure owners because it serves as a
platform to engage other infrastructure owners using the same shared right of way space. The City of
Muskegon communicates with both public and private infrastructure owners to coordinate work in the
following ways:
The City of Muskegon maintains drinking water, sanitary, and storm sewer assets in addition to
transportation assets. The City follows an asset management process for all of its assets by coordinating
the upgrade, maintenance, and operation of all major assets.
Planned projects for sub-surface infrastructure that the City owns are listed in the following asset
management plans: drinking water distribution system asset management plan, wastewater collection
system asset management plan, and storm sewer system asset management plan. These three sub-surface
utility plans are coordinated with the transportation infrastructure plans to maximize value and minimize
service disruptions and cost to the public.
The City Utility Department and the Streets Department meet yearly to develop the rolling 6-year CIP.
City staff discuss planned projects that would disrupt transportation services or cause damage to
pavements. Projects which may cause damage to pavements in good or fair condition are discussed and
mitigation measures are proposed to minimize the impact to pavements. Mitigation measures could
include rescheduling and coordinating projects to maximize value and minimize disruptions and cost to
the public.
The City takes advantage of coordinated infrastructure work to reduce cost and maximize value using the
following policies:
36
Pavement AMP
Roads which are in poor condition that have a subsurface infrastructure project planned which
will destroy more than half the lane width will be rehabilitated or reconstructed full width using
transportation funds to repair the balance of the road width.
Subsurface infrastructure projects which will cause damage to pavements in good condition will
be delayed as long as possible, or methods that do not require pavement cuts will be considered.
Subsurface utility projects will be coordinated to allow all under pavement assets to be upgraded
in the same project regardless of ownership.
Projects on roads which share a border with an adjacent community will have an agreement
created during the planning process which defines the formal split for cost sharing. These
communities include Roosevelt Park, Norton Shores, Muskegon Heights, as well as the
Muskegon County Road Commission.
37
Pavement AMP
APPENDIX A: A QUICK CHECK OF YOUR HIGHWAY
NETWORK HEALTH
A Quick Check of Your
Highway Network Health
By Larry Galehouse, Director, National Center for Pavement Preservation
and
Jim Sorenson, Team Leader, FHWA Office of Asset Management
Historically, many highway agency managers and administrators have tended to view
their highway systems as simply a collection of projects. By viewing the network in this
manner, there is a certain comfort derived from the ability to match pavement actions with their
physical/functional needs. However, by only focusing on projects, opportunities for strategically
managing entire road networks and asset needs are overlooked. While the “bottom up” approach
is analytically possible, managing networks this way can be a daunting prospect. Instead, road
agency administrators have tackled the network problem from the “top down” by allocating
budgets and resources based on historical estimates of need. Implicit in this approach, is a belief
that the allocated resources will be wisely used and prove adequate to achieve desirable network
service levels.
Using a quick checkup tool, road agency managers and administrators can assess the
needs of their network and other highway assets and determine the adequacy of their resource
allocation effort. A quick checkup is readily available and can be usefully applied with
minimum calculations.
It is essential to know whether present and planned program actions (reconstruction,
rehabilitation, and preservation) will produce a net improvement in the condition of the
network. However, before the effects of any planned actions on the highway network can be
analyzed, some basic concepts should be considered.
Assume every lane-mile segment of road in the network was rated by the number of
years remaining until the end of life (terminal condition). Remember that terminal condition
does not mean a failed road. Rather, it is the level of deterioration that management has set as a
minimum operating condition for that road or network. Consider the rated result of the current
network condition as shown in Figure 1.
38
Pavement AMP
Figure 1 – Current Condition Figure 2 – Condition 1-Year Later
If no improvements are made for one year, then the number of years remaining until the
end of life will decrease by one year for each road segment, except for those stacked at zero.
The zero- stack will increase significantly because it maintains its previous balance and also
becomes the recipient of those roads having previously been stacked with one year remaining.
Thus, the entire network will age one year to the condition shown in Figure 2, with the net lane-
miles in the zero stack raised from 4% to 8% of the network.
Some highway agencies still subscribe to the old practice of assigning their highest
priorities to the reconstruction or rehabilitation of the worst roads. This practice of “worst first”,
i.e., continually addressing only those roads in the zero-stack, is a proven death spiral strategy
because reconstruction and rehabilitation are the most expensive ways to maintain or restore
serviceability. Rarely does sufficient funding exist to sustain such a strategy.
The measurable loss of pavement life can be thought of as the network’s total lane-miles
multiplied by 1 year, i.e., lane-mile-years. Consider the following quantitative illustration.
Suppose your agency’s highway network consisted of 4,356 lane-miles. Figure 3 shows that
without intervention, it will lose 4,356 lane-mile-years per year.
Agency Highway Network = 4,356 lane miles
Each year the network will lose
4,356 lane-mile-years
Figure 3 – Network Lane Miles
To offset this amount of deterioration over the entire network, the agency would need to
annually perform a quantity of work equal to the total number of lane-mile-years lost just to
maintain the status quo. Performing work which produces fewer than 4,356 lane-mile-years
would lessen the natural decline of the overall network, but still fall short of maintaining the
39
Pavement AMP
status quo. However, if the agency produces more than 4,356 lane-mile-years, it will improve the
network.
In the following example, an agency can easily identify the effect of an annual program
consisting of reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preservation projects on its network. This
assessment involves knowing the only two components for reconstruction and rehabilitation
projects: lane-miles and design life of each project fix. Figure 4 displays the agency’s
programmed activities for reconstruction and Figure 5 displays it for rehabilitation.
Reconstruction Evaluation
Projects this Year = 2
Design Lane Lane Mile Lane Mile
Project Total Cost
Life Miles Years Cost
No. 1 25 yrs 22 550 $463,425 $10,195,350
No. 2 30 yrs 18 540 $556,110 $10,009,980
Total = 1,090 $20,205,330
Figure 4 - Reconstruction
Rehabilitation Evaluation
Projects this Year = 3
Design Lane Lane Mile Lane Mile
Project Life Miles Years Cost Total Cost
No. 10 18 yrs 22 396 $263,268 $5,791,896
No. 11 15 yrs 28 420 $219,390 $6,142,920
No. 12 12 yrs 32 384 $115,848 $3,707,136
Total = 1,200 $15,641,952
Figure 5 – Rehabilitation
When evaluating pavement preservation treatments in this analysis, it is appropriate to
think in terms of “extended life” rather than design life. The term design life, as used in the
reconstruction and rehabilitation tables, relates better to the new pavement’s structural adequacy
to handle repetitive loadings and environmental factors. This is not the goal of pavement
preservation. Each type of treatment/repair has unique benefits that should be targeted to the
specific mode of pavement deterioration. This means that life extension depends on factors such
as type and severity of distress, traffic volume, environment, etc. Figure 6 exhibits the agency’s
programmed activities for preservation.
40
Pavement AMP
Preservation Evaluation
Life Lane Lane Mile Lane Mile
Project Extension Miles Years Cost Total Cost
No. 101 2 yrs 12 24 $2,562 $30,744
No. 102 3 yrs 22 66 $7,743 $170,346
No. 103 5 yrs 26 130 $13,980 $363,480
No. 104 7 yrs 16 112 $29,750 $476,000
No. 105 10 yrs 8 80 $54,410 $435,280
Total = 412 $1,475,850
Figure 6 – Preservation
To satisfy the needs of its highway network, the agency must accomplish 4,356 lane-
mile-years of work per year. The agency’s program will derive 1,090 lane-mile-years from
reconstruction, 1,200 lane-mile-years from rehabilitation, and 412 lane-mile-years from
pavement preservation, for a total of 2,702 lane-mile-years. Thus, these programmed activities
fall short of the minimum required to maintain the status quo, and hence would contribute to a
net loss in network pavement condition of 1,653 lane-mile-years. The agency’s programmed
tally is shown in Figure 7.
Network Trend
Programmed Activity Lane-Mile-Years Total Cost
Reconstruction 1,090 $20,205,330
Rehabilitation 1,200 $15,641,952
Preservation 412 $1,475,850
Total 2,702 $37,323,132
Network Needs (Loss) ( - ) 4,356
Deficit = - 1,654
Figure 7 – Programmed Tally
This exercise can be performed for any pavement network to benchmark its current trend.
Using this approach, it is possible to see how various long-term strategies could be devised and
evaluated against a policy objective related to total-network condition.
Once the pavement network is benchmarked, an opportunity exists to correct any
shortcomings in the programmed tally. A decision must first be made whether to improve the
41
Pavement AMP
network condition or just to maintain the status quo. This is a management decision and system
goal.
Continuing with the previous example, a strategy will be proposed to prevent further
network deterioration until additional funding is secured.
The first step is to modify the reconstruction and rehabilitation (R&R) programs. An
agonizing decision must be made about which projects to defer, eliminate, or phase differently
with multi- year activity. In Figure 8, reductions are made in the R&R programs to recover funds
for less costly treatments in the pavement preservation program. The result of this decision
recovered slightly over $6 million.
Program Modification
Programmed Activity Lane-Mile-Years Cost Savings
Reconstruction 31 lane miles 820
$5,004,990
( 40 lane-miles ) ( 1,090 )
Rehabilitation 77 lane miles 1,125
$1,096,950
( 82 lane-miles ) ( 1,200 )
Pavement Preservation
0
( 84 lane-miles ) ( 412 )
2,357
$6,101,940
Total = ( 2,702 )
Figure 8 – Revised R & R Programs
Modifying the reconstruction and rehabilitation programs has reduced the number of
lane-mile- years added to the network from 2,702 to 2,357 lane-mile-years. However, using less
costly treatments elsewhere in the network to address roads in better condition will increase the
number of lane-mile-years added to the network. A palette of pavement preservation treatments,
or mix of fixes, is available to address the network needs at a much lower cost than traditional
methods.
Preservation treatments are only suitable if the right treatment is used on the right road at
the right time. In Figure 9, the added treatments used include concrete joint resealing, thin hot-
mix asphalt (HMA) overlay (≤ 1.5”), microsurfacing, chip seal, and crack seal. By knowing the
cost per lane-mile and the treatment life-extension, it is possible to create a new strategy (costing
$36,781,144) that satisfies the network need. In this example, the agency saved in excess of
$500,000 from traditional methods (costing $37,323,132), while erasing the 1,653 lane-mile-year
deficit produced by the initial program tally. Network Strategy
42
Pavement AMP
Lane Mile
Programmed Activity Total Cost
Years
Reconstruction
( 31 lane-miles ) 820 $15,200,340
Rehabilitation
( 77 lane-miles ) 1,125 $14,545,002
Pavement
Preservation
(84 lane-miles) 412 $1,475,850
Concrete Resealing (4 years x 31 lane-miles) 124 $979,600
Thin HMA Overlay (10 years x 16 lane-miles) 160 $870,560
Microsurfacing (7 years x 44 lane-miles) 308 $1,309,000
Chip Seal (5 years x 79 lane-miles) 395 $1,104,420
Crack Seal (2 years x 506 lane-miles) 1,012 $1,296,372
Total = 4,356 $36,781,144
Figure 9 – New Program Tally
In a real-world situation, the highway agency would program its budget to achieve the
greatest impact on its network condition. Funds allocated for reconstruction and rehabilitation
projects must be viewed as investments in the infrastructure. Conversely, funds directed for
preservation projects must be regarded as protecting and preserving past infrastructure
investments.
Integrating reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preservation in the proper proportions will
substantially improve network conditions for the taxpayer while safeguarding the highway
investment.
43
Pavement AMP
APPENDIX B: ROADSOFT MODEL INPUTS &
OUTPUTS
44
Pavement AMP
Major Roads $4M
Local Asphalts - $250,000
with Mill and Overlay Fix Option
45
Pavement AMP
Local Asphalts - $250,000
without Mill and Overlay Fix Option
Local - $250,000
Concrete and Asphalt Fix Options
Pavement AMP
APPENDIX B. BRIDGE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
An attached Bridge Asset Management Plan follows.
29
City of Muskegon
2022 Bridge
Asset Management Plan
A plan describing the City of Muskegon’s Bridge Assets and Conditions
Prepared by:
Bridge AMP
CONTENTS
Table of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ iv
Bridge Asset Management Plan Summary .................................................................................................. v
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
Bridge Primer ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Bridge Assets ............................................................................................................................. 8
Inventory .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Goals .................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Prioritization, Programmed/Funded Projects, and Planned Projects................................................................................ 12
2. Financial Resources ................................................................................................................ 18
Anticipated Revenues ......................................................................................................................................................... 18
Anticipated Expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 18
3. Risk Management ................................................................................................................... 19
APPENDIX A - Inventory .......................................................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX B – Structure Condition Ratings ............................................................................................ 23
APPENDIX C – Inspector Notes and Repair Recommendations ............................................................... 25
APPENDIX D – Summary of Inspection Fix Recommendations .............................................................. 27
APPENDIX E – Plans for Future Action .................................................................................................... 28
APPENDIX F – Bridge Inspection Reports ................................................................................................ 30
ii
Bridge AMP
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Girder bridge .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2: Slab bridge ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3: Truss bridge.................................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 4: Three-sided box bridge .................................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 5: Examples of common bridge construction materials used in Michigan ......................................................... 3
Figure 6: Diagram of basic elements of a bridge ........................................................................................................... 4
Figure 7: Map illustrating locations the City’s of bridge assets................................................................................... 10
iii
Bridge AMP
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of the NBI Rating Scale .................................................................................................................. 3
Table 2: Bridge Assets by Type: Inventory, Size, and Condition ................................................................................ 11
Table 3: Summary of Preservation Criteria ................................................................................................................. 12
iv
Bridge AMP
BRIDGE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY
As conduits for commerce and connections to vital services, bridges are among the most important assets
in any community that support and affect the road network. The City of Muskegon’s bridges, other road-
related assets, and support systems are some of the most valuable and extensive public assets, all of which
are paid for with taxes collected from citizens and businesses. The cost of building and maintaining
bridges, their importance to society, and the investment made by taxpayers all place a high level of
responsibility on local agencies to plan, build, and maintain the road and bridge network in an efficient
and effective manner.
An asset management plan is required by Michigan Public Act 325 of 2018, and this document represents
fulfillment of some of the City’s obligations towards meeting these requirements. This asset management
plan also helps demonstrate the City’s responsible use of public funds by providing elected and appointed
officials as well as the general public with inventory and condition information of the City’s bridge assets,
and gives taxpayers the information they need to make informed decisions about investing in essential
transportation infrastructure
This plan overviews the condition of the City of Muskegon’s 3 bridges and explains how the City will
work to maintain and improve the overall condition of those assets. These explanations can help answer:
What kinds of bridge assets the City has in its jurisdiction and the different options for
maintaining these assets.
What tools and processes the City uses to track and manage bridge assets and funds.
What condition the City’s bridge assets are in compared to statewide averages.
Why some bridge assets are in better condition than others and the path to maintaining and
improving bridge asset conditions through proper planning and maintenance.
How agency bridge assets are funded and where those funds come from.
How funds are used and the costs incurred during the City’s bridge assets’ normal life cycle.
What condition the City can expect of its bridge assets if those assets continue to be funded at the
current funding levels.
How changes in funding levels can affect the overall condition of all of the City’s bridge assets.
v
Bridge AMP
INTRODUCTION
Asset management is defined by Public Act 325 of 2018 as “an ongoing process of maintaining, preserving,
upgrading, and operating physical assets cost effectively, based on a continuous physical inventory and
condition assessment and investment to achieve established performance goals”. In other words, asset
management is a process that uses data to manage and track assets, like roads and bridges, in a cost-
effective manner using a combination of engineering and business principles. This process is endorsed by
leaders in municipal planning and transportation infrastructure, including the Michigan Municipal League,
County Road Association of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), and the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The City of Muskegon is supported in its use of asset
management principles and processes by the Michigan Transportation Asset Management Council
(TAMC), formed by the State of Michigan.
Asset management, in the context of this plan, ensures that public funds are spent as effectively as possible
to maximize the condition of the necessary bridges in City of Muskegon’s road network. Asset management
also provides a transparent decision-making process that allows the public to understand the technical and
financial challenges of managing infrastructure with a limited budget.
The City of Muskegon has adopted an “asset management” business process to overcome the challenges
presented by having limited financial, staffing, and other resources while needing to meet safety standards
and bridge users’ expectations. The City is currently responsible for 3 bridges. Two bridges are open to
traffic and being maintained for public use. The third bridge is closed to the public and has been planned
for removal with appropriate site restoration in 2024.
This 2022 plan outlines how the City determines its strategy to maintain and upgrade bridge asset condition
given agency goals, priorities of its bridge users, and resources provided. An updated plan is to be released
approximately every three years to reflect changes in bridge conditions, finances, and priorities.
Questions regarding the use or content of this plan should be directed to Dan VanderHeide at 1350 E.
Keating Avenue, Muskegon, MI 49442, [email protected], or at (231) 724-4100.
1
Bridge AMP
Key terms used in this plan are defined in the City’s comprehensive transportation asset management plan
(also known as the “compliance plan”) used for compliance with PA 325 or 2018.
Knowing the basic features of an asset class is a crucial starting point to understanding the rationale behind
an asset management approach. The following primer provides an introduction to bridges.
Bridge Primer
Bridge Types
Bridges are structures that span 20 feet or more. These bridges can extend across one
or multiple spans.
If culverts are placed side by side to form a span of 20 feet or more (for example, three
6-foot culverts with one-foot between each culvert), then this culvert system would be
defined as a bridge. (Note: The Compliance Plan Appendix C contains a primer on
culverts not defined as bridges.)
Figure 1: Girder
Bridge types are classified based on two features: design and material. bridge
The most common bridge design is the girder system (Figure 1). With this design, the
bridge deck transfers vehicle loads to girders (or beams) that, in turn, transfer the load
to the piers or abutments (see Figure 6).
A similar design that lacks girders (or beams) is a slab bridge (Figure 2, and see
Figure 6). A slab bridge transfers the vehicle load directly to the abutments and, if
necessary, piers.
Figure 2: Slab
Truss bridges were once quite common and consist of a support structure that is bridge
created when structural members are connected at joints to form interconnected
triangles (Figure 4). Structural members may consist of steel tubes or angles
connected at joints with gusset plates.
Another common bridge design in Michigan is the three-sided pre-cast box or arch
bridge (Figure 4).
Michigan is also home to several unique bridge designs.
Figure 3: Truss
Adding another layer of complexity to bridge typing is the primary construction
bridge
materials used (Figure 5). Bridges are generally constructed from concrete, steel, pre-
stressed concrete, or timber. Some historical bridges or bridge components in
Michigan may be constructed from stone or masonry.
Figure 4: Three-
sided box bridge
2
Bridge AMP
Figure 5: Examples of common bridge construction materials used in Michigan
Bridge Condition
Michigan inspectors rate bridge condition on a 0-9 scale known as the National Bridge Inventory
(NBI) rating scale (see Table for a summary of the NBI Rating scale). Elements of the bridge’s
superstructure, deck, and substructure receive a 9 if they are in excellent condition down to a 0 if
they are in failed condition. A complete guide for Michigan bridge condition rating according to
the NBI can be found in the MDOT Bridge Field Services’ Bridge Safety Inspection NBI Rating
Guidelines (https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/BIR_Ratings_Guide_Combined_2017-
10-30_606610_7.pdf).
Table 1: Summary of the NBI Rating Scale
NBI Rating General Condition
9-7 Like new/good
6-5 Fair
4-3 Poor/serious
2-0 Critical/failed
Bridge Treatments
Replacement
Replacement work is typically performed when a bridge is in poor condition (NBI rating of 4 or
less) and will improve the bridge to good condition (NBI rating of 7 or more). The Local Bridge
Program, a part of MDOT’s Local Agency Program, defines bridge replacement as full
replacement, which removes the entire bridge (superstructure, deck, and substructure) before re-
building a bridge at the same location (Figure 6). The decision to perform a total replacement over
rehabilitation (see below) should be made based on a life-cycle cost analysis. Generally,
replacement is selected if rehabilitation costs more than two-thirds of the cost of replacement.
Replacement is generally the most expensive of the treatment options.
3
Bridge AMP
Figure 6: Diagram of basic elements of a bridge
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation involves repairs that improve the existing condition and extend the service life of the
structure and the riding surface. Most often, rehabilitation options are associated with bridges that have
degraded beyond what can be fixed with preventive maintenance. Rehabilitation is typically performed on
poor-rated elements (NBI rating of 4 or less) to improve them to fair or good condition (NBI rating of 5 or
more). Rehabilitation can include superstructure replacement (removal and replacement of beams and deck)
or deck replacement. While typically more expensive than general maintenance, rehabilitation treatments
may be more cost-effective than replacing the entire structure.
Railing retrofit/replacement: A railing retrofit or replacement either reinforces the existing railing
or replaces it entirely (Figure 6). This rehabilitation is driven by a need for safety improvements on
poor-rated railings or barriers (NBI rating less than 5).
Beam repair: Beam repair corrects damage that has reduced beam strength (Figure 6). In the case
of steel beams, it is performed if there is 25 percent or more of section loss in an area of the beam
that affects load-carrying capacity. In the case of concrete beams, this is performed if there is 50
percent or more spalling (i.e., loss of material) at the ends of beams.
Substructure concrete patching and repair: Patching and repairing the substructure is essential
to keep a bridge in service. These rehabilitation efforts are performed when the abutments or piers
are fair or poor (NBI rating of 5 or 4), or if spalling and delamination affect less than 30 percent of
the bridge surface.
4
Bridge AMP
Preventive Maintenance
The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Bridge Preservation Guide (2018) defines preventive
maintenance as “a strategy of extending service life by applying cost-effective treatments to bridge
elements…[that] retard future deterioration and avoid large expenses in bridge rehabilitation or
replacements.”
Preventive maintenance work is typically done on bridges rated fair (NBI rating of 5 or 6) in order to slow
the rate of deterioration and keep them from falling into poor condition.
Concrete deck overlay: A concrete deck overlay involves removing and replacing the driving
surface. Typically, this is done when the deck surface is poor (NBI rating is less than 5) and the
underneath portion of the deck is at least fair (NBI rating greater than 4). A shallow or deep
concrete overlay may be performed depending on the condition of the bottom of the deck. The
MDOT Bridge Deck Preservation matrices provide more detail on concrete deck overlays (see
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9625_24768_24773---,00.html).
Deck repairs: Deck repairs include three common techniques: HMA overlay with or without
waterproof membranes, concrete patching, deck sealing, crack sealing, and joint repair/replacement.
An HMA overlay with an underlying waterproof membrane can be placed on bridge decks with a
surface rating of fair or lower (NBI of 5 or less) and with deficiencies that cover between 15 and 30
percent of the deck surface and deck bottom. An HMA overlay without a waterproof membrane
should be used on a bridge deck with a deck surface and deck bottom rating of serious condition or
lower (NBI rating of 3 or less) and with deficiencies that cover greater than 30 percent of the deck
surface and bottom; this is considered a temporary holdover to improve ride quality when a bridge
deck is scheduled to undergo major rehabilitation within five years. All HMA overlays need to be
accompanied by an updated load rating. Patching of the concrete on a bridge deck is done in
response to an inspector’s work recommendation or when the deck surface is in good, satisfactory,
or fair condition (NBI rating of 7, 6, or 5) with minor delamination and spalling. To preserve a good
bridge deck in good condition, a deck sealer can be used.
Deck sealing should only be done when the bridge deck has surface rating of fair or better (NBI of
5 or more). Concrete sealers should only be used when the top and bottom surfaces of the deck are
free from major deficiencies, cracks, and spalling. An epoxy overlay may be used when between 2
and 5 percent of the deck surface has delaminations and spalls, but these deficiencies must be
repaired prior to the overlay. An epoxy overlay may also be used to repair an existing epoxy
overlay. Concrete crack sealing is an option to maintain concrete in otherwise good condition that
has visible cracks with the potential of reaching the steel reinforcement. Crack sealing may be
performed on concrete with a surface rating of good, satisfactory, or fair (NBIS rating of 7, 6, or 5)
with minor surface spalling and delamination; it may also be performed in response to a work
recommendation by an inspector who has determined that the frequency and size of the cracks
require sealing.
Steel bearing repair/replacement: Rather than sitting directly on the piers, a bridge superstructure
is separated from the piers by bearings. Bearings allow for a certain degree of movement due to
temperature changes or other forces. Repairing or replacing the bearings is considered preventive
5
Bridge AMP
maintenance. Girders and a deck in at least fair condition (NBI of 5 or higher) and bearings in poor
condition (NBI rating of 4 or less) identifies candidates for this maintenance activity.
Painting: Re-painting a bridge structure can either be done in totality or in part. Total re-painting is
done in response to an inspector’s work recommendation or when the paint condition is in serious
condition (NBI rating of 3 or less). Partial re-painting can either consist of zone re-painting, which
is a preventive maintenance technique, or spot re-painting, which is scheduled maintenance (see
below). Zone re-painting is done when less than 15 percent of the paint in a smaller area, or zone,
has failed while the rest of the bridge is in good or fair condition. It is also done if the paint
condition is fair or poor (NBI rating of 5 or 4).
Channel improvements: Occasionally, it is necessary to make improvements to the waterway that
flows underneath the bridge. Such channel improvements are driven by an inspector’s work
recommendation based on a hydraulic analysis or to remove vegetation, debris, or sediment from
the channel and banks (Figure 6).
Scour countermeasures: An inspector’s work recommendations or a hydraulic analysis may
require scour countermeasures (see the Risk Management section of this plan for more information
on scour). This is done when a structure is categorized as scour critical and is not scheduled for
replacement or when NBI comments in abutment and pier ratings indicate the presence of scour
holes.
Approach repaving: A bridge’s approach is the transition area between the roadway leading up to
and away from the bridge and the bridge deck. Repaving the approach areas is performed in
response to an inspector’s work recommendation, when the pavement surface is in poor condition
(NBI rating of 4 or less), or when the bridge deck is replaced or rehabilitated (e.g., concrete
overlay).
Guardrail repair/replacement: A guardrail is a safety feature on many roads and bridges that
prevents or minimizes the effects of lane departure incidents. Keeping bridge guardrails in good
condition is important. Repair or replacement of bridge guardrail should be done when a guardrail
is missing or damaged, or when it needs a safety improvement.
Scheduled Maintenance
Scheduled maintenance activities are those activities or treatments that are regularly scheduled and intend to
maintain serviceability while reducing the rate of deterioration.
Superstructure washing: Washing the superstructure, or the main structure supporting the bridge,
typically occurs in response to an inspector’s work recommendation or when salt-contaminated dirt
and debris collected on the superstructure is causing corrosion or deterioration by trapping
moisture.
Drainage system cleanout/repair: Keeping a bridge’s drainage system clean and in good working
order allows the bridge to shed water effectively. An inspector’s work recommendation may
6
Bridge AMP
indicate drainage system cleanout/repair. Signs that a drainage system needs cleaning or repair
include clogs and broken, deteriorated, or damaged drainage elements.
Spot painting: Spot painting is a form of partial bridge painting. This scheduled maintenance
technique involves painting a small portion of a bridge. Generally, this is done in response to an
inspector’s work recommendation and is used for zinc-based paint systems only.
Slope repair/reinforcement: The terrain on either side of the bridge that slopes down toward the
channel is called the slope. At times, it is necessary to repair the slope. Situations that call for slope
repair include when the slope is degraded, when the slope has significant areas of distress or failure,
when the slope has settled, or if the slope is in fair or poor condition (NBI rating of 5 or less). Other
times, it is necessary to reinforce the slope. Reinforcement can be added by installing Riprap, which
is a side-slope covering made of stones. Riprap protects the stability of side slopes of channel banks
when erosion threatens the surface.
Vegetation control and debris removal: Keeping the area around a bridge structure free of
vegetation and debris safeguards the bridge structure from these potentially damaging forces.
Removing or restricting vegetation around bridges prevents damage to the structure. Vegetation
control is done in response to an inspector’s work recommendation or when vegetation traps
moisture on structural elements or is growing from joints or cracks. Debris in the water channel or
in the bridge can also cause damage to the structure. Removing this debris is typically done in
response to an inspector’s work recommendation or when vegetation, debris, or sediment
accumulates on the structure or channel.
Miscellaneous repairs: These are uncategorized repairs in response to an inspector’s work
recommendation.
7
Bridge AMP
1. BRIDGE ASSETS
The City seeks to implement an asset management program for its bridge structures. This program balances
the decision to perform reconstruction, rehabilitation, preventive maintenance, scheduled maintenance, or
new construction, with the City’s bridge funding in order to maximize the useful service life and to ensure
the safety of the local bridges under its jurisdiction. In other words, the City’s bridge asset management
program aims to preserve the condition of its local bridge network within the means of its financial
resources.
Nonetheless, the City recognizes that limited funds are available for improving the bridge network. Since
preservation strategies like preventive maintenance are generally a more effective use of these funds than
costly alternative management strategies like major rehabilitation or replacement, the City is addressing
those bridges that pose usability and/or safety concerns.
The three-fold goal of the City’s asset management program is the preservation and safety of its bridge
network, increase of its bridge assets’ useful service life by extending of the time that bridges remain in
good and fair condition, and reduction of future maintenance costs. To quantify this goal, the City
specifically aims to remove the two structurally deficient bridges within the next 5 years and to maintain
their remaining structure in good condition.
Thus, the City’s asset management plan objectives are:
To establish the current condition of the city’s bridges.
To develop a “mix of fixes” that will:
o Program scheduled maintenance actions to impede deterioration of bridges in good
condition.
o Implement removal of degraded bridges rather than restore functionality.
8
Bridge AMP
To identify available funding sources, such as:
o Dedicated city resources.
o City funding through Michigan’s Local Bridge Program.
o Opportunities to obtain other funding.
To prioritize the programmed actions within available funding limitations.
To preserve bridges currently rated fair (5) or higher in their current condition in order to extend
their useful service life.
Inventory
The City is responsible for 3 local bridges. Table 2 summarizes the City’s bridge assets by type, sizes by
bridge type, and condition by bridge type. The bridge inventory data was obtained from MDOT
MiBRIDGE and other sources. See Appendix A.
Types
Of the City’s 3 structures, 1 is a concrete bridge and 2 are steel bridges.
Locations and Sizes
Figure 7 illustrates the locations of bridge assets owned by the City. Details about the locations and sizes of
each individual asset can be found in the City’s MiBRIDGE database. For more information, please refer to
the agency contact listed in the Introduction of this bridge asset management plan.
9
Bridge AMP
Figure 7: Map illustrating locations of the City’s of bridge assets
Condition
The City evaluates its bridges according to the National Bridge Inspection Standards rating scale, with a
rating of 9 to 7 being like new to good condition, a rating of 6 and 5 being fair condition, and a rating of 4
or lower being poor or serious/critical condition. The current condition of the City’s bridge network is 1
(33%) is good and 2 (67%) are poor or lower. See Appendix B.
Another layer of classification of the City’s bridge inventory classifies 2 bridges as structurally deficient
with 1 being closed. No bridges are posted. Structurally deficient bridges are those with a deck,
superstructure, substructure, and/or culvert rated as “poor” according to the NBI rating scale, with a load-
carrying capacity significantly below design standards, or with a waterway that regularly overtops the
bridge during floods. Closed bridges are those that are closed to all traffic; closing a bridge is contingent
upon its ability to carry a set minimum live load. Posted bridges are those that have declined in condition to
a point where a restriction is necessary for what would be considered a safe vehicular or traffic load passing
over the bridge; designating a bridge as “posted” has no influence on its condition rating.
10
Bridge AMP
Table 2: Bridge Assets by Type: Inventory, Size, and Condition
Condition: Structurally
Total Total
Number Deck
Deficient, Posted, Closed 2020 Condition
of Area Struct.
Bridge Type Bridges (sq ft) Defic Posted Closed Poor Fair Good
Concrete – Culvert 1 1,970 0 0 0 0 0 1
Steel – Multistringer 1 2,007 1 0 1 1 0 0
Steel continuous – 1 3,202 1 0 0 1 0 0
Multistringer
Total 2 0 1
SD/Posted/Closed
Total 3 7,179 2 0 1
Percentage (%) 67% 0 33 67 0 33
City of Muskegon Bridge MDOT's Local Agency Bridge
Rating Rating
14%
33%
66%
86%
Poor Good/Fair Poor Good/Fair
Statewide, MDOT’s statistics for local agency bridges show that 14% are poor and 86% are good/fair,
indicating that the City currently has a greater percentage of poor bridges compared to the statewide
average for local agencies. Correspondingly, the City has 33% of its bridges in fair/good condition versus
the statewide average of 86% for local agency bridges. Statewide, 97% of local agency bridge deck area
classifies as structurally deficient compared to 67% of the City’s bridge deck area.
Goals
The goal of the City’s asset management program is the preservation and safety of its bridge network; it
also aims to extend the period of time that bridges remain in good and fair condition, thereby increasing
their useful service life and reducing future maintenance costs.
The City has the goal of removing 2 bridges from their system. The City decided to remove these structures
after looking at connectivity, condition, cost to replace, and available funding. Specifically, this goal
translates into long-range goals of having 100% of its bridges rated fair/good and having 0% classify as
structurally deficient within the next five years.
Metrics will be used to assess the effectiveness of this asset management program. The City will monitor
and report the annual change in its bridge ratings.
11
Bridge AMP
Prioritization, Programmed/Funded Projects, and Planned
Projects
Prioritization
The City’s asset management program aims to address the structures of critical concern by targeting
elements rated as being in poor condition and to improve and maintain the overall condition of the bridge
network to good or fair condition through a “mix of fixes” strategy. Therefore, the City prioritizes bridges
for projects by evaluating five factors and weighting them as follows: condition –20%, load capacity –20%,
traffic volume –20%, Emergency service response/safety –20%, and detour –20%. There are several
components within each factor that are used to arrive at its score. Each project under consideration is
scored, and its total score is then compared with other proposed project to establish a priority order.
The City reviews the current condition of each bridge based on its required frequency using the NBIS
inspection data contained in the MDOT Bridge Safety Inspection Report and the inspector’s work
recommendations contained in MDOT’s Bridge Inspection Report. The inspector’s notes and repair
recommendations based on condition are consolidated in spreadsheet format for the City’s bridges in
Appendix C. Inspection follow-up actions are summarized in Appendix D. The City then determines
management and preservation needs and corresponding actions for each bridge, see Appendix E. The
management and preservation actions are selected in accordance with criteria contained in the Summary of
Preservation Criteria table (below) and adapted to the City’s specific bridge network.
Table 3: Summary of Preservation Criteria
Expected
Preservation Action Bridge Selection Criteria
Service Life
Replacement
Total Replacement NBI rating of 3 or less [1] [2] 70 years
OR Cost of rehabilitation exceeds cost of replacement [1]
OR Bridge is scour critical with no counter-measures available [1]
Rehabilitation
Superstructure NBI rating of 4 or less for the superstructure [1] [2] 40 years [1]
Replacement OR Cost of superstructure and deck rehabilitation exceeds cost of
replacement [1]
Deck Replacement Use guidelines in MDOT’s Bridge Deck Preservation Matrix [3] [4] 60+ years [3] [4]
Epoxy Coated Steel NBI rating of 4 or less for the deck surface and deck bottom [1] [2]
Black Steel Deck bottom has more than 25% total area with deficiencies [1]
OR Replacement cost of deck is competitive with rehabilitation [1]
[1*]
Substructure NBI rating of 4 or less for abutments, piers, or pier cap [1] [2] 40 years
Replacement Has open vertical cracks, signs of differential settlement, or active
(Full or Partial) movement [1]
Pontis rating of 3 or 5 for more than 30 percent of the substructure [1]
[5]
OR Bridge is scour critical with no counter-measures available
[1*]
Steel Beam Repair More than 25% section loss in an area of the beam that affects load 40 years
carrying capacity [1]
12
Bridge AMP
Table 3: Summary of Preservation Criteria
Expected
Preservation Action Bridge Selection Criteria
Service Life
OR To correct impact damage that impairs beam strength [1]
[1*]
Prestressed Concrete More than 5% spalling at ends of prestressed I-beams [1] 40 years
Beam Repair OR Impact damage that impairs beam strength or exposes
prestressing strands [1]
Substructure Concrete NBI rating of 5 or 4 for abutments or piers, and surface has less than
Patching and Repair 30% area spalled and delaminated [1] [2]
OR Pontis rating of 3 or 4 for the column or pile extension, pier wall,
and/or abutment wall and surface has between 2% and 30% area
with deficiencies [1] [5]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation for substructure
patching [1]
Abutment NBI rating of 4 or less for the abutment [1] [2]
Repair/Replacement OR Has open vertical cracks, signs of differential settlement, or active
movement
Railing/Barrier NBI rating greater than 5 for the deck [1] [2]
Replacement NBI rating less than 5 for the railing with more than 30% total area
having deficiencies [1] [2]
OR Pontis rating is 4 for railing [1] [5]
OR Safety improvement is needed [1]
Culvert NBI rating of 4 or less for culvert or drainage outlet structure
Repair/Replacement OR Has open vertical cracks, signs of deformation, movement, or
differential settlement
Preventive Maintenance
Shallow Concrete NBI rating is 5 or less for deck surface, and deck surface has more 12 years
Deck Overlay than 15% area with deficiencies [1] [2]
NBI rating of 4 or 5 for deck bottom, and deck bottom has between
5% and 30% area with deficiencies [1] [2]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation [1]
Deep Concrete Deck NBI rating of 5 or less for deck surface, and deck surface has more 25 years
Overlay than 15% area with deficiencies [1] [2]
NBI deck bottom rating is 5 or 6, and deck bottom has less than 10%
area with deficiencies [1] [2]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation [1]
HMA Overlay with NBI rating of 5 or less for deck surface, and both deck surface and
Waterproofing bottom have between 15% and 30% area with deficiencies [1] [2]
Membrane OR Bridge is in poor condition and will be replaced in the near future
and the most cost-effective fix is HMA overlay [1]
HMA Overlay Cap Note: All HMA caps should have membranes unless scheduled for 3 years
without Membrane replacement within five years.
NBI rating of 3 or less for deck surface and deck bottom, and deck
surface and deck bottom have more than 30% area with deficiencies.
Temporary holdover to improve ride quality for a bridge in the five-
year plan for rehab/replacement. [1] [2]
Concrete Deck NBI rating of 5, 6, or 7 for deck surface, and deck surface has 5 years
Patching between 2% and 5% area with delamination and spalling [1] [2]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation [1]
13
Bridge AMP
Table 3: Summary of Preservation Criteria
Expected
Preservation Action Bridge Selection Criteria
Service Life
Steel Bearing NBI rating of 5 or more for superstructure and deck, and NBI rating 4
Repair/Replacement or less for bearing [2]
Deck Joint Always include when doing deep or shallow concrete overlays [1]
Replacement NBI rating of 4 or less for joints [1] [2]
OR Joint leaking heavily [1]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation for replacement
[1]
Pin and Hanger NBI rating of 4 or less for superstructure for pins and hangers [1] [2] 15 years
Replacement Pontis rating of 1, 2, or 3 for a frozen or deformed pin and hanger [1]
[5]
OR Presence of excessive section loss, severe pack rust, or out-of-
plane distortion [1]
Zone Repainting NBI rating of 5 or 4 for paint condition, and paint has 3% to 15% total 10 years
area failing [1] [2]
OR During routine maintenance on beam ends or pins and hangers
[1]
OR less than 15% of existing paint area has failed and remainder of
paint system is in good or fair condition [1]
Complete Repainting NBI rating of 3 or less for paint condition [1] [2]
OR Painted steel beams that have greater than 15% of the existing
paint area failing [1]
Partial Repainting See Zone or Spot Painting
Channel Removal of vegetation, debris, or sediment from channel and banks
Improvements to improve channel flow
OR in response to inspector’s work recommendation
Scour Pontis scour rating of 2 or 3 and is not scheduled for replacement [1]
Countermeasures [5]
OR NBI comments in abutment and pier ratings indicate presence of
scour holes [1] [2]
Approach Repaving Approach pavement relief joints should be included in all projects that
contain a significant amount of concrete roadway (in excess of 1000’
adjacent to the structure). The purpose is to alleviate the effects of
pavement growth that may cause distress to the structure. Signs of
pavement growth include:
o Abutment spalling under bearings [1]
o Beam end contact [1]
o Closed expansion joints and/or pin and hangers [1]
o Damaged railing and deck fascia at joints [1]
o Cracking in deck at reference line (45 degree angle) [1]
[2*]
Guard Rail Guard rail missing or damaged
[2*]
Repair/Replacement OR Safety improvement is needed
14
Bridge AMP
Scheduled Maintenance
Superstructure When salt contaminated dirt and debris collected on superstructure is 2 years
Washing causing corrosion or deterioration by trapping moisture [1]
OR Expansion or construction joints are to be replaced and the steel
is not to be repainted [1]
OR Prior to a detailed replacement [1]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation [1]
Drainage System When drainage system is clogged with debris [1] 2 years
Clean-Out/Repair OR Drainage elements are broken, deteriorated, or damaged [1]
OR NBI rating comments for drainage system indicate need for
cleaning or repair [1] [2]
Spot Repainting For zinc-based paint systems only. Do not spot paint with lead-based 5 years
paints.
Less than 5% of paint area has failed in isolated areas [1]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation [1]
Slope Paving Repair NBI rating is 5 or less for slope protection [1] [2]
OR Slope is degraded or sloughed
OR Slope paving has significant areas of distress, failure, or has
settled [1]
Riprap Installation To protect surface when erosion threatens the stability of side slopes
of channel banks
Vegetation Control When vegetation traps moisture on structural elements [1] 1 year
OR Vegetation is growing from joints or cracks [1]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation for brush cut [1]
Debris Removal When vegetation, debris, or sediment accumulates on the structure or 1 year
in the channel
OR In response to inspectors work recommendation
Deck Joint Repair Do not repair compression joint seals, assembly joint seals, steel
armor expansions joints, and block out expansion joints; these should
always be replaced. [1]
NBI rating is 5 for joint [1] [2]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation for repair [1]
Concrete Sealing Top surface of pier or abutments are below deck joints and, when
contaminated with salt, salt can collect on the surface [1]
OR Surface of the concrete has heavy salt exposure. Horizontal
surfaces of substructure elements are directly below expansion joints
[1]
Concrete Crack Concrete is in good or fair condition, and cracks extend to the depth 5 years
Sealing of the steel reinforcement [1]
OR NBI rating of 5, 6, or 7 for deck surface, and deck surface has
between 2% and 5% area with deficiencies [1] [2]
OR Unsealed cracks exist that are narrow and/or less than 1/8” wide
and spaced more than 8’ apart [1]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation [1]
Minor Concrete Repair minor delaminations and spalling that cover less than 30% of
Patching the concrete substructure [1]
15
Bridge AMP
OR NBI rating of 5 or 4 for abutments or piers, and comments
indicate that their surface has less than 30% spalling or delamination
[1] [2]
OR Pontis rating of 3 or 4 for the column or pile extension, pier wall
and/or abutment wall, and surface has between 2% and 30% area
with deficiencies [1] [5]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation [1]
HMA Surface HMA surface is in poor condition
Repair/Replacement OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation
Seal HMA HMA surface is in good or fair condition, and cracks extend to the
Cracks/Joints surface of the underlying slab or sub course
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation
Timber Repair NBI rating of 4 or less for substructure for timber members
OR To repair extensive rot, checking, or insect infestation
Miscellaneous Repair Uncategorized repairs in response to inspector’s work
recommendation
This table was produced by TransSystems and includes information from the
following sources:
[1] MDOT, Project Scoping Manual, MDOT, 2019.
[2] MDOT, MDOT NBI Rating Guidelines, MDOT, 2017.
[3] MDOT, Bridge Deck Preservation Matrix - Decks with Uncoated "Black"
Rebar, MDOT, 2017.
[4] MDOT, Bridge Deck Preservation Matrix - Decks with Epoxy Coated
Rebar, 2017.
[5] MDOT, Pontis Bridge Inspection Manual, MDOT, 2009.
* From source with interpretation added.
In terms of management and preservation actions, the City’s asset management program uses a “mix of
fixes” strategy that is made up of replacement.
Replacement involves substantial changes to the existing structure, such as bridge deck
replacement, superstructure replacement, or complete structure replacement, and is intended to
improve critical or closed bridges to a good condition rating.
Rehabilitation is undertaken to extend the service life of existing bridges. The work will restore
deficient bridges to a condition of structural or functional adequacy, and may include upgrading
geometric features. Rehabilitation actions are intended to improve the poor or fair condition bridges
to fair or good condition.
Preventive maintenance work will improve and extend the service life of fair bridges, and will be
performed with the understanding that future rehabilitation or replacement projects will contain
appropriate safety and geometric enhancements. Preventive maintenance projects are directed at
limited bridge elements that are rated in fair condition with the intent of improving these elements
to a good rating. Most preventive maintenance projects will be one-time actions in response to a
condition state need. Routine preventive work will be performed by contracted agencies.
The City’s scheduled maintenance program is an integral part of the preservation plan, and is
intended to extend the service life of fair and good structures by preserving the bridges in their
16
Bridge AMP
current condition for a longer period of time. Scheduled maintenance is proactive and not
necessarily condition driven. In-house maintenance crews and contractors will perform work as
necessary.
Replacement, rehabilitation, and preventive maintenance projects are not generally eligible for funding
under the local bridge program, however any needs for funding will be programmed in the City of
Muskegon’s annual budget.
To achieve its goals, the City’s asset management program incorporates preservation of bridges currently
rated fair (5) or higher in their current condition in order to extend their useful service life. The primary
work activities used to meet this preservation objective include preventive maintenance. A bridge-by-bridge
maintenance plan is presented in the Appendix E.
Programmed/Funded Projects
The City received $250,000 from MDOT’s Local Bridge Program towards Bridge #7700 Ottawa Street
over the Muskegon River. The City has plans to remove this bridge in 2024. The City will provide a local
match. The projected cost for this project is $500,000.
Planned Projects
The City is planning to remove Bridge #7699 along Amity Avenue and replace it with an at-grade crossing.
This project has not received funding however the City will apply for MDOT’s Local Bridge Program Call
for Projects and include a local match. The projected cost for this work is $600,000
17
Bridge AMP
2. FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Anticipated Revenues
The City has programmed projects and has been granted MDOT Local Agency funding for the purpose of
removal of Bridge #7700. This funding is intended for use in 2024.
The City plans to prepare and submit an application for MDOT Local Agency funding for the purpose of
removing Bridge #7699. This funding would be intended for use in funding year 2026.
Anticipated Expenses
Scheduled maintenance activities and minor repairs that are not affiliated with any applications, grants, or
other funded projects will be performed by the agency’s in-house maintenance forces or hired contractors
and are funded through the City’s annual operating budget.
18
Bridge AMP
3. RISK MANAGEMENT
The City recognizes that the potential risks associated with bridges generally fall into several categories:
Personal injury and property damage resulting from a bridge collapse or partial failure.
Loss of access to a region or individual properties resulting from bridge closures, restricted
load postings, or extended outages for rehabilitation and repair activities; and
Delays, congestion, and inconvenience due to serviceability issues, such as poor-quality
riding surface, loose expansion joints, or missing expansion joints.
The City addresses these risks by implementing regular bridge inspections and a preservation strategy
consisting of preventive maintenance.
The City administers the biennial inspection of its bridges in accordance with NBIS and MDOT
requirements. The inspection reports document the condition of the City’s bridges and evaluates them in
order to identify new defects and monitor advancing deterioration. The inspection reports in Appendix F
identifies items needing follow-up, special inspection actions, and recommended bridge-by-bridge
maintenance activities.
The City has no scour critical bridges. Bridges that are considered “scour critical” pose a risk to the
City’s road and bridge network. Scour is the depletion of sediment from around the foundation elements
of a bridge commonly caused by fast-moving water. According to MDOT’s Michigan Structure Inventory
and Appraisal Coding Guide, a scour critical bridge is one that has unstable abutment(s) and/or pier(s)
due to observed or potential (based on an evaluation study) scour. Bridges receiving a scour rating of 3 or
less are considered scour critical.
19
Bridge AMP
The preservation strategy identifies actions in the operations and maintenance plan that are preventive or
are responsive to specific bridge conditions. The actions are prioritized to correct critical structural safety
and traffic issues first, and then to address other needs based on the operational importance of each bridge
and the long-term preservation of the network. The inspection results serve as a basis for modifying and
updating the operations and maintenance plan annually.
20
Bridge AMP
APPENDIX A - Inventory
21
Bridge AMP
Inventory Data Inspection Items
Number of Total Str Total Str In Depth Pin and Review
Structure Structure Type Main Span Structure Type Main Total Str Initial Diving Provide Load Update
Bridge Type Bridge ID Facility Carried Features Intersected Main Span Length Width Steel Hanger Scour
Number (Item 43A - Material) Span (Item 43B) (sq ft) Inspection Inspection Monitoring Rating SIA
(Item 45) (Item 49) (Item 52) Inspection Inspection Criticality
Concrete – Culvert 7698 614461800016B02 LAKESHORE DRIVE RUDDIMAN CREEK 1 19 1 29.9 65.9 1970
Steel continuous – Multistringer 7699 614461800071R01 AMITY ST C O RAILROAD 4 2 5 100.7 31.8 3202
Steel – Multistringer 7700 614461800205B01 OTTAWA ST MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 3 2 1 37.3 53.8 2007
22
Bridge AMP
APPENDIX B – Structure Condition Ratings
23
Bridge AMP
Inventory Data
Primary or
Structure Structure Type Main Span Structure Type Main Number of Main Span Total Str Length Year Built Year Reconstr
Bridge Type Bridge ID Facility Carried Features Intersected Secondary ADT Year of ADT
Number (Item 43A - Material) Span (Item 43B) (Item 45) (Item 49) (Item 27) (Item 106)
Route
Concrete – Culvert 7698 614461800016B02 LAKESHORE DRIVE RUDDIMAN CREEK P 1 19 1 29.9 1900 1986 12520 2002
Steel continuous – Multistringer 7699 614461800071R01 AMITY ST C O RAILROAD P 4 2 5 100.7 1900 1969 1972 2004
Steel – Multistringer 7700 614461800205B01 OTTAWA ST MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH P 3 2 1 37.3 1929 599 2002
Inspection Findings
Surface
Structure Operational Status Deck Bottom Substr Rating (Item Channel Rating (Item Culvert Rating Exp Joint
Bridge Type Inspection Date Deck Rating (Item 58) SuperStr Rating (Item 59) Rating Paint Rtg Other Joints
Number (Item 41) Rating 60) 61) (Item 62) Rating
(Item 58A)
Concrete – Culvert 7698 8/2/2020 A N N N 7 7
Steel continuous – Multistringer 7699 8/31/2021 A 5 5 4 6 N N 4 4 4 4
Steel – Multistringer 7700 8/31/2021 K 3 4 1 5 5 N 4 N N
Appraisal
Structure Structure Structurally
Bridge Type Sufficiency Rating Section Loss Scour Critical (Item 113)
Number Evaluation Deficient
Concrete – Culvert 7698 G 95.4 5
Steel continuous – Multistringer 7699 P Struct Def 47.5 N
Steel – Multistringer 7700 P Struct Def U
24
Bridge AMP
APPENDIX C – Inspector Notes and Repair
Recommendations
25
Bridge AMP
Jurisdiction: LA City - MUSKEGON
Report created on 08/15/2022
INSPECTION Joint Joint Repair Detailed
Structure # BRKEY Facility Carried Features Intersected Region STRNO CS Inspector Name Detailed Inspection Notes Slope Repair Slope Repair Notes
DATE Repair Notes Inspection
Watch gap at southside sheeting, and cracks
7698 614461800016B02 LAKESHORE DRIVE RUDDIMAN CREEK Grand 8/26/2020 Ryan Worden Medium in block retaining walls. Also watch cracking Medium grout cracks in retaining walls.
in arch legs at abutment
repair failing sheet walls and seal any wall
7699 614461800071R01 AMITY ST C O RAILROAD Grand 8/31/2021 Ryan Worden High Replace joints High gaps allowing erosion and settlement of
approach sidewalk.
7700 614461800205B01 OTTAWA ST MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH Grand 8/31/2021 Ryan Worden
Other
Bridge Bridge Replacement Deep Superstructur Other Other Contract Work
Structure # BRKEY Brush Cut Brush Cut Notes Crew Other Crew Work Notes Paint Paint Notes Deep Overlay Notes Superstructure Repair Notes
Replacement Notes Overlay e Repair Contract Notes
Work
7698 614461800016B02
Remove the bridge is likely Full paint is Remove the bridge is likely
the best option since the needed on the best option since the
7699 614461800071R01 High Cut brush around bridge High High High Place concrete overlay High Repair beam ends High
crossing is no longer beams, piers crossing is no longer
needed. remain okay. needed.
Beams and deck are too
far gone to repair,
7700 614461800205B01 High
replacement or removal
is the best option.
26
Bridge AMP
APPENDIX D – Summary of Inspection Fix Recommendations
City of Muskegon Bridge Inspection Report Executive Summary
General Recommendations
Structure #7698 - 2020
-Watch gap at southside sheeting, watch cracks in block retaining walls and watch cracking in
arch legs at abutments
-Grout the cracks in the retaining walls
Structure #7699 - 2021
- Cut brush around bridge
-Repair failing sheet walls and seal any wall gaps allowing erosion and settlement of approach
sidewalk
-Replace joints
-Place concrete overlay
-Full paint is needed on beams, piers remain okay
-Repair beam ends
-Remove the bridge is likely the best option since the crossing is no longer needed
The plan is to remove this bridge.
Structure #7700 - 2021
-Beams and deck are too far gone to repair, replacement or removal is the best option
The plan is to remove this bridge.
27
Bridge AMP
APPENDIX E – Plans for Future Action
28
Bridge AMP
Inventory Data Replacement
Structure Type
Structure Type Total Str
Structure Main Span Number of Main Total Str Width Super‐
Bridge Type Bridge ID Facility Carried Features Intersected Main Span (Item Length Total Str (sq ft) Total Deck Sub‐structure
Number (Item 43A ‐ Span (Item 45) (Item 52) structure
43B) (Item 49)
Material)
Concrete – Culvert 7698 614461800016B02 LAKESHORE DRIVE RUDDIMAN CREEK 1 19 1 29.9 65.9 1970
Steel continuous – Multistringer 7699 614461800071R01 AMITY ST C O RAILROAD 4 2 5 100.7 31.8 3202 N/A ‐ bridge set for removal in 2025
Steel – Multistringer 7700 614461800205B01 OTTAWA ST MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 3 2 1 37.3 53.8 2007 N/A ‐ bridge set for removal in 2024
Rehabilitation
Patch
Structure HMA Overlay Replace/Retrofit Steel Beam P/S Conc Beam Repair/Replace Repair/Replace Geometric
Bridge Type Bridge ID Deep Overlay Shallow Overlay HMA Cap Substruct
Number w/ Membrane Railing Repairs Repairs Culvert Retaining Wall Upgrades
Concrete
Concrete – Culvert 7698 614461800016B02 Grout cracks
Steel continuous – Multistringer 7699 614461800071R01 N/A ‐ bridge set for removal in 2026
Steel – Multistringer 7700 614461800205B01 N/A ‐ bridge set for removal in 2024
Proposed Preventive Maintenance
HMA Cap
Structure Complete Concrete Deck Channel Scour Counter
Bridge Type Bridge ID Repair/Replace Deck Repair/Replace Steel Bearings Zone Painting Epoxy Overlays w/o
Number Painting Patching Improvements Measures
Membrane
Concrete – Culvert 7698 614461800016B02
Steel continuous – Multistringer 7699 614461800071R01 N/A ‐ bridge set for removal in 2026
Steel – Multistringer 7700 614461800205B01 N/A ‐ bridge set for removal in 2024
Proposed Scheduled Maintenance
Minor
Structure Vegetation Clean Drainage Spot Repair/Replace Seal HMA Seal Concrete Timber Repair/Replace Repave Repair
Bridge Type Bridge ID Superstruc Washing Concrete Surface Washing Debris Removal Concrete Install RipRap
Number Control System Painting HMA Surface Cracks/Joints Cracks/Joints Repairs Guardrails Approaches Slopes
Patching
Concrete – Culvert 7698 614461800016B02
Steel continuous – Multistringer 7699 614461800071R01 N/A ‐ bridge set for removal in 2026
Steel – Multistringer 7700 614461800205B01 N/A ‐ bridge set for removal in 2024
29
Bridge AMP
APPENDIX F – Bridge Inspection Reports
30
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7698 CULVERT SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
LAKESHORE DRIVE 43.2182 / -86.2847 614461800016B02 Good Condition(7)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
RUDDIMAN CREEK 29.9 / 65.9 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.1 MI N OF ADDISON AVE 1900 / 1986 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 1 Concrete / 19 Culvert 08/26/2020 / OY0T 5 Stable w/in footing
CULVERT INSPECTION OY0T
Inspector Name Agency / Company Name Insp. Freq. Insp. Date
Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering 24 08/26/2020
GENERAL NOTES
Good. New road section over culvert.
NBI INSPECTION
08/16 08/18 08/20
1. Culvert 8 7 7 (08/20)
Rating (08/18)
(SIA-62) (08/16)
2. Channel 7 7 7 Riprap has been thrown into the stream to create weir, underwater at the time of the
(SIA-61) inspection. Higher water due to high lake level. (08/20)
Riprap has been thrown into the stream to create weir, underwater at the time of the
inspection. (08/18)
riprap thrown into stream to create weir. (08/16)
3. Scour 8 8 8 none noted (08/20)
none noted (08/18)
none noted (08/16)
AASHTO ELEMENTS (English Units)
Element Element Total Unit Good Fair Poor Severe
Number Name Quantity CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4
Culvert
241 Re Conc Culvert 98 ft 80 18 0 0
82% 18% 0% 0%
Section 8S has small section of wire reinforcement exposed along south edge of west side of arch. Cracks noted along bottom of section
1S, 2S, & 4S at west abutment. New pavement, curbs, & sidwalks placed over culvert. Guardrails were replaced with architectural
barricades.
857 Culvert Joints 15 (EA) 15 0 0 0
100% 0% 0% 0%
Joints remain good, no leakage noted
861 Culvert Wingwall 4 (EA) 4 0 0 0
100% 0% 0% 0%
fine vertical cracks noted. Some spalling of concrete footing under precast walls, SW & SE quads.
862 Culvert Footing 196 ft 196 0 0 0
100% 0% 0% 0%
footings remain buried, fine vertical cracks in stems below the precast arch sections.
863 Culvert Headwall 2 (EA) 2 0 0 0
100% 0% 0% 0%
Headwalls remain good. Some cracking in block retaining walls outside of wingwalls in each quadrant areas of settlement noted. Heavy
vegetation covers sections of walls. Gaps in sheeting along retaining and wingwalls. SW sheeting gaps have been monitored, 1.5" at 9th
sheeting corrugation and 1.375" at 6th corrugation, remains the same as 2018. The flange of SW wale is bent at tie-back rods, which
have been present over many inspection cycles.
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 03/23/2022 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 2
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7698 CULVERT SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
LAKESHORE DRIVE 43.2182 / -86.2847 614461800016B02 Good Condition(7)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
RUDDIMAN CREEK 29.9 / 65.9 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.1 MI N OF ADDISON AVE 1900 / 1986 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 1 Concrete / 19 Culvert 08/26/2020 / OY0T 5 Stable w/in footing
MISCELLANEOUS
Guard Rail Other Items
Item Rating Item Rating
36A. Bridge Railings 1 71. Water Adequacy 8
36B. Transitions N 72. Approach Alignment 8
36C. Approach Guardrail 1 Special Insp. Equipment 2
36D. Approach Guardrail Ends N Underwater Insp. Method 1
RECOMMENDATIONS & ACTION ITEMS
Recommendation Type Priority Description
Detailed Insp. M Watch gap at southside sheeting, and cracks in block retaining
walls. Also watch cracking in arch legs at abutment
Slope Repair M grout cracks in retaining walls.
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 03/23/2022 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 2 of 2
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7698 STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
LAKESHORE DRIVE 43.2182 / -86.2847 614461800016B02 Good Condition(7)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
RUDDIMAN CREEK 29.9 / 65.9 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.1 MI N OF ADDISON AVE 1900 / 1986 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 1 Concrete / 19 Culvert 08/26/2020 / OY0T 5 Stable w/in footing
Bridge History, Type, Materials Route Carried By Structure(ON Record) Route Under Structure (UNDER Record)
27 - Year Built 1900 5A - Record Type 1 5A - Record Type
106 - Year Reconstructed 1986 5B - Route Signing 5 5B - Route Signing
202 - Year Painted 5C - Level of Service 0 5C - Level of Service
203 - Year Overlay 5D - Route Number 02007 5D - Route Number
43 - Main Span Bridge Type 1 19 5E - Direction Suffix 0 5E - Direction Suffix
44 - Appr Span Bridge Type 10L - Best 3m Unclr-Lt 0 0 10L - Best 3m Unclr-Lt
77 - Steel Type 0 10R - Best 3m Unclr-Rt 99 99 10R - Best 3m Unclr-Rt
78 - Paint Type 0 PR Number PR Number
79 - Rail Type 1 Control Section Control Section
80 - Post Type 0 11 - Mile Point 0 11 - Mile Point
107 - Deck Type 1 12 - Base Highway Network 0 12 - Base Highway Network
108A - Wearing Surface 6 13 - LRS Route-Subroute 0000008639 10 13 - LRS Route-Subroute
108B - Membrane 2 19 - Detour Length 4 19 - Detour Length
108C - Deck Protection 1 20 - Toll Facility 3 20 - Toll Facility
Structure Dimensions 26 - Functional Class 16 26 - Functional Class
28A - Lanes On 3 28B - Lanes Under
34 - Skew 0
29 - ADT 12520 29 - ADT
35 - Struct Flared 0
30 - Year of ADT 2002 30 - Year of ADT
45 - Num Main Spans 1
32 - Appr Roadway Width 44 42B - Service Type Under 5
46 - Num Apprs Spans 0
32A/B - Ap Pvt Type/Width 4 44 47L - Left Horizontal Clear
48 - Max Span Length 26.9
42A - Service Type On 1 47R - Right Horizontal Clear
49 - Structure Length 29.9
47L - Left Horizontal Clear 0.0 54A - Left Feature
50A - Width Left Curb/SW 5.9
47R - Right Horizontal Clear 44.0 54B - Left Underclearance 99 99
50B - Width Right Curb/SW 5.9
53 - Min Vert Clr Ov Deck 99 99 54C - Right Feature
33 - Median 0
100 - STRAHNET 0 54D - Right Clearance 99 99
51 - Width Curb to Curb 47.9
102 - Traffic Direct 2 Under Clearance Year
52 - Width Out to Out 65.9
109 - Truck % 0 55A - Reference Feature N
112 - NBIS Length Y
110 - Truck Network 0 55B - Right Horiz Clearance 99.9
Inspection Data 114 - Future ADT 15100 56 - Left Horiz Clearance 0
90 - Inspection Date 08/26/2020 115 - Year Future ADT 2022 100 - STRAHNET
91 - Inspection Freq 24 Freeway 0 102 - Traffic Direct
92A - Frac Crit Req/Freq N Structure Appraisal 109 - Truck %
93A - Frac Crit Insp Date 110 - Truck Network
36A - Bridge Railing 1
92B - Und Water Req/Freq N 114 - Future ADT
36B - Rail Transition N
93B - Und Water Insp Date 115 - Year Future ADT
36C - Approach Rail 1
92C - Oth Spec Insp Req/Freq N Freeway
36D - Rail Termination N
93C - Oth Spec Insp Date Proposed Improvements
67 - Structure Evaluation 7
92D - Fatigue Req/Freq N
68 - Deck Geometry 5 75 - Type of Work
93D - Fatigue Insp Date
69 - Underclearance N 76 - Length of Improvement
176A - Und Water Insp Method 1
71 - Waterway Adequacy 8 94 - Bridge Cost
58 - Deck Rating N
72 - Approach Alignment 8 95 - Roadway Cost
58A/B - Deck Surface/Bottom
103 - Temporary Structure 96 - Total Cost
59 - Superstructure Rating N
113 - Scour Criticality 5 97 - Year of Cost Estimate
59A - Paint Rating
60 - Substructure Rating N Miscellaneous Load Rating and Posting
61 - Channel Rating 7 37 - Historical Significance 1 31 - Design Load 5
62 - Culvert Rating 7 98A - Border Bridge State 41 - Open, Posted, Closed A
Navigation Data 98B - Border Bridge % 63 - Fed Oper Rtg Method 0
101 - Parallel Structure N 64F - Fed Oper Rtg Load 1.67
38 - Navigation Control 0
EPA ID 64MA - Mich Oper Rtg Method 0
39 - Vertical Clearance 0
Stay in Place Forms 64MB - Mich Oper Rtg 77
40 - Horizontal Clearance 0
143 - Pin & Hanger Code 64MC - Mich Oper Truck 18
111 - Pier Protection
148 - No. of Pin & Hangers 65 - Inv Rtg Method 0
116 - Lift Brdg Vert Clear 0
66 - Inventory Load 1
70 - Posting 5
141 - Posted Loading
193 - Overload Class N
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7698 SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT - AASHTO ELEMENTS
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
LAKESHORE DRIVE 43.2182 / -86.2847 614461800016B02 Good Condition(7)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
RUDDIMAN CREEK 29.9 / 65.9 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.1 MI N OF ADDISON AVE 1900 / 1986 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 1 Concrete / 19 Culvert 08/26/2020 / OY0T 5 Stable w/in footing
NBI INSPECTION OY0T
Inspector Name Agency / Company Name Insp. Freq. Insp. Date
Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering 24 08/26/2020
AASHTO ELEMENTS (English Units)
Element Element Total Unit Good Fair Poor Severe
Number Name Quantity CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4
Culvert
241 Re Conc Culvert 98 ft 80 18 0 0
82% 18% 0% 0%
Section 8S has small section of wire reinforcement exposed along south edge of west side of arch. Cracks noted along bottom of section
1S, 2S, & 4S at west abutment. New pavement, curbs, & sidwalks placed over culvert. Guardrails were replaced with architectural
barricades.
857 Culvert Joints 15 (EA) 15 0 0 0
100% 0% 0% 0%
Joints remain good, no leakage noted
861 Culvert Wingwall 4 (EA) 4 0 0 0
100% 0% 0% 0%
fine vertical cracks noted. Some spalling of concrete footing under precast walls, SW & SE quads.
862 Culvert Footing 196 ft 196 0 0 0
100% 0% 0% 0%
footings remain buried, fine vertical cracks in stems below the precast arch sections.
863 Culvert Headwall 2 (EA) 2 0 0 0
100% 0% 0% 0%
Headwalls remain good. Some cracking in block retaining walls outside of wingwalls in each quadrant areas of settlement noted. Heavy
vegetation covers sections of walls. Gaps in sheeting along retaining and wingwalls. SW sheeting gaps have been monitored, 1.5" at 9th
sheeting corrugation and 1.375" at 6th corrugation, remains the same as 2018. The flange of SW wale is bent at tie-back rods, which
have been present over many inspection cycles.
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 03/23/2022 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7698 WORK RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
LAKESHORE DRIVE 43.2182 / -86.2847 614461800016B02 Good Condition(7)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
RUDDIMAN CREEK 29.9 / 65.9 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.1 MI N OF ADDISON AVE 1900 / 1986 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 1 Concrete / 19 Culvert 08/26/2020 / OY0T 5 Stable w/in footing
WORK RECOMMENDATIONS OY0T
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7698 SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGE ACTION PLAN
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
LAKESHORE DRIVE 43.2182 / -86.2847 614461800016B02 Good Condition(7)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
RUDDIMAN CREEK 29.9 / 65.9 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.1 MI N OF ADDISON AVE 1900 / 1986 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 1 Concrete / 19 Culvert 08/26/2020 / OY0T 5 Stable w/in footing
No plan available for bridge key 614461800016B02
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7698 LOAD RATING ASSUMPTIONS
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
LAKESHORE DRIVE 43.2182 / -86.2847 614461800016B02 Good Condition(7)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
RUDDIMAN CREEK 29.9 / 65.9 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.1 MI N OF ADDISON AVE 1900 / 1986 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 1 Concrete / 19 Culvert 08/26/2020 / OY0T 5 Stable w/in footing
Rating Considers Field Condition of Members: Yes Inspection Date: 08/14/2012
Deterioration:
Hairline cracks in bottom of arch legs of several precast sections and minor spall of section 8S with exposed rebar
Most Recent Year Construct / Reconstruct / Overlay:
History of Work Impacting Load Rating:
no recent work known
Superstructure Component: 1 Concrete Beam fy: ksi Beam f'c / fb: ksi
Composite: No Number of Beams: Shop Drawings Verified: No
Beam Size(s) & Names (each Precast arch culvert
span):
Deck: Thickness (in.): Fy / f'c: / ksi Deck Design Load > H15: No
Wearing Surface: Mat'l: Thickness (in.): Unit Weight (pcf.):
LEFT CENTER RIGHT
Barrier: Type / Weight (plf.): / / /
Sidewalk: Width / Thick (in.): / / /
Clear Roadway (ft.):
Additional Loads:
Unique Factors That Affect Capacity:
HMA, curb and gutter, and sidewalk over precast arch culvert
Analyzed By: rtw Date: 08/20/2012
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7698 LOAD RATING SUMMARY
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
LAKESHORE DRIVE 43.2182 / -86.2847 614461800016B02 Good Condition(7)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
RUDDIMAN CREEK 29.9 / 65.9 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.1 MI N OF ADDISON AVE 1900 / 1986 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 1 Concrete / 19 Culvert 08/26/2020 / OY0T 5 Stable w/in footing
Compliance Issue: None
Compliance Verified: No
Analysis Program: Other
Analysis Program Version: Inspection and shop drawing review, performance
Rating Considers Field Condition of Members: Yes Inspection Date: 08/14/2012
Controlling component and failure mode:
concrete precast arch overloading
NEW INVENTORY CODING
NBI Item 63 - Operating Rating Method 0 Judgment in Rtg Factor
NBI Item 64F - Federal Operating Ratings 1.67
MDOT Item 64MA - Michigan Operating Method 0 Judgment in Rtg Factor
MDOT Item 64MB - Michigan Operating Rating 77.0
MDOT Item 64MC - Michigan Operating Truck 18
NBI Item 65 - Inventory Rating Method 0 Judgment in Rtg Factor
NBI Item 66 - Federal Inventory Rating 1.0
NBI Item 41 - Structure Open Posted Closed A A Open, no restriction
NBI Item 70 - Bridge Posting 5 5 - 100% or more
Posted By No Posting
MDOT Item 141 - Posted Loading
MDOT Item 193A - Michigan Overload Class
MDOT Item 193C - Overload Status N-No Restriction
Analyzed By: rtw Date: 08/20/2012
Checked By: rwl Date: 08/20/2012
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7698 REQUEST FOR ACTION
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
LAKESHORE DRIVE 43.2182 / -86.2847 614461800016B02 Good Condition(7)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
RUDDIMAN CREEK 29.9 / 65.9 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.1 MI N OF ADDISON AVE 1900 / 1986 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 1 Concrete / 19 Culvert 08/26/2020 / OY0T 5 Stable w/in footing
No inspections available for bridge key 614461800016B02
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7698 OUTSTANDING WORK
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
LAKESHORE DRIVE 43.2182 / -86.2847 614461800016B02 Good Condition(7)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
RUDDIMAN CREEK 29.9 / 65.9 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.1 MI N OF ADDISON AVE 1900 / 1986 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 1 Concrete / 19 Culvert 08/26/2020 / OY0T 5 Stable w/in footing
WORK RECOMMENDATIONS
OTHER
Request For Contact/User Agency/Company Name Estimated Quantity Unit
Slope Repair
Activity Material Other Material Actual Quantity Unit
Personnel Hours Equipment Complete Date
Comments
grout cracks in retaining walls. (Ryan Worden 08/28/2020)
Request For Contact/User Agency/Company Name Estimated Quantity Unit
Detailed Insp.
Activity Material Other Material Actual Quantity Unit
Personnel Hours Equipment Complete Date
Comments
Watch gap at southside sheeting, and cracks in block retaining walls. Also watch cracking in arch legs at abutment (Ryan Worden
08/28/2020)
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7699 BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
AMITY ST 43.2361 / -86.2394 614461800071R01 Poor Condition(4)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
C O RAILROAD 100.7 / 31.8 / 5 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.02 E OF MYRTLE AVE 1900 / 1969 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 4 Steel Continuous / 02 Multi 08/31/2021 / EP21 N Not Over Waterway
Str Non Comp
NBI INSPECTION EP21
Inspector Name Agency / Company Name Insp. Freq. Insp. Date
Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering 12 08/31/2021
GENERAL NOTES
Poor. Remove overgrown trees from sidewalk areas and repair settled sidewalk sections. Repair west bearings and beam ends. Spalling
with HMA patching continues to increase along the center of the bridge. Lots of trash along slopes, watch for broken glass. The
homeless may be living at the west end.
DECK
08/18 08/20 08/21
1. Surface 5 5 4 The concrete deck has transverse cracks throughout the deck, spaced every 6'-10',
(SIA-58A) approximately 14 cracks. Most spalls along the deck have been patched with HMA. Noted
delaminated areas around spalled areas. Spalls scattered along the center 1/3rd, full length of
the deck. Deck ends are spalled/patched at the reference lines and are leaking on the beam
end below. Estimate middle 20% of the deck is spalled or delaminated. (08/21)
The concrete deck has transverse cracks throughout the deck, spaced every 6'-10',
approximately 14 cracks. Most spalls along the deck have been patched with HMA. Noted
delaminated areas around spalled areas. Spalls scattered along the center 1/3rd, full length of
the deck. Deck ends are spalled/patched at the reference lines and are leaking on the beam
end below. (08/20)
The concrete deck has transverse cracks throughout the deck, spaced every 6'-10'. Most
spalls along the deck have been patched with HMA. Noted some delaminated areas around
spalled areas. Spalls scattered along the centerline full length of the deck. (08/18)
2. Expansion 4 4 4 Joints reference lines. Water flows under the cover plate onto beam ends. Loose cover plate
Joints at SW corner on sidewalk. Deck spalling along cover plates, worst at west joint. Bottom of
joint retainers above beams have pack rust full width. (08/21)
Joints reference lines. Water flows under the cover plate onto beam ends. Loose cover plate
at SW corner on sidewalk. Deck spalling along cover plates, worst at west joint. (08/20)
Joints reference lines. Water flows under the cover plate onto beam ends. Loose cover plate
at SW corner on sidewalk. Deck spalling along cover plates, worst at west joint. (08/18)
3. Other 5 4 4 Centerline construction joint spalling along the deck surface. (08/21)
Joints Centerline construction joint spalling along the deck surface. (08/20)
Centerline construction joint has some spalling along the deck surface. (08/18)
4. Railings 5 5 5 3 tube aluminum, anchor bolts rusted. Missing anchor bolt at a post along south rail near the
east end. (08/21)
3 tube aluminum, anchor bolts rusted. Missing anchor bolt at a post along south rail near the
east end. (08/20)
3 tube aluminum, anchor bolts rusted. Missing anchor bolt at a post along south rail near the
east end. (08/18)
5. Sidewalks 5 5 5 Very narrow sidewalks. Some transverse cracking and spalls at the joints. Brush overgrown
or Curbs at the ends causes pedestrians to walk into the street. (08/21)
Very narrow sidewalks. Some transverse cracking and spalls at the joints. Brush overgrown
at the ends causes pedestrians to walk into the street. (08/20)
Very narrow sidewalks. Some transverse cracking and spalls at the joints. Brush overgrown
at the ends causes pedestrians to walk into the street. (08/18)
6. Deck 5 5 5 Bottom of the deck has transverse cracks with efflorescence, more in center spans. Bottom of
Bottom deck soffit has transverse cracks under each sidewalk spaced along the length of the deck.
Surface No deck bottom spalling. (08/21)
(SIA-58B) Bottom of the deck has transverse cracks with efflorescence, more in center spans. Bottom of
deck soffit cracked under sidewalks. (08/20)
Bottom of the deck has transverse cracks with efflorescence, more in center spans. Bottom of
deck soffit cracked under sidewalk joint. (08/18)
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 03/23/2022 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 4
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7699 BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
AMITY ST 43.2361 / -86.2394 614461800071R01 Poor Condition(4)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
C O RAILROAD 100.7 / 31.8 / 5 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.02 E OF MYRTLE AVE 1900 / 1969 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 4 Steel Continuous / 02 Multi 08/31/2021 / EP21 N Not Over Waterway
Str Non Comp
7. Deck 5 5 5 Deck has full depth cracks, with spalled & delaminated concrete on top. Estimate 10% of
(SIA-58) deck spalled/delaminated. Some water is making its way through the cracks. with the
presence of efflorescence, though the amount of build-up remains low, as does the adjacent
beam deterioration. (08/21)
Deck has full depth cracks, with spalled & delaminated concrete on top. Estimate 10% of
deck spalled/delaminated. Water is making its way through the cracks. (08/20)
Deck has full depth cracks, with spalled & delaminated concrete on top. Estimate 5% of deck
spalled/patched. Water is making its way through the cracks. (08/18)
8. Drainage off ends of the deck (08/21)
off ends of deck (08/20)
off ends (08/18)
SUPERSTRUCTURE
08/18 08/20 08/21
9. Stringer 5 4 4 The end +/- 3' of beams at abutments are rusted from the leaking joints. The remaining length
(SIA-59) of the beams is in fair shape with light rust scale along flanges, particularly at deck cracks.
East end of interior beams has rust scale under leaking joint, fascia beams have pack rust
with section loss to bottom flange at north fascia. West beam ends have pack rust/ laminar
rust to bottom flanges and heavy scale to webs and top flanges, full section loss has occurred
to bottom flange at north fascia, beam 5S has holes in the top (1" dia.) and bottom of the web
(3"x0.5"), Beam 4S has full loss to web beyond the bearing, Beam 3S has 3"x0.5" hole at
bottom of web. West beam ends have the most section loss. (08/21)
The end +/- 3' of beams at abutments are rusted with scale from the leaking joints. The
remaining length of the beams is in good shape with light rust scale along flanges. East end
of interior beams has rust scale under leaking joint, fascia beams have pack rust with section
loss to bottom flange at north fascia. West beam ends have pack rust/ laminar rust to bottom
flanges and heavy scale to webs and top flanges, full section loss has occurred to bottom
flange at north fascia, beam 5S has holes in the top (1" dia.) and bottom of the web (3"x0.5"),
Beam 4S has full loss to web beyond the bearing, Beam 3S has 3"x0.5" hole at bottom of
web. (08/20)
The end +/- 3' of beams at abuts are rusted with scale from leaking joint. The remaining
length of the beams is in good shape. East end of beams has rust scale under leaking joint.
West beam ends have pack rust/ laminar rust to bottom flanges and heavy scale to webs and
top flanges. Section loss has occurred to bottom flanges at leaking deck cracks. Spot rusting
at leaking cracks in center span. (08/18)
10. Paint 4 4 4 paint failed at beam ends and spot locations where cracks are leaking. (08/21)
(SIA-59A) paint failed at beam ends and spot locations where cracks are leaking. (08/20)
paint failed at beam ends and spot locations where cracks are leaking. (08/18)
11. Section 2 0 0 Holes in webs Beam 3S, 4S, & 5S. North fascia has full section loss to edge of bottom flange
Loss at each end. (08/21)
Holes in webs Beam 3S, 4S, & 5S. North fascia has full section loss to edge of bottom flange
at each end. (08/20)
estimate 5% or less loss under leaking cracks. West end loss estimated at 10%. (08/18)
12. Bearings 3 3 3 Wes tend bearings have laminar rust with section loss. Most bolts are gone.
Anchor bolts in place at the east end with section loss. East end fascia bearing has heavy
pack rust. (08/21)
Westend bearings have laminar rust with section loss. Most bolts are gone.
Anchor bolts in place at the east end with section loss. East end fascia bearing has heavy
pack rust. (08/20)
Westend bearings have laminar rust with section loss. Most bolts are gone.
Anchor bolts in place at the east end. East end fascia bearing has heavy scale. (08/18)
SUBSTRUCTURE
08/18 08/20 08/21
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 03/23/2022 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 2 of 4
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7699 BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
AMITY ST 43.2361 / -86.2394 614461800071R01 Poor Condition(4)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
C O RAILROAD 100.7 / 31.8 / 5 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.02 E OF MYRTLE AVE 1900 / 1969 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 4 Steel Continuous / 02 Multi 08/31/2021 / EP21 N Not Over Waterway
Str Non Comp
13. Abutments 7 7 7 footing exposed along west abutment, up to 14". No undermining noted. Lots of trash along
(SIA-60) slopes. (08/21)
footing exposed along west abutment, up to 14". No undermining noted. (08/20)
footing exposed along west abutment. No undermining noted. (08/18)
14. Piers 6 6 6 Steel bent piers with minor rust. Some welded repairs to hole sway bracing to column
(SIA-60) connection. Lower lacing bars & plates were welded, one cut top of the column at pier 1E.
Columns bolted to concrete foundations. Cap is bolted to columns. Pier 1W north support
footing exposed 3". (08/21)
Steel bent piers with minor rust. Some welded repairs to hole sway bracing to column
connection. Lower lacing bars & plates were welded, one cut top of the column at pier 1E.
Columns bolted to concrete foundations. Cap is bolted to columns. Pier 1W north support
footing exposed 3". (08/20)
Steel bent piers with minor rust. Some welded repairs to hole sway bracing to column
connection. Some lower lacing bars were welded, one cut top of the column at pier 1E.
Columns bolted to concrete foundations. Cap is bolted to columns. (08/18)
15. Slope N N N (08/21)
Protection (08/20)
(08/18)
16. Channel N N N (08/21)
(SIA-61) Over abandoned railroad. (08/20)
Over abandoned railroad. (08/18)
17. Scour N N N (08/21)
Inspection N/A (08/20)
N/A (08/18)
APPROACH
08/18 08/20 08/21
18. Approach 5 5 5 HMA with cracks. Some wedging at abutment reference lines. (08/21)
Pavement HMA with cracks sealed. Some wedging at abutment reference lines. (08/20)
HMA with cracks sealed. Some wedging at abutment reference lines. (08/18)
19. Approach 3 3 2 NW sidewalk has 3" settlement with additional loss of fill and animal hole under approach
Shoulders sidewalk, NE sidewalk has asphalt wedging. SE quad continues to erode from behind steel
Sidewalks sheeting wall sidewalk settled more since the last inspection, the adjacent curb has also
settled. Both southside sidewalks are undermined. Approach C&G has settled. The exposed
slope in the NW & SE quad need a safety rail. (08/21)
NW sidewalk has 3" settlement with additional loss of fill and animal hole under approach
sidewalk, NE sidewalk has asphalt wedging. SE quad continues to erode from behind steel
sheeting wall sidewalk settled more since the last inspection, the adjacent curb has also
settled. Both southside sidewalks are undermined. Approach C&G has settled. The exposed
slope in the NW & SE quad need a safety rail. (08/20)
NW sidewalk has 3" settlement, NE sidewalk has asphalt wedging. SE quad continues to
erode from behind steel sheeting wall sidewalk settled more since last inspection, the
adjacent curb has also settled. Both southside sidewalks are undermined. Approach C&G has
settled. Exposed slope in the NW & SE quad need a safety rail. (08/18)
20. Approach Slopes are vegetated. Steel sheeting in NW & SE quads are rusted and leaning outward. SE
Slopes quad soil behind the sheeting has settled. Holes in SE sheeting allowing the soil to wash from
under sidewalk. Trees and brush overgrowing sidewalk in each quad cause pedestrians to
walk into the street. (08/21)
Slopes are vegetated. Steel sheeting in NW & SE quads are rusted and leaning outward. SE
quad soil behind the sheeting has settled. Holes in SE sheeting allowing the soil to wash from
under sidewalk. Trees and brush overgrowing sidewalk in each quad cause pedestrians to
walk into the street. (08/20)
Slopes are vegetated. Steel sheeting in NW & SE quads are rusted and leaning outward. SE
quad soil behind the sheeting has settled. Holes in SE sheeting allowing the soil to wash from
under sidewalk. Trees and brush overgrowing sidewalk in each quad cause pedestrians to
walk into the street. (08/18)
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 03/23/2022 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 3 of 4
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7699 BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
AMITY ST 43.2361 / -86.2394 614461800071R01 Poor Condition(4)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
C O RAILROAD 100.7 / 31.8 / 5 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.02 E OF MYRTLE AVE 1900 / 1969 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 4 Steel Continuous / 02 Multi 08/31/2021 / EP21 N Not Over Waterway
Str Non Comp
21. Utilities None noted (08/21)
None noted (08/20)
None noted (08/18)
22. Drainage none noted (08/21)
Culverts none noted (08/20)
none noted (08/18)
MISCELLANEOUS
Guard Rail Other Items
Item Rating Item Rating
36A. Bridge Railings 0 71. Water Adequacy N
36B. Transitions 0 72. Approach Alignment 4
36C. Approach Guardrail 0 Temporary Support 0 No Temporary Supports
36D. Approach Guardrail Ends 0 High Load Hit (M) No
Special Insp. Equipment
Underwater Insp. Method 0
False Decking (Timber) Removed to Complete Inspection N/A - No False Decking
Critical Feature Inspections (SIA-92)
Freq Date
92A. Fracture Critical
92B. Underwater
92C. Other Special
92D. Fatigue Sensitive
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 03/23/2022 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 4 of 4
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7699 STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
AMITY ST 43.2361 / -86.2394 614461800071R01 Poor Condition(4)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
C O RAILROAD 100.7 / 31.8 / 5 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.02 E OF MYRTLE AVE 1900 / 1969 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 4 Steel Continuous / 02 Multi 08/31/2021 / EP21 N Not Over Waterway
Str Non Comp
Bridge History, Type, Materials Route Carried By Structure(ON Record) Route Under Structure (UNDER Record)
27 - Year Built 1900 5A - Record Type 1 5A - Record Type
106 - Year Reconstructed 1969 5B - Route Signing 5 5B - Route Signing
202 - Year Painted 5C - Level of Service 0 5C - Level of Service
203 - Year Overlay 5D - Route Number 00000 5D - Route Number
43 - Main Span Bridge Type 4 02 5E - Direction Suffix 0 5E - Direction Suffix
44 - Appr Span Bridge Type 10L - Best 3m Unclr-Lt 0 0 10L - Best 3m Unclr-Lt
77 - Steel Type 2 10R - Best 3m Unclr-Rt 99 99 10R - Best 3m Unclr-Rt
78 - Paint Type 0 PR Number PR Number
79 - Rail Type 3 Control Section Control Section
80 - Post Type 0 11 - Mile Point 0 11 - Mile Point
107 - Deck Type 1 12 - Base Highway Network 0 12 - Base Highway Network
108A - Wearing Surface 1 13 - LRS Route-Subroute 0000008658 09 13 - LRS Route-Subroute
108B - Membrane 0 19 - Detour Length 3 19 - Detour Length
108C - Deck Protection 0 20 - Toll Facility 3 20 - Toll Facility
Structure Dimensions 26 - Functional Class 19 26 - Functional Class
28A - Lanes On 2 28B - Lanes Under
34 - Skew 0
29 - ADT 1972 29 - ADT
35 - Struct Flared N
30 - Year of ADT 2004 30 - Year of ADT
45 - Num Main Spans 5
32 - Appr Roadway Width 29.9 42B - Service Type Under 2
46 - Num Apprs Spans 0
32A/B - Ap Pvt Type/Width 5 29.99 47L - Left Horizontal Clear
48 - Max Span Length 28.9
42A - Service Type On 1 47R - Right Horizontal Clear
49 - Structure Length 100.7
47L - Left Horizontal Clear 0.0 54A - Left Feature
50A - Width Left Curb/SW 3
47R - Right Horizontal Clear 24.0 54B - Left Underclearance 99 99
50B - Width Right Curb/SW 3
53 - Min Vert Clr Ov Deck 99 99 54C - Right Feature
33 - Median 0
100 - STRAHNET 0 54D - Right Clearance 99 99
51 - Width Curb to Curb 24
102 - Traffic Direct 2 Under Clearance Year
52 - Width Out to Out 31.8
109 - Truck % 0 55A - Reference Feature R
112 - NBIS Length Y
110 - Truck Network 0 55B - Right Horiz Clearance 99.9
Inspection Data 114 - Future ADT 2009 56 - Left Horiz Clearance 0
90 - Inspection Date 08/31/2021 115 - Year Future ADT 2024 100 - STRAHNET
91 - Inspection Freq 12 Freeway 0 102 - Traffic Direct
92A - Frac Crit Req/Freq N Structure Appraisal 109 - Truck %
93A - Frac Crit Insp Date 110 - Truck Network
36A - Bridge Railing 0
92B - Und Water Req/Freq N 114 - Future ADT
36B - Rail Transition 0
93B - Und Water Insp Date 115 - Year Future ADT
36C - Approach Rail 0
92C - Oth Spec Insp Req/Freq N Freeway
36D - Rail Termination 0
93C - Oth Spec Insp Date Proposed Improvements
67 - Structure Evaluation 4
92D - Fatigue Req/Freq N
68 - Deck Geometry 4 75 - Type of Work
93D - Fatigue Insp Date
69 - Underclearance 4 76 - Length of Improvement
176A - Und Water Insp Method 0
71 - Waterway Adequacy N 94 - Bridge Cost
58 - Deck Rating 5
72 - Approach Alignment 4 95 - Roadway Cost
58A/B - Deck Surface/Bottom 4 5
103 - Temporary Structure 96 - Total Cost
59 - Superstructure Rating 4
113 - Scour Criticality N 97 - Year of Cost Estimate
59A - Paint Rating 4
60 - Substructure Rating 6 Miscellaneous Load Rating and Posting
61 - Channel Rating N 37 - Historical Significance 5 31 - Design Load 5
62 - Culvert Rating N 98A - Border Bridge State 41 - Open, Posted, Closed A
Navigation Data 98B - Border Bridge % 63 - Fed Oper Rtg Method 1
101 - Parallel Structure N 64F - Fed Oper Rtg Load 52.8
38 - Navigation Control N
EPA ID 64MA - Mich Oper Rtg Method 1
39 - Vertical Clearance 0
Stay in Place Forms 64MB - Mich Oper Rtg 77.5
40 - Horizontal Clearance 0
143 - Pin & Hanger Code 64MC - Mich Oper Truck 18
111 - Pier Protection
148 - No. of Pin & Hangers 65 - Inv Rtg Method 1
116 - Lift Brdg Vert Clear 0
66 - Inventory Load 31.6
70 - Posting 5
141 - Posted Loading
193 - Overload Class N
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7699 SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT - AASHTO ELEMENTS
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
AMITY ST 43.2361 / -86.2394 614461800071R01 Poor Condition(4)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
C O RAILROAD 100.7 / 31.8 / 5 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.02 E OF MYRTLE AVE 1900 / 1969 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 4 Steel Continuous / 02 Multi 08/31/2021 / EP21 N Not Over Waterway
Str Non Comp
No inspections available for bridge key 614461800071R01
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7699 WORK RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
AMITY ST 43.2361 / -86.2394 614461800071R01 Poor Condition(4)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
C O RAILROAD 100.7 / 31.8 / 5 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.02 E OF MYRTLE AVE 1900 / 1969 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 4 Steel Continuous / 02 Multi 08/31/2021 / EP21 N Not Over Waterway
Str Non Comp
WORK RECOMMENDATIONS EP21
Inspector Name Agency / Company Name Insp. Freq. Insp. Date
Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering 12 08/31/2021
RECOMMENDATIONS & ACTION ITEMS
Recommendation Type Priority Description
Brush Cut H Cut brush around bridge
Slope Repair H repair failing sheet walls and seal any wall gaps allowing erosion
and settlement of approach sidewalk.
Joint Repair H Replace joints
Deep Overlay H Place concrete overlay
Full Paint H Full paint is needed on beams, piers remain okay.
Super Repair H Repair beam ends
Other H Remove the bridge is likely the best option since the crossing is no
longer needed.
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7699 SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGE ACTION PLAN
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
AMITY ST 43.2361 / -86.2394 614461800071R01 Poor Condition(4)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
C O RAILROAD 100.7 / 31.8 / 5 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.02 E OF MYRTLE AVE 1900 / 1969 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 4 Steel Continuous / 02 Multi 08/31/2021 / EP21 N Not Over Waterway
Str Non Comp
No plan available for bridge key 614461800071R01
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7699 LOAD RATING ASSUMPTIONS
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
AMITY ST 43.2361 / -86.2394 614461800071R01 Poor Condition(4)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
C O RAILROAD 100.7 / 31.8 / 5 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.02 E OF MYRTLE AVE 1900 / 1969 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 4 Steel Continuous / 02 Multi 08/31/2021 / EP21 N Not Over Waterway
Str Non Comp
Rating Considers Field Condition of Members: Yes Inspection Date: 08/14/2012
Deterioration:
Beam end corrosion and spot rusting of away from ends
Most Recent Year Construct / Reconstruct / Overlay: 1969
History of Work Impacting Load Rating:
Does not appear any work has been done since it was built.
Superstructure Component: 4 Steel Continuous Beam fy: ksi Beam f'c / fb: 36.0 ksi
Composite: Yes Number of Beams: 10 Shop Drawings Verified: No
Beam Size(s) & Names (each W 12 x 53
span):
Deck: Thickness (in.): 9.0 Fy / f'c: 60.0 / 4.0 ksi Deck Design Load > H15: Yes
Wearing Surface: Mat'l: NA Thickness (in.): Unit Weight (pcf.):
LEFT CENTER RIGHT
Barrier: Type / Weight (plf.): 3 tube/SW / 999.0 / 3 tube/SW / 999.0
Sidewalk: Width / Thick (in.): / / /
Clear Roadway (ft.): 24.0
Additional Loads:
Sidewalk included in railing wt
Unique Factors That Affect Capacity:
Analyzed By: RTW Date: 08/20/2012
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7699 LOAD RATING SUMMARY
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
AMITY ST 43.2361 / -86.2394 614461800071R01 Poor Condition(4)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
C O RAILROAD 100.7 / 31.8 / 5 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.02 E OF MYRTLE AVE 1900 / 1969 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 4 Steel Continuous / 02 Multi 08/31/2021 / EP21 N Not Over Waterway
Str Non Comp
Compliance Issue: None
Compliance Verified: No
Analysis Program: Hand Calculations
Analysis Program Version: MCAd
Rating Considers Field Condition of Members: Yes Inspection Date: 08/14/2012
Controlling component and failure mode:
Beam moment controls
NEW INVENTORY CODING
NBI Item 63 - Operating Rating Method 1 LFR in US tons
NBI Item 64F - Federal Operating Ratings 52.8
MDOT Item 64MA - Michigan Operating Method 1 LFR in US Tons
MDOT Item 64MB - Michigan Operating Rating 77.5
MDOT Item 64MC - Michigan Operating Truck 18
NBI Item 65 - Inventory Rating Method 1 LFR in US tons
NBI Item 66 - Federal Inventory Rating 31.6
NBI Item 41 - Structure Open Posted Closed A A Open, no restriction
NBI Item 70 - Bridge Posting 5 5 - 100% or more
Posted By No Posting
MDOT Item 141 - Posted Loading
MDOT Item 193A - Michigan Overload Class
MDOT Item 193C - Overload Status N-No Restriction
Analyzed By: RTW Date: 08/20/2012
Checked By: RWL Date: 08/20/2012
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7699 REQUEST FOR ACTION
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
AMITY ST 43.2361 / -86.2394 614461800071R01 Poor Condition(4)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
C O RAILROAD 100.7 / 31.8 / 5 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.02 E OF MYRTLE AVE 1900 / 1969 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 4 Steel Continuous / 02 Multi 08/31/2021 / EP21 N Not Over Waterway
Str Non Comp
No inspections available for bridge key 614461800071R01
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7699 OUTSTANDING WORK
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
AMITY ST 43.2361 / -86.2394 614461800071R01 Poor Condition(4)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
C O RAILROAD 100.7 / 31.8 / 5 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.02 E OF MYRTLE AVE 1900 / 1969 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 4 Steel Continuous / 02 Multi 08/31/2021 / EP21 N Not Over Waterway
Str Non Comp
WORK RECOMMENDATIONS
DECKS/SLABS
Request For Contact/User Agency/Company Name Estimated Quantity Unit
Deep Overlay
Activity Material Other Material Actual Quantity Unit
Personnel Hours Equipment Complete Date
Comments
Place concrete overlay (Ryan Worden 09/01/2021)
JOINTS
Request For Contact/User Agency/Company Name Estimated Quantity Unit
Joint Repair
Activity Material Other Material Actual Quantity Unit
Personnel Hours Equipment Complete Date
Comments
Replace joints (Ryan Worden 09/01/2021)
SUPERSTRUCTURE
Request For Contact/User Agency/Company Name Estimated Quantity Unit
Super Repair
Activity Material Other Material Actual Quantity Unit
Personnel Hours Equipment Complete Date
Comments
Repair beam ends (Ryan Worden 09/01/2021)
Request For Contact/User Agency/Company Name Estimated Quantity Unit
Full Paint
Activity Material Other Material Actual Quantity Unit
Personnel Hours Equipment Complete Date
Comments
Full paint is needed on beams, piers remain okay. (Ryan Worden 09/01/2021)
OTHER
Request For Contact/User Agency/Company Name Estimated Quantity Unit
Brush Cut
Activity Material Other Material Actual Quantity Unit
Personnel Hours Equipment Complete Date
Comments
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 2
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7699 OUTSTANDING WORK
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
AMITY ST 43.2361 / -86.2394 614461800071R01 Poor Condition(4)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
C O RAILROAD 100.7 / 31.8 / 5 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.02 E OF MYRTLE AVE 1900 / 1969 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 4 Steel Continuous / 02 Multi 08/31/2021 / EP21 N Not Over Waterway
Str Non Comp
Cut brush around bridge (Ryan Worden 09/01/2021)
Request For Contact/User Agency/Company Name Estimated Quantity Unit
Slope Repair
Activity Material Other Material Actual Quantity Unit
Personnel Hours Equipment Complete Date
Comments
repair failing sheet walls and seal any wall gaps allowing erosion and settlement of approach sidewalk. (Ryan Worden 09/01/2021)
Request For Contact/User Agency/Company Name Estimated Quantity Unit
Other
Activity Material Other Material Actual Quantity Unit
Personnel Hours Equipment Complete Date
Comments
Remove the bridge is likely the best option since the crossing is no longer needed. (Ryan Worden 09/01/2021)
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 2 of 2
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/31/2021 / CF8H U Unknown Scour
NBI INSPECTION CF8H
Inspector Name Agency / Company Name Insp. Freq. Insp. Date
Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering 12 08/31/2021
GENERAL NOTES
Bridge has been closed. Concrete barrier was placed across each approach. Changed frequency back to 12 months since it is closed.
Weight limit signs in place on both ends of bridge NO
Required advance warning weight limit signs in place NO
DECK
10/20 04/21 08/21
1. Surface 5 5 4 HMA cracks thoughout with active leakage through the deck. Vegetation growing along
(SIA-58A) sidewalks and within HMA cracks. Heavy HMA alligator cracking along reference lines.
(08/21)
HMA cracks thoughout with active leakage through the deck. Vegetation growing along
sidewalks. Heavy HMA alligator cracking along reference lines. (04/21)
HMA cracks thoughout, past crack sealing no longer effective as water continues to leak
through the deck. Vegetation growing along sidewalks. Heavy HMA alligator cracking along
reference lines. (10/20)
2. Expansion N N N (08/21)
Joints (04/21)
(10/20)
3. Other N N N (08/21)
Joints (04/21)
(10/20)
4. Railings 5 5 5 Rails appear to be precast with visible joints at the posts. Concrete railings have spalled
sections with rusting smooth surface reinforcing bars. More spalling along the east railing top
horizontal member. One spot on the west. (08/21)
Rails appear to be precast with visible joints at the posts. Concrete railings have spalled
sections with rusting smooth surface reinforcing bars. More spalling along the east railing top
horizontal member. One spot on the west. (04/21)
Rails appear to be precast with visible joints at the posts. Concrete railings have spalled
sections with rusting smooth surface reinforcing bars. More spalling along the east railing top
section. One spot on the west. (10/20)
5. Sidewalks 5 5 4 Sidewalks are cracked with many small popouts. No approach sidewalk in any quad. SW
or Curbs sidewalk has an exposed edge and has undermined cause the sidewalk to settle. Spalls
noted along the west sidewalk face. Trees and weeds growing in joints. (08/21)
Sidewalks are cracked with many small popouts. No approach sidewalk in any quad. SW
sidewalk has exposed edge and has undermined cause the sidewalk to settle. Spalls noted
along the west sidewalk face. (04/21)
Sidewalks are cracked with many small popouts. No approach sidewalk. SW sidewalk has
exposed edge and has undermined cause the sidewalk to settle. Spalls noted along the west
sidewalk face. (10/20)
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 09/01/2021 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 5
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/31/2021 / CF8H U Unknown Scour
6. Deck 4 4 4 All bays, deck actively leaking along all beam top flanges, also hairline cracks in every bay.
Bottom Efflorescence buildup on beams bottom flanges with long stalactites along the deck bottom,
Surface up to 1.5ft long. Bay 6W has spalls/popouts with exposed steel along the length. Spalling and
(SIA-58B) exposed resteel around scuppers. Active leakage through deck cracks even after days
without rain. (08/21)
All bays, deck actively leaking along all beam top flanges, also hairline cracks in every bay.
Efflorescence buildup on beams bottom flanges with long stalactites along the deck bottom,
up to 1.5ft long. Bay 6W has spalls/popouts with exposed steel along the length. Spalling and
exposed resteel around scuppers. (04/21)
All bays, deck actively leaking along all beam top flanges, also hairline cracks in every bay.
Efflorescence buildup on beams bottom flanges with long stalactites along the deck bottom,
up to 1.5ft long. Bay 6W has spalls/popouts with exposed steel along the length. Spalling and
exposed resteel around scuppers. (10/20)
7. Deck 4 4 3 Many HMA cracks along the surface. Full depth deck cracks are leaking throughout. Noted
(SIA-58) cracking in every bay in bottom of deck. Efflorescence throughout. Bay 6W having spalls with
exposed steel and delaminated concrete. Deck fascia spalled along bottom south side.
Spalling around deck drains. (08/21)
Many HMA cracks along the surface. Full depth deck cracks are leaking throughout. Noted
cracking in every bay in bottom of deck. Efflorescence throughout. Bay 6W having spalls with
exposed steel and delaminated concrete. Deck fascia spalled along bottom south side.
Spalling around deck drains. (04/21)
Many HMA cracks along the surface, sealant no longer effective. Noted cracking in every bay
in bottom of deck. Efflorescence throughout. Bay 6W having spalls with exposed steel and
delaminated concrete. Deck fascia spalled along bottom south side. Spalling around deck
drains. Active leakage throughout. (10/20)
8. Drainage poor, scuppers plugged, deck profile is flat. (08/21)
poor, scuppers plugged, deck profile is flat. (04/21)
poor, scuppers plugged, deck profile is level (10/20)
SUPERSTRUCTURE
10/20 04/21 08/21
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 09/01/2021 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 2 of 5
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/31/2021 / CF8H U Unknown Scour
9. Stringer 2 2 1 Water continues to penetrate the deck and pack rust continues to grow. All beams are rusted
(SIA-59) with scale, heavy scale at concrete diaphragms. 6 east beams are the worst with heavy scale
along bottom flange. Beam 2E bottom web hole 4.5ft long at the south end. Beam 3E & 4E
are considered failed likely holes full length, thus the northbound lane has been closed.
Beam 3W has heavy pack rust along bottom of the web with section loss at both ends, north
end web is very thin above the bottom flange. Beam 4W near north abutment has a hole
along bottom of the web 5ft x 1". Beams 1W,2W,5W&6W have lighter rusting with pack rust
forming at backwalls. Concrete diaphragms are cracked and spalled, bottom of west side
diaphragms nearly gone with exposed rebar. Many acts as a sponge with water seeping out
of cracks when hit with a hammer. Closed bridge due to severe steel deterioration. (08/21)
Water continues to penetrate the deck and pack rust continues to grow. All beams are rusted
with scale, heavy scale at concrete diaphragms. 6 east beams are the worst with heavy scale
along bottom flange. Beam 2E bottom web hole 4.5ft long at the south end. Beam 3E & 4E
are considered failed likely holes full length, thus the northbound lane has been closed.
Beam 3W has heavy pack rust along bottom of the web with section loss at both ends, north
end web is very thin above the bottom flange. Beam 4W near north abutment has a hole
along bottom of the web 5ft x 1". Beams 1W,2W,5W&6W have lighter rusting with pack rust
forming at backwalls. Concrete diaphragms are cracked and spalled, bottom of west bay
diaphragm nearly gone with exposed rebar. Many acts as a sponge with water seeping out of
cracks when hit with a hammer. (04/21)
Water continues to penetrate the deck and pack rust continues to grow. All beams are rusted
with scale, heavy scale at concrete diaphragms. 6 east beams are the worst with heavy scale
along bottom flange. Beam 2E bottom web hole 4.5ft long at the south end. Beam 3E & 4E
are considered failed likely holes full length, thus northbound lane has been closed. Beam
3W has heavy pack rust along bottom of the web with section loss at both ends, north end
web is very thin above the bottom flange. Beam 4W near north abutment has a hole along
bottom of the web 5ft x 1". Beams 1W,2W,5W&6W have lighter rusting with pack rust forming
at backwalls. Concrete diaphragms are cracked and spalled, bottom of west bay diaphragm
nearly gone with exposed rebar. Many act as a sponge with water flowing out of cracks when
hit with a hammer. (10/20)
10. Paint 0 0 0 20% of the paint is left of the total beam area. (08/21)
(SIA-59A) 30-40% of the paint is left of the total beam area. (04/21)
little paint left (10/20)
11. Section 0 0 0 Holes in webs of B2E-B4E. 25% loss of section on B5E. Holes in 4W north end, 5ft section.
Loss (08/21)
Holes in webs of B2E-B4E. 25% loss of section on B5E. Holes in 4W north end, 5ft section.
(04/21)
Holes in webs of B2E-B4E. 25% loss of section on B5E. Holes in 4W north end, 5ft section.
(10/20)
12. Bearings 5 5 4 Continue to rust mostly embedded in backwalls (08/21)
Continue to rust mostly embedded in backwalls (04/21)
Continue to rust mostly embedded in backwalls (10/20)
SUBSTRUCTURE
10/20 04/21 08/21
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 09/01/2021 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 3 of 5
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/31/2021 / CF8H U Unknown Scour
13. Abutments 5 5 5 Existing plans were found at the City. Abutments are on timber piles with steel sheeting toed
(SIA-60) approximately 29ft below first concrete ledge above the water level. Steel sheet piling has
uniform light rust scale above the water. The cantilever sidwalk design does a poor job of
holding the approach slopes. South beam seat spalled under beam 3E with rusting rebar.
Rust staining and efflorescence from leaking deck. (08/21)
Existing plans were found at the City. Abutments are on timber piles with steel sheeting toed
approximately 29ft below first concrete ledge above the water level. Steel sheet piling has
uniform light rust scale above the water. The cantilever sidwalk design does a poor job of
holding the approach slopes. South beam seat spalled under beam 3E with rusting rebar.
Rust staining and efflorescence from leaking deck. (04/21)
Existing plans were found at the City. Abutments are on timber piles with steel sheeting toed
approximately 29ft below first concrete ledge above the water level. Steel sheet piling is
rusting, remains underwater with the high lake level. The cantilever design does a poor job of
holding the approach slopes and sidewalk. South beam seat spalled under beam 3E with
rusting rebar. Rust staining and efflorescence from leaking deck. (10/20)
14. Piers N N N (08/21)
(SIA-60) (04/21)
(10/20)
15. Slope N N N (08/21)
Protection (04/21)
(10/20)
16. Channel 5 5 5 Bridge is too small and has poor alignment with stream. Banks are stable. Sand bottom.
(SIA-61) Flow velocity has increased with the lower lake level. (08/21)
Bridge is too small and has poor alignment with stream. Lake level has dropped. Banks are
stable. Sand bottom. (04/21)
Bridge is too small and has poor alignment with stream. High lake level has slowed the flow
through the opening. Banks are stable with water level outside of normal lake level
conditions. (10/20)
17. Scour 5 5 5 Ex. plans indicate that the abutments are on timber piles and steel sheeting extends 29'
Inspection below the first concrete ledge. Left Item #113 as is. Channel bottom is deeper under the
bridge than downstream. No issues with the sheeting noted. (08/21)
Ex. plans indicate that the abutments are on timber piles and steel sheeting extends 29'
below the first concrete ledge. Left Item #113 as is. Channel bottom is deeper under the
bridge than downstream. No issues with the sheeting noted. (04/21)
Slower velocity helps to stabilize the sand bottom. Ex. plans indicate that the abutments are
on timber piles and steel sheeting extends 29' below the first concrete ledge. (10/20)
APPROACH
10/20 04/21 08/21
18. Approach 5 5 5 Cracks in HMA, 1/2" or less of settlement at abutments, sealant no longer effective. Trees
Pavement and weeds growing out of cracks along reference lines. (08/21)
Cracks in HMA, 1/2" or less of settlement at abutments, sealant no longer effective. (04/21)
Cracks in HMA, some settlement at abutments, sealant no longer effective. (10/20)
19. Approach N N N No approach sidewalk beyond the bridge. In the past, a piece of sidewalk was present at the
Shoulders bridge only. (08/21)
Sidewalks No approach sidewalk beyond the bridge. In the past, a piece of sidewalk was present at the
bridge only. (04/21)
No approach sidewalk beyond the bridge. In the past, a piece of sidewalk was present at the
bridge only. (10/20)
20. Approach slopes look stable with vegetation growth within older erosion areas. No approach railing.
Slopes (08/21)
slopes look stable with vegetation growth within older erosion areas. No approach railing.
(04/21)
slopes look stable with vegetation growth within older erosion areas. No approach railing.
(10/20)
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 09/01/2021 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 4 of 5
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/31/2021 / CF8H U Unknown Scour
21. Utilities Comcast conduit attached to the east railing. Overhead electric and communications. (08/21)
Comcast conduit attached to the east railing. Overhead electric and communications. (04/21)
newer Comcast conduit attached to the east railing. Overhead electric and communications.
(10/20)
22. Drainage none noted (08/21)
Culverts none noted (04/21)
none noted (10/20)
MISCELLANEOUS
Guard Rail Other Items
Item Rating Item Rating
36A. Bridge Railings 0 71. Water Adequacy 3
36B. Transitions 0 72. Approach Alignment 8
36C. Approach Guardrail 0 Temporary Support 0 No Temporary Supports
36D. Approach Guardrail Ends 0 High Load Hit (M) No
Special Insp. Equipment 1
Underwater Insp. Method 2
False Decking (Timber) Removed to Complete Inspection N/A - No False Decking
Critical Feature Inspections (SIA-92)
Freq Date
92A. Fracture Critical
92B. Underwater
92C. Other Special
92D. Fatigue Sensitive
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 09/01/2021 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 5 of 5
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/31/2021 / CF8H U Unknown Scour
Bridge History, Type, Materials Route Carried By Structure(ON Record) Route Under Structure (UNDER Record)
27 - Year Built 1929 5A - Record Type 1 5A - Record Type
106 - Year Reconstructed 5B - Route Signing 5 5B - Route Signing
202 - Year Painted 5C - Level of Service 0 5C - Level of Service
203 - Year Overlay 5D - Route Number 00000 5D - Route Number
43 - Main Span Bridge Type 3 02 5E - Direction Suffix 0 5E - Direction Suffix
44 - Appr Span Bridge Type 10L - Best 3m Unclr-Lt 0 0 10L - Best 3m Unclr-Lt
77 - Steel Type 2 10R - Best 3m Unclr-Rt 99 99 10R - Best 3m Unclr-Rt
78 - Paint Type 9 PR Number PR Number
79 - Rail Type 7 Control Section Control Section
80 - Post Type _ 11 - Mile Point 0 11 - Mile Point
107 - Deck Type 1 12 - Base Highway Network 0 12 - Base Highway Network
108A - Wearing Surface 6 13 - LRS Route-Subroute 0000036114 85 13 - LRS Route-Subroute
108B - Membrane 0 19 - Detour Length 2 19 - Detour Length
108C - Deck Protection 0 20 - Toll Facility 3 20 - Toll Facility
Structure Dimensions 26 - Functional Class 19 26 - Functional Class
28A - Lanes On 2 28B - Lanes Under
34 - Skew 0
29 - ADT 599 29 - ADT
35 - Struct Flared N
30 - Year of ADT 2002 30 - Year of ADT
45 - Num Main Spans 1
32 - Appr Roadway Width 40 42B - Service Type Under 5
46 - Num Apprs Spans 0
32A/B - Ap Pvt Type/Width 5 39.99 47L - Left Horizontal Clear
48 - Max Span Length 35.8
42A - Service Type On 1 47R - Right Horizontal Clear
49 - Structure Length 37.3
47L - Left Horizontal Clear 0.0 54A - Left Feature
50A - Width Left Curb/SW 5.9
47R - Right Horizontal Clear 39.7 54B - Left Underclearance 99 99
50B - Width Right Curb/SW 5.9
53 - Min Vert Clr Ov Deck 99 99 54C - Right Feature
33 - Median 0
100 - STRAHNET 0 54D - Right Clearance 99 99
51 - Width Curb to Curb 40
102 - Traffic Direct 2 Under Clearance Year
52 - Width Out to Out 53.8
109 - Truck % 0 55A - Reference Feature N
112 - NBIS Length Y
110 - Truck Network 0 55B - Right Horiz Clearance 99.9
Inspection Data 114 - Future ADT 1000 56 - Left Horiz Clearance 0
90 - Inspection Date 08/31/2021 115 - Year Future ADT 2022 100 - STRAHNET
91 - Inspection Freq 12 Freeway 0 102 - Traffic Direct
92A - Frac Crit Req/Freq N Structure Appraisal 109 - Truck %
93A - Frac Crit Insp Date 110 - Truck Network
36A - Bridge Railing 0
92B - Und Water Req/Freq N 114 - Future ADT
36B - Rail Transition 0
93B - Und Water Insp Date 115 - Year Future ADT
36C - Approach Rail 0
92C - Oth Spec Insp Req/Freq N Freeway
36D - Rail Termination 0
93C - Oth Spec Insp Date Proposed Improvements
67 - Structure Evaluation 2
92D - Fatigue Req/Freq N
68 - Deck Geometry 8 75 - Type of Work
93D - Fatigue Insp Date
69 - Underclearance N 76 - Length of Improvement
176A - Und Water Insp Method 2
71 - Waterway Adequacy 3 94 - Bridge Cost
58 - Deck Rating 3
72 - Approach Alignment 8 95 - Roadway Cost
58A/B - Deck Surface/Bottom 4 4
103 - Temporary Structure 96 - Total Cost
59 - Superstructure Rating 1
113 - Scour Criticality U 97 - Year of Cost Estimate
59A - Paint Rating 0
60 - Substructure Rating 5 Miscellaneous Load Rating and Posting
61 - Channel Rating 5 37 - Historical Significance 1 31 - Design Load 3
62 - Culvert Rating N 98A - Border Bridge State 41 - Open, Posted, Closed K
Navigation Data 98B - Border Bridge % 63 - Fed Oper Rtg Method 1
101 - Parallel Structure N 64F - Fed Oper Rtg Load 5
38 - Navigation Control 0
EPA ID 64MA - Mich Oper Rtg Method 1
39 - Vertical Clearance 0
Stay in Place Forms 64MB - Mich Oper Rtg 3.7
40 - Horizontal Clearance 0
143 - Pin & Hanger Code 64MC - Mich Oper Truck 1
111 - Pier Protection
148 - No. of Pin & Hangers 65 - Inv Rtg Method 1
116 - Lift Brdg Vert Clear 0
66 - Inventory Load 3
70 - Posting 0
141 - Posted Loading 03NNNN
193 - Overload Class N
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT - CORE ELEMENTS
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/31/2021 / CF8H U Unknown Scour
NBI INSPECTION SDCS
Inspector Name Agency / Company Name Insp. Freq. Insp. Date
Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering 12 08/14/2012
CoRE ELEMENTS (English Units)
Element Element Total Unit State 1 State 2 State 3 State 4 State 5
Number Name Quantity
Decks/Slabs
13/ 2 Conc Dk HMA No Memb 3552 (SF) 0 0 0 3552 0
0% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Superstructure
107/ 2 Pnted Stl Girder /Bm 433 (LF) 0 0 0 281 46
0% 0% 0% 65% 35%
331/ 2 Concrete Bridge Rail 72 (LF) 49 7 13 3 xxxxx
68% 10% 18% 4% xxxxx
Substructure
215/ 2 Reinf Conc Abut 115 (LF) 115 0 0 0 xxxxx
100% 0% 0% 0% xxxxx
217/ 2 Other Mtl Abutment 115 (LF) 0 115 0 0 xxxxx
0% 100% 0% 0% xxxxx
Other Elements
72/ 2 Sidewalk 592 (SF) 484 54 54 0 xxxxx
82% 9% 9% 0% xxxxx
Smart Flags
361/ 2 Scour Smart Flag 1 (EA) 0 1 0 xxxxx xxxxx
0% 100% 0% xxxxx xxxxx
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 08/13/2013 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 WORK RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/31/2021 / CF8H U Unknown Scour
WORK RECOMMENDATIONS CF8H
Inspector Name Agency / Company Name Insp. Freq. Insp. Date
Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering 12 08/31/2021
RECOMMENDATIONS & ACTION ITEMS
Recommendation Type Priority Description
Bridge Repl. H Beams and deck are too far gone to repair, replacement or removal
is the best option.
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGE ACTION PLAN
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/31/2021 / CF8H U Unknown Scour
PLAN OF ACTION AUTHORS
Name Agency Phone Email Last Modified Date
Leo Evans City of Muskegon 231-724-6920 [email protected]
Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering 616-458-8792 [email protected] 11/17/2021
SCOUR VULNERABILITY
Item 113 Scour Criticality U Source of Item 113
Item 71 Waterway Adequacy 3
Level I Assessment N
Level II Analysis N
Executive Summary Scour Evaluation
Bridge is too small for stream causing faster flow underneath during normal lake level. 2020 high lake level has slowed the flow velocity
with constant overbank flooding. The 1929 construction plans have been located. Plans indicate that the abutments are on 39 12" 15-ton
piles surrounded by steel sheeting toed approximately 27 feet below normal water surface or 29'-3" below top of sheet elevation. Plans
were uploaded to MiBridge.
Calculated Values
Scour Analysis Event Frequency 25 year 50 year 100 year 500 year Comments
Anticipated Surface Elevation (ft)
Distance Below Bottom chord (ft)
Anticipated Flow (cubic ft/sec)
Anticipated Pressure Flow (Y/N)
Substructure Information
Foundation Normally in Normal Water In Water (100 Footing Type Depth Known Soil Type
Water Depth (ft) yr)
Abutment A Y Y B Footing Timber Piles N Non Cohesive
Abutment B Y Y B Footing Timber Piles N Non Cohesive
COUNTERMEASURE RECOMMENDATIONS
X Only Monitoring Required Estimated Cost $
O Structural/Hydraulic Countermeasures Considered
Countermeasure Comments
Steel sheeting surrounds each abutment along three sides. Sheeting is rusting, most remains underwater.
MONITORING PROGRAM
Recommended Monitoring Requirements
During NOAA (National Weather Service) flash floods and flood warnings of the Muskegon River, make site visits to check for the
occurance of the items noted below. Close bridge to traffic if any of the below are witnessed. Schedule a post-flood inspection prior to
reopening the bridge.
Type Frequency/ Comments
Amount
X Regular Inspection 6 Check stream bottom elevation, sheeting, and appraoch pavement for settlement
O Other Special Inspection
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 11/17/2021 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 5
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGE ACTION PLAN
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/31/2021 / CF8H U Unknown Scour
O Underwater Inspection
O Stream Bed Cross Sections
O Monitoring Devices (Fixed, Sonar, etc.)
X Flood Monitoring - Initiate monitoring when any of the following occur
X NOAA Flood Warning (This includes both Flash Flood and Flood Warnings)
O Flow Information
O Discharge
O Rainfall
O WS Elevation Measured from
X Pressure Flow
X Debris Accumulation
Items to Watch During Monitoring
During flood warnings check for movement of the steel sheeting at each abutment, pressure flow, overtopping of the roadway, loss of fill
from behind each abutment end, and debris accumulation across the upstream bridge opening.
Foundation Items to Watch
Abutment A Steel sheeting movement, abutment settlement
Abutment B Steel sheeting movement, abutment settlement
Inspection Summary
Type Latest Date Current Frequency Inspector Agency
Completed
Routine 08/31/2021 12 WORDENR1132 Scott Civil Engineering
Underwater
Cross Section
Scour Inspection 08/16/2010 Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering
High Flow Monitoring
BRIDGE CLOSURE
Conditions To Consider Bridge Closure
O Water Surface Elevation
X Overtopping of Road or Structure
X Pressure Flow
X High Debris Accumulation
X Observed Structure Movement/Settlement
O Loss of Scour Countermeasures
Contacts Responsible for BRIDGE CLOSURE
Name Title Agency Phone Number Cell Number
Leo Evans Director of Public Works City of Muskegon 231-724-6920 231-750-6369
Contacts Responsible for OPENING Bridge
Name Title Agency Phone Number Cell Number
Leo Evans Director of Public Works City of Muskegon 231-724-6920 231-750-6369
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 11/17/2021 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 2 of 5
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGE ACTION PLAN
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/31/2021 / CF8H U Unknown Scour
DETOUR ROUTE
Possible Detour Route
US-31 Business Route to Bayou Avenue
Bridges/Culverts on Detour Route
Detour Bridge Numbers Feature Intersected Load Limitations Scour Rating
7633 S BR MUSKEGON RIVER 8
7611 MUSKEGON RIVER 8
7634 S BR MUSKEGON RIVER 5
SCOUR INSPECTIONS
Date Type Freq Inspector Agency
08/16/2010 SCOUR Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering
Comments The last routine inspection noted that the bridge opening is too small for the stream. The water surface extends
beyond each abutment causing faster flow under bridge. Stream has constant eddy currents within flow. Deep
hole noted in front of west abutment.
08/23/2016 ROUTINE 12 Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering
Comments Sand bottom scour under deck in front of south abutrment, along westside of sheeting.
Recommendations Appr. Pavement Low Fix approach sidewalk
Railing Repair Medium Patch concrete.
Deck Patching High Seal deck to prevent leaking
Bridge Repl. High Replacement is best option
Other High repair steel beams
08/29/2017 ROUTINE 12 Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering
Comments Sand bottom scour under deck in front of south abutment, along westside of sheeting. No undermining noted.
Recommendations Appr. Pavement Low Fix approach sidewalk
Railing Repair Medium Patch concrete.
Deck Patching High Seal deck to prevent leaking
Bridge Repl. High Replacement is best option
Other High repair steel beams
08/31/2018 ROUTINE 8 Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering
Comments Sand bottom scours under the deck in front of the south abutment, along westside of sheeting. Flow too fast to
probe, recent rain has the flow higher than normal.
Recommendations Appr. Pavement Low Fix approach sidewalk
Railing Repair Medium Patch concrete.
Deck Patching High Seal deck to prevent leaking
Bridge Repl. High Replacement is best option
Other High repair steel beams
04/30/2019 ROUTINE 6 Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering
Comments Sand bottom scours under the deck in front of the south abutment, along westside of sheeting. Flow too fast to
accurately probe.
Recommendations Approach Repair Low Fix approach sidewalk
Railing Repair Medium Patch concrete.
Deck Patching High Seal deck to prevent leaking
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 11/17/2021 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 3 of 5
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGE ACTION PLAN
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/31/2021 / CF8H U Unknown Scour
Bridge Repl. High Too costly to repair, replacement is best option
Other High repair steel beams
10/19/2019 ROUTINE 6 Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering
Comments Sand bottom scours under the deck in front of the south abutment, along westside of sheeting. Flow too fast to
accurately probe. Ex. plans indicate that the abutments are on timber piles and steel sheeting extends 29' below
the first concrete ledge.
Recommendations Bridge Repl. High Beams and deck are too far gone to repair, replacement is best option
04/18/2020 ROUTINE 6 Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering
Comments Sand bottom scours under the deck in front of the south abutment, along westside of sheeting. Flow too fast to
accurately probe. Ex. plans indicate that the abutments are on timber piles and steel sheeting extends 29' below
the first concrete ledge.
Recommendations Bridge Repl. High Beams and deck are too far gone to repair, replacement is best option
10/19/2020 ROUTINE 6 Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering
Comments Slower velocity helps to stabilize the sand bottom. Ex. plans indicate that the abutments are on timber piles and
steel sheeting extends 29' below the first concrete ledge.
Recommendations Bridge Repl. High Beams and deck are too far gone to repair, replacement or removal is the best
option.
04/23/2021 ROUTINE 6 Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering
Comments Ex. plans indicate that the abutments are on timber piles and steel sheeting extends 29' below the first concrete
ledge. Left Item #113 as is. Channel bottom is deeper under the bridge than downstream. No issues with the
sheeting noted.
Recommendations Bridge Repl. High Beams and deck are too far gone to repair, replacement or removal is the best
option.
08/31/2021 ROUTINE 12 Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering
Comments Ex. plans indicate that the abutments are on timber piles and steel sheeting extends 29' below the first concrete
ledge. Left Item #113 as is. Channel bottom is deeper under the bridge than downstream. No issues with the
sheeting noted.
Recommendations Bridge Repl. High Beams and deck are too far gone to repair, replacement or removal is the best
option.
HIGH FLOW EVENTS
No Recorded High Flow Events
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 11/17/2021 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 4 of 5
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGE ACTION PLAN
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/31/2021 / CF8H U Unknown Scour
SUPPORTING IMAGES
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 11/17/2021 Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 5 of 5
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 LOAD RATING ASSUMPTIONS
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/31/2021 / CF8H U Unknown Scour
Rating Considers Field Condition of Members: Yes Inspection Date: 08/14/2012
Deterioration:
Corrosion of steel stringer, Holes found in web of B4S & B3S greater than 52" in length
Most Recent Year Construct / Reconstruct / Overlay:
History of Work Impacting Load Rating:
HMA overlay on concrete deck
Superstructure Component: 3 Steel Beam fy: 30.0 ksi Beam f'c / fb: ksi
Composite: No Number of Beams: 12 Shop Drawings Verified: No
Beam Size(s) & Names (each CB 213 21" 9" x 92 lbs, 35ft single span
span):
Deck: Thickness (in.): 7.0 Fy / f'c: / 3.0 ksi Deck Design Load > H15: No
Wearing Surface: Mat'l: HMA Thickness (in.): 8.5 Unit Weight (pcf.): 50.0
LEFT CENTER RIGHT
Barrier: Type / Weight (plf.): concrete / 975.0 / concrete / 975.0
Sidewalk: Width / Thick (in.): 95.0 / 10.5 / 95.0 / 10.5
Clear Roadway (ft.): 40.0
Additional Loads:
Unique Factors That Affect Capacity:
Load Rating used a section modulus determined by removing bottom flange and 2" of web from the original beam section and applied a
10% section loss to the remaining beam section.
Analyzed By: RTW Date: 08/20/2012
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 LOAD RATING SUMMARY
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/31/2021 / CF8H U Unknown Scour
Compliance Issue: None
Compliance Verified: No
Analysis Program: Hand Calculations
Analysis Program Version: MCAD
Rating Considers Field Condition of Members: Yes Inspection Date: 08/14/2012
Controlling component and failure mode:
Beam Moment controls
NEW INVENTORY CODING
NBI Item 63 - Operating Rating Method 1 LFR in US tons
NBI Item 64F - Federal Operating Ratings 5.0
MDOT Item 64MA - Michigan Operating Method 1 LFR in US Tons
MDOT Item 64MB - Michigan Operating Rating 3.7
MDOT Item 64MC - Michigan Operating Truck 1
NBI Item 65 - Inventory Rating Method 1 LFR in US tons
NBI Item 66 - Federal Inventory Rating 3.0
NBI Item 41 - Structure Open Posted Closed K K Closed to all traffic
NBI Item 70 - Bridge Posting 0 0 - 59% or less
Posted By Gross Load
MDOT Item 141 - Posted Loading 03NNNN
MDOT Item 193A - Michigan Overload Class
MDOT Item 193C - Overload Status N-No Restriction
Analyzed By: RTW Date: 08/20/2012
Checked By: RWL Date: 08/20/2012
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 REQUEST FOR ACTION
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/31/2021 / CF8H U Unknown Scour
No inspections available for bridge key 614461800205B01
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 OUTSTANDING WORK
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/31/2021 / CF8H U Unknown Scour
WORK RECOMMENDATIONS
OTHER
Request For Contact/User Agency/Company Name Estimated Quantity Unit
Bridge Repl.
Activity Material Other Material Actual Quantity Unit
Personnel Hours Equipment Complete Date
Comments
Beams and deck are too far gone to repair, replacement or removal is the best option. (Ryan Worden 09/01/2021)
Printed on 08/09/2022 Page 1 of 1
Bridge AMP
APPENDIX C. CULVERT ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
SUPPLEMENT
Culvert Primer
Culverts are structures that lie underneath roads, enabling water to flow from one side of the roadway to
the other (Figure C-1 and Figure C-2). The important distinguishing factor between a culvert and a bridge
is the size. Culverts are considered anything under 20 feet while bridges, according to the Federal
Highway Administration, are 20 feet or more. While similar in function to storm sewers, culverts differ
from storm sewers in that culverts are open on both ends, are constructed as straight-line conduits, and
lack intermediate drainage structures like manholes and catch basins. Culverts are critical to the service
life of a road because of the important role they play in keeping the pavement layers well drained and free
from the forces of water building up on one side of the roadway.
Figure C-1: Diagram of a culvert structure
Figure C-2: Examples of culverts. Culverts allow water to pass under the roadway (left), they are straight-line conduits with no
intermediate drainage structures (middle), and they come in various materials (left: metal; middle and right: concrete) and shapes
(left: arch; middle: round; right: box).
30
Culvert Types
Michigan conducted its first pilot data collection on local agency culverts in the state in 2018. Of almost
50,000 culverts inventoried as part of the state-wide pilot project, the material type used for constructing
culverts ranged from (in order of predominance) corrugated steel, concrete, plastic, aluminum, and
masonry/tile, to timber materials. The shapes of the culverts were (in order of predominance) circular,
pipe arch, arch, rectangular, horizontal ellipse, or box. The diameter for the majority of culverts ranged
from less than 12 inches to 24 inches; a portion, however, ranged from 30 inches to more than 48 inches.
Culvert Condition
Several culvert condition assessment practices exist. The FHWA has an evaluation method in its 1986
Culvert Inspection Manual. In conjunction with descriptions and details in the Ohio Department of
Transportation’s 2017 Culvert Inspection Manual and Wisconsin DOT’s Bridge Inspection Field Manual,
the FHWA method served as the method for evaluating Michigan culverts in the pilot. In 2018, Michigan
local agencies participated in a culvert pilot data collection, gathering inventory and condition data; full
detail on the condition assessment system used in the data collection can be found in Appendix G of the
final report (https://www.michigan.gov/documents/tamc/TAMC_2018_Culvert_Pilot_Report_Complete_634795_7.pdf).
The Michigan culvert pilot data collection used a 1 through 10 rating system, where 10 is considered a
new culvert with no deterioration or distress and 1 is considered total failure. Each of the different culvert
material types requires the assessment of features unique to that material type, including structural
deterioration, invert deterioration, section deformation, blockage(s) and scour. Corrugated metal pipe,
concrete pipe, plastic pipe, and masonry culverts require an additional assessment of joints and seams.
Slab abutment culverts require an additional assessment of the concrete abutment and the masonry
abutment. Assessment of timber culverts only relied on blockage(s) and scour. The assessments come
together to generate condition rating categories of good (rated as 10, 9, or 8), fair (rated as 7 or 6), poor
(rated as 5 or 4), or failed (rated as 3, 2, or 1).
Culvert Treatments
The MDOT Drainage Manual addresses culvert design and treatments. Of most importance to the
longevity of culverts is regular cleaning to prevent clogs. More extensive treatments may include re-
positioning the pipe to improve its grade and lining a culvert to achieve more service life after structural
deterioration has begun.
31
APPENDIX D. TRAFFIC SIGNALS ASSET
MANAGEMENT PLAN SUPPLEMENT
Traffic Signals Primer
Types
Electronic traffic control devices come in a large array of configurations, which include case signs (e.g.,
keep right/left, no right/left turn, reversible lanes), controllers, detection (e.g., cameras, push buttons),
flashing beacons, interconnects (e.g., DSL, fire station, phone line, radio), pedestrian heads (e.g., hand-
man), and traffic signals. This asset management plan is only concerned with traffic signals (Figure D-1)
as a functioning unit and does not consider other electronic traffic control devices.
Figure D-1: Example of traffic signals
Condition
Traffic signal assessment considers the functioning of basic tests on a pass/fail basis. These tests include
battery backup testing, components testing, conflict monitor testing, radio testing, and underground
detection.
Treatments
Traffic signals are maintained in accordance with the Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices. Maintenance of traffic signals includes regular maintenance of all components, cleaning and
servicing to prevent undue failures, immediate maintenance in the case of emergency calls, and provision
of stand-by equipment. Timing changes are restricted to authorized personnel only.
32
APPENDIX E. GLOSSARY & ACRONYMS
Glossary
Alligator cracking: Cracking of the surface layer of an asphalt pavement that creates a pattern of
interconnected cracks resembling alligator hide. This is often due to overloading a pavement, sub-base
failure, or poor drainage.5
Asset management: A process that uses data to manage and track road assets in a cost-effective manner
using a combination of engineering and business principles. Public Act 325 of 2018 provides a legal
definition: “an ongoing process of maintaining, preserving, upgrading, and operating physical assets cost
effectively, based on a continuous physical inventory and condition assessment and investment to achieve
established performance goals”.6
Biennial inspection: Inspection of an agency’s bridges every other year, which happens in accordance
with National Bridge Inspection Standards and Michigan Department of Transportation requirements.
Bridge inspection program: A program implemented by a local agency to inspect the bridges within its
jurisdiction systematically in order to ensure proper functioning and structural soundness.
Capital preventative maintenance: Also known as CPM, a planned set of cost-effective treatments to
address of fair-rated infrastructure before the structural integrity of the system has been severely
impacted. These treatments aim to slow deterioration and to maintain or improve the functional condition
of the system without significantly increasing the structural capacity. Light capital preventive
maintenance is a set of treatments designed to seal isolated areas of the pavement from water, such as
crack and joint sealing, to protect and restore pavement surface from oxidation with limited surface
thickness material, such as fog seal; generally, application of a light CPM treatment does not provide a
corresponding increase in a segment’s PASER score. Heavy capital preventive maintenance is a set of
surface treatments designed to protect pavement from water intrusion or environmental weathering
without adding significant structural strength, such as slurry seal, chip seal, or thin (less than 1.5-inch)
overlays for bituminous surfaces or patching or partial-depth (less than 1/3 of pavement depth) repair for
concrete surfaces.
Chip seal: An asphalt pavement treatment method consisting of, first, spraying liquid asphalt onto the old
pavement surface and, then, a single layer of small stone chips spread onto the wet asphalt layer.
City major: A road classification, defined in Michigan Public Act 51, that encompasses the generally
more important roads in a city or village. City major roads are designated by a municipality’s governing
body and are subject to approval by the State Transportation Commission. These roads do not include
roads under the jurisdiction of a county road commission or trunkline highways.
City minor: A road classification, defined in Michigan Public Act 51, that encompasses the generally
less important roads in a city or village. These roads include all city or village roads that are not city
major road and do not include roads under the jurisdiction of a county road commission.
5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile_cracking
6
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
33
Composite pavement: A pavement consisting of concrete and asphalt layers. Typically, composite
pavements are old concrete pavements that were overlaid with HMA in order to gain more service life.
Concrete joint resealing: Resealing the joints of a concrete pavement with a flexible sealant to prevent
moisture and debris from entering the joints. When debris becomes lodged inside a joint, it inhibits proper
movement of the pavement and leads to joint deterioration and spalling.
Concrete pavement: Also known as rigid pavement, a pavement made from portland cement concrete.
Concrete pavement has an average service life of 30 years and typically does not require as much periodic
maintenance as HMA.
Cost per lane mile: Associated cost of construction, measured on a per lane, per mile basis. Also see
lane-mile segment.
County local: A road classification, defined in Michigan Public Act 51, that encompasses the generally
less important and low-traffic roads in a county. This includes all county roads that are not classified as
county primary roads.
County primary: A road classification, defined in Michigan Public Act 51, that encompasses the
generally more important and high-traffic roads in a county. County primary roads are designated by
board members of the county road commissions and are subject to approval by the State Transportation
Commission.
CPM: See Capital preventive maintenance.
Crack and seat: A concrete pavement treatment method that involves breaking old concrete pavement
into small chunks and leaving the broken pavement in place to provide a base for a new surface. This
provides a new wear surface that resists water infiltration and helps prevent damaged concrete from
reflecting up to the new surface.
Crack seal: A pavement treatment method for both asphalt and concrete pavements that fills cracks with
asphalt materials, which seals out water and debris and slows down the deterioration of the pavement.
Crack seal may encompass the term “crack filling”.
Crush and shape: An asphalt pavement treatment method that involves pulverizing the existing asphalt
pavement and base and then reshaping the road surface to correct imperfections in the road’s profile.
Often, a layer of gravel is added along with a new wearing surface such as an HMA overlay or chip seal.
Crust: A very tightly compacted surface on an unpaved road that sheds water with ease but takes time to
be created.
Culvert: A pipe or structure used under a roadway that allows cross-road drainage while allowing traffic
to pass without being impeded; culverts span up to 20 feet.7
Dowel bar retrofit repair: A concrete pavement treatment method that involves cutting slots in a
cracked concrete slab, inserting steel bars into the slots, and placing concrete to cover the new bars and
fill the slots. It aims to reinforce cracks in a concrete pavement.
7
Adapted from Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
34
Dust control: A gravel road surface treatment method that involves spraying chloride or other chemicals
on the gravel surface to reduce dust loss, aggregate loss, and maintenance. This is a relatively short-term
fix that helps create a crusted surface.
Expansion joint: Joints in a bridge that allow for slight expansion and contraction changes in response to
temperature. Expansion joints prevent the build up of excessive pressure, which can cause structural
damage to the bridge.
Federal Highway Administration: Also known as FHWA, this is an agency within the U.S. Department
of Transportation that supports state and local governments in the design, construction, and maintenance
of the nation’s highway system.8
Federal-aid network: Portion of road network that is comprised of federal-aid routes. According to Title
23 of the United States Code, federal-aid-eligible roads are “highways on the federal-aid highways
systems and all other public roads not classified as local roads or rural minor collectors”.9 Roads that are
part of the federal-aid network are eligible for federal gas-tax monies.
FHWA: See Federal Highway Administration.
Flexible pavement: See hot-mix asphalt pavement.
Fog seal: An asphalt pavement treatment method that involves spraying a liquid asphalt coating onto the
entire pavement surface to fill hairline cracks and prevent damage from sunlight and oxidation. This
method works best for good to very good pavements.
Full-depth concrete repair: A concrete pavement treatment method that involves removing sections of
damaged concrete pavement and replacing it with new concrete of the same dimensions in order to restore
the riding surface, delay water infiltration, restore load transfer from one slab to the next, and eliminate
the need to perform costly temporary patching.
Geographic divides: Areas where a geographic feature (e.g., river, lake, mountain) limits crossing points
of the feature.
Grants: Competitive funding gained through an application process and targeted at a specific project type
to accomplish a specific purpose. Grants can be provided both on the federal and state level and often
make up part of the funds that a transportation agency receives.
Gravel surfacing: A low-cost, easy-to-maintain road surface made from aggregate and fines.
Heavy capital preventive maintenance: See Capital preventive maintenance.
HMA: See hot-mix asphalt pavement.
Hot-mix asphalt overlay: Also known as HMA overlay, this a surface treatment that involves layering
new asphalt over an existing pavement, either asphalt or concrete. It creates a new wearing surface for
traffic and to seal the pavement from water, debris, and sunlight damage, and it often adds significant
structural strength.
Hot-mix asphalt pavement: Also known as HMA pavement, this type of asphalt creates a flexible
pavement composed of aggregates, asphalt binder, and air voids. HMA is heated for placement and
8
Federal Highway Administration webpage https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
9
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
35
compaction at high temperatures. HMA is less expensive to construct than concrete pavement, however it
requires frequent maintenance activities and generally lasts 18 years before major rehabilitation is
necessary. HMA makes up the vast majority of local-agency-owned pavements.
IBR: See IBR element, IBR number, and/or Inventory-based Rating System™.
IBR element: A feature used in the IBR System™ for assessing the condition of roads. The system relies
on assessing three elements: surface width, drainage adequacy, and structural adequacy.10
IBR number: The 1-10 rating determined from assessments of the weighted IBR elements. The
weighting relates each element to the intensity road work needed to improve or enhance the IBR element
category.11
Interstate highway system: The road system owned and operated by each state consisting of routes that
cross between states, make travel easier and faster. The interstate roads are denoted by the prefix “I” or
“U.S.” and then a number, where odd routes run north-south and even routes run east-west. Examples are
I-75 or U.S. 2.12
Inventory-based Rating System™: Also known as the IBR System™, a rating system designed to
assess the capabilities of gravel and unpaved roads to support intended traffic volumes and types year
round. It assesses roads based on how three IBR elements, or features—surface width, drainage adequacy,
and structural adequacy—compare to a baseline, or “good”, road.13
Investment Reporting Tool: Also known as IRT, a web-based system used to manage the process for
submitting required items to the Michigan Transportation Asset Management Council. Required items
include planned and completed maintenance and construction activity for roads and bridges and
comprehensive asset management plans.
IRT: See Investment Reporting Tool.
Jurisdiction: Administrative power of an entity to make decisions for something. In Michigan, the three
levels of jurisdiction classification for transportation assets are state highways, county roads, and city and
village streets. State highways are under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Transportation,
county roads are under the jurisdiction of the road commission for the county in which the roads are
located, and city and village streets are under the jurisdiction of the municipality in which the roads are
located.
Jurisdictional borders: Borders between two road-owning-agency jurisdictions, or where the roads
owned by one agency turn into roads owned by another agency. Examples of jurisdictional borders are
township or county lines.
Lane-mile segment: A segment of road that is measured by multiplying the centerline miles of a roadway
by the number of lanes present.
Lane-mile-years: A network’s total lane-miles multiplied by one year; a method to quantify the
measurable loss of pavement life.
10
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
11
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
12
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.cfm#question3
13
Adapted from Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
36
Light capital preventive maintenance: See Capital preventive maintenance.
Limited access areas: Areas—typically remote areas—serviced by few or seasonal roads that require
long detours routes if servicing roads are closed.
Main access to key commercial districts: Areas where large number or large size business will be
significantly impacted if a road is unavailable.
Maintenance grading: A surface treatment method for unpaved roads that involves re-grading the road
to remove isolated potholes, washboarding, and ruts, and then restoring the compacted crust layer.
MDOT: See Michigan Department of Transportation.
MDOT’s Local Bridge Program Call for Projects: A call for project proposals for replacement,
rehabilitation, and/or preventive maintenance of local bridges that, if granted, receives bridge funding
from the Michigan Department of Transportation. The Call for Projects is made by the Local Bridge
Program.
MGF: See Michigan Geographic Framework.
Michigan Department of Transportation: Also known as MDOT, this is the state of Michigan’s
department of transportation, which oversees roads and bridges owned by the state or federal government
in Michigan.
Michigan Geographic Framework: Also known as MGF, this is the state of Michigan’s official digital
base map that contains location and road information necessary to conduct state business. The Michigan
Department of Transportation uses the MGF to link transportation assets to a physical location.
Michigan Public Act 51 of 1951: Also known as PA 51, this is a Michigan legislative act that served as
the foundation for establishing a road funding structure by creating transportation funding distribution
methods and means. It has been amended many times.14
Michigan Public Act 325 of 2018: Also known as PA 325, this legislation modified PA 51 of 1951 in
regards to asset management in Michigan, specifically 1) re-designating the TAMC under Michigan
Infrastructure Council (MIC); 2) promoting and overseeing the implementation of recommendations from
the regional infrastructure asset management pilot program; 3) requiring local road three-year asset
management plans beginning October 1, 2020; 4) adding asset classes that impact system performance,
safety or risk management, including culverts and signals; 5) allowing MDOT to withhold funds if no
asset management plan submitted; and 6) prohibiting shifting finds from a country primary to a county
local, or from a city major to a city minor if no progress toward achieving the condition goals described in
its asset plan.15
Michigan Public Act 499 of 2002: Also known as PA 499, this legislation requires road projects for the
upcoming three years to be reported to the TAMC.
Michigan Transportation Asset Management Council: Also known as the TAMC, a council comprised
of professionals from county road commissions, cities, a county commissioner, a township official,
regional and metropolitan planning organizations, and state transportation department personnel. The
14
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
15
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
37
council reports directly to the Michigan Infrastructure Council.16 The TAMC provides resources and
support to Michigan’s road-owning agencies, and serves as a liaison in data collection requirements
between agencies and the state.
Michigan Transportation Fund: Also known as MTF, this is a source of transportation funding
supported by vehicle registration fees and the state’s per-gallon gas tax.
Microsurface treatment: An asphalt pavement treatment method that involves applying modified liquid
asphalt, small stones, water, and portland cement for the purpose of protecting a pavement from damage
caused by water and sunlight.
Mill and hot-mix asphalt overlay: Also known as a mill and HMA overlay, this is a surface treatment
that involves the removal of the top layer of pavement by milling and the replacement of the removed
layer with a new HMA layer.
Mix-of-fixes: A strategy of maintaining roads and bridges that includes generally prioritizes the spending
of money on routine maintenance and capital preventive maintenance treatments to impede deterioration
and then, as money is available, performing reconstruction and rehabilitation.
MTF: See Michigan Transportation Fund.
National Bridge Inspection Standards: Also known as NBIS, standards created by the Federal Highway
Administration to locate and evaluate existing bridge deficiencies in the federal-aid highway system to
ensure the safety of the traveling public. The standards define the proper safety for inspection and
evaluation of all highway bridges.17
National Center for Pavement Preservation: Also known as the NCPP, a center that offers education,
research, and outreach in current and innovative pavement preservation practices. This collaborative
effort of government, industry, and academia entities was established at Michigan State University.
National Functional Class: Also known as NFC, a federal grouping system for public roads that
classifies roads according to the type of service that the road is intended to provide.
National highway system: Also known as NHS, this is a network of roads that includes the interstate
highway system and other major roads managed by state and local agencies that serve major airports,
marine, rail, pipelines, truck terminals, railway stations, military bases, and other strategic facilities.
NBIS: See National Bridge Inspection Standards.
NCPP: See National Center for Pavement Preservation.
NCPP Quick Check: A system created by the National Center for Pavement Preservation that works
under the premise that a one-mile road segment loses one year of life each year that it is not treated with a
maintenance, rehabilitation, or reconstruction project.
NFC: See National Functional Class.
Non-trunkline: A local road intended to be used over short distances but not recommended for long-
distance travel.
16
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
17
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis/
38
Other funds: Expenditures for equipment, capital outlay, debt principal payment, interest expense,
contributions to adjacent governmental units, principal, interest and bank fees, and miscellaneous for
cities and villages.
PA: See Michigan Public Act 51, Michigan Public Act 325, and/or Michigan Public Act 499.
Partial-depth concrete repair: A concrete pavement treatment method that involves removing spalled or
delaminated areas of concrete pavement, usually near joints and cracks, and replacing with new concrete.
This is done to provide a new wearing surface in isolated areas, to slow down water infiltration, and to
help delay further freeze-thaw damage.
PASER: See Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating system.
Pavement reconstruction: A complete removal of the old pavement and base and construction of an
entirely new road. This is the most expensive rehabilitation of the roadway and also the most disruptive to
traffic patterns.
Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating system: Also known as the PASER system, the PASER
system rates surface condition on a 1-10 scale, where 10 is a brand new road with no defects, 5 is a road
with distress but that is structurally sound and requires only preventative maintenance, and 1 is a road
with extensive surface and structural distresses that is in need of total reconstruction. This system
provides a simple, efficient, and consistent method for evaluating the condition of paved roads.18
Pothole: A defect in a road that produces a localized depression.19
Preventive maintenance: Planned treatments to an existing asset to prevent deterioration and maintain
functional condition. This can be a more effective use of funds than the costly alternative of major
rehabilitation or replacement.
Proactive preventive maintenance: Also known as PPM, a method of performing capital preventive
maintenance treatments very early in a pavement’s life, often before it exhibits signs of pavement defect.
Public Act 51: See Michigan Public Act 51 of 1951
Public Act 325: See Michigan Public Act 325 of 2018
Public Act 499: See Michigan Public Act 499 of 2002
Reconstruction and rehabilitation programs: Programs intended to reconstruct and rehabilitate a road.
Restricted load postings: A restriction enacted on a bridge structure when is incapable of transporting a
state’s legal vehicle loads.
Rights-of-way ownership: The owning of the right-of-way, which is the land over which a road or
bridge travels. In order to build a road, road agencies must own the right-of-way or get permission to
build on it.
Rigid pavement: See concrete pavement.
18
Adapted from Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
19
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
39
Road infrastructure: An agency’s road network and assets necessary to make it function, such as traffic
signage and ditches.
Road: The area consisting of the roadway (i.e., the travelled way or the portion of the road on which
vehicles are intended to drive), shoulders, ditches, and areas of the right of way containing signage.20
Roadsoft: An asset management software suit that enables agencies to manage road and bridge related
infrastructure. The software provides tools for collecting, storing, and analyzing data associated with
transportation infrastructure. Built on an optimum combination of database engine and GIS mapping
tools, Roadsoft provides a quick, smooth user experience and almost unlimited data handling
capabilities.21
Ruts/rutting: Deformation of a road that usually forms as a permanent depression concentrated under the
wheel path parallel to the direction of travel.22
Scheduled maintenance: Low-cost, day-to-day activities applied to bridges on a scheduled basis that
mitigates deterioration.23
Sealcoat pavement: A gravel road that has been sealed with a thin asphalt binder coating that has stone
chips spread on top.
Service life: Time from when a road or treatment is first constructed to when it reaches a point where the
distresses present change from age-related to structural-related (also known as the critical distress
point).24
Slurry seal: An asphalt pavement treatment method that involves applying liquid asphalt, small stones,
water, and portland cement in a very thin layer with the purpose of protecting an existing pavement from
being damaged by water and sunlight.
Structural improvement: Pavement treatment that adds strength to the pavement. Roads requiring
structural improvement exhibit alligator cracking and rutting and are considered poor by the TAMC
definitions for condition.
Subsurface infrastructure: Infrastructure maintained by local agencies that reside underground, for
example, drinking water distribution systems, wastewater collection systems, and storm sewer systems.
TAMC: See Michigan Transportation Asset Management Council.
TAMC pavement condition dashboard: Website for viewing graphs of pavement and bridge
conditions, traffic and miles travelled, safety statistics, maintenance activities, and financial data for
Michigan’s cities and villages, counties, and regions, as well as the state of Michigan.
TAMC’s good/fair/poor condition classes: Classification of road conditions defined by the Michigan
Transportation Asset Management Council based on bin ranges of PASER scores and similarities in
defects and treatment options. Good roads have PASER scores of 8, 9, or 10, have very few defects, and
require minimal maintenance. Fair roads have PASER scores of 5, 6, or 7, have good structural support
but a deteriorating surface, and can be maintained with CPM treatments. Poor roads have PASER scores
20
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
21
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
22
Paving Class Glossary
23
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
24
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
40
of 1, 2, 3, or 4, exhibit evidence that the underlying structure is failing, such as alligator cracking and
rutting. These roads must be rehabilitated with treatments like heavy overlay, crush and shape, or total
reconstruction.
Tax millages: Local tax implemented to supplement an agency’s budget, such as road funding.
Thin hot-mix asphalt overlay: Application of a thin layer of hot-mix asphalt on an existing road to re-
seal the road and protect it from damage caused by water. This also improves the ride quality and
provides a smoother, uniform appearance that improves visibility of pavement markings.25
Transportation infrastructure: All of the elements that work together to make the surface transportation
system function including roads, bridges, culverts, traffic signals, and signage.
Trigger: When a PASER score gives insight to the preferred timeline of a project for applying the correct
treatment at the correct time.
Trunkline abbreviations: The prefixes M-, I-, and US indicate roads in Michigan that are part of the
state trunkline system, the Interstate system, and the US Highway system. These roads consist of anything
from 10-lane urban freeways to two-lane rural highways and even one non-motorized highway; they
cover 9,668 centerline miles. Most of the roads are maintained by MDOT.
Trunkline bridges: Bridge present on a trunkline road, which typically connects cities or other strategic
places and is the recommended rout for long-distance travel.26
Trunkline maintenance funds: Expenditures under a maintenance agreement with MDOT for
maintenance activities performed on MDOT trunkline routes.
Trunkline: Major road that typically connects cities or other strategic places and is the recommended
route for long-distance travel.27
Washboarding: Ripples in the road surface that are perpendicular to the direction of travel.28
Wedge/patch sealcoat treatment: An asphalt pavement treatment method that involves correcting the
damage frequently found at the edge of a pavement by installing a narrow, 2- to 6-foot-wide wedge along
the entire outside edge of a lane and layering with HMA. This extends the life of an HMA pavement or
chip seal overlay by adding strength to significantly settled areas of the pavement.
Worst-first strategy: Asset management strategy that treats only the problems, often addressing the
worst problems first, and ignoring preventive maintenance. This strategy is the opposite of the “mix of
fixes” strategy. An example of a worst-first approach would be purchasing a new automobile, never
changing the oil, and waiting till the engine fails to address any deterioration of the car.
25
[second sentence] http://www.kentcountyroads.net/road-work/road-treatments/ultra-thin-overlay
26
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_road
27
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_road
28
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
41
List of Acronyms
CPM: capital preventive maintenance
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration
HMA: hot-mix asphalt
I: trunkline abbreviation for routes on the Interstate system
IBR: Inventory-based Rating
M: trunkline abbreviation for Michigan state highways
MDOT: Michigan Department of Transportation
MTF: Michigan Transportation Fund
NBIS: National Bridge Inspection Standards
NCPP: National Center for Pavement Preservation
NHS: National Highway System
PA 51: Michigan Public Act 51 of 1951
PASER: Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating
R&R: reconstruction and rehabilitation programs
TAMC: (Michigan) Transportation Asset Management Council
US: trunkline abbreviation for routes on the US Highway system
42
APPENDIX F. MAPS FROM FIGURES
PASER Ratings West
PASER Ratings East
Unpaved Roads West
Unpaved Roads East
List of Planned Projects
Planned Projects West
Planned Projects East
Culverts West
Culverts East
Signals West
Signals East
Key Routes
43
CITY OF MUSKEGON
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MI
Bear Lake
PASER RATINGS
ME
M OR SEPTEMBER 2022
IA LD
R
2220754
City of North WEST
Muskegon
DR
AN
DIM
RUD
Laketon
Township
DR
INE
EL
E
OR
AV
IS
SH
R
R
O
M
Muskegon Lake
LEGEND
4
TH
ST
Unrated
1-4 Poor
6T
H
5-7 Fair
ST
7T
H
ST
8-10 Good
8T
H
ST
J:\GIS_Client\Mskgn-GD\Mskgn-GD\2220754_TAMP\CAMP\2220754_TAMP_Appendix F_PASER_West.mxd - PN\EJD - 9/7/2022 2:00:07 PM
BE
AC
H
ST
RE
SOUTHERN AVE
TE
RD
E
AV
Y
ER
M
O
G
NT
O
M
City of LAKETON AVE
Muskegon
ADDISON
ST
LAKESHORE DR
BE
A
M
CH
CG
BARCLAY S T
RA
ST
SEAWAY DR
HENRY ST
FT
PARK ST
PA
RK
R
D
LINC OLN ST
LEBOEUF ST
City of
Muskegon
Lake Michigan SHERMAN BLVD
City of
Ru d dima n C r
e ek
Heights
I
!
Norton City of
Feet
0 750 1,500 3,000
Shores Roosevelt Park
9TH ST
CITY OF MUSKEGON
1 BR MACARTHUR RD
M
US 3
12
0
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MI
S
ACCES
M 12
SH WY
PASER RATINGS
0
QUARTER LINE RD
SEPTEMBER 2022
Muskegon Lake Fo ur Mile Cr e ek
2220754
EAST
B ROA DM OOR S T
R
ED
L IN
Y
N US 31
S US 31
SK
HARVEY ST
Ryerson C re ek
DR
INE
E
EL
AV
E
ER
AV
E E
OR
AV
City of
ST AV
IS
N B
SH
N
RR ER WE GO
MO ST SK
E
Muskegon
HOME ST
E
W E MU
AV
AY
LEGEND
4
CL
TH
ST
APPLE AVE
Unrated
Muskegon
1-4 Poor
5-7 Fair
Township
7T
H
ST
8-10 Good
8T
H
SANFORD ST
ST
CRESTON ST
J:\GIS_Client\Mskgn-GD\Mskgn-GD\2220754_TAMP\CAMP\2220754_TAMP_Appendix F_PASER_East.mxd - PN\EJD - 9/9/2022 2:32:28 PM
IRWIN AVE
NI
S OUTHERN AVE M
S
ST
LAKETON AVE
HENRY ST
PORT CITY BLVD
VD
BL
L
RIA
INDUST
KEATING AVE
k
ee
EV
AN
Cr
ST
ON
PARK ST
n
i
AV
ma
dd
HOYT ST
E
BLACK CREEK RD
Ru
SHERIDAN RD
SEAWAY DR
City of
6TH ST
GETTY ST
Muskegon
PECK ST
Heights
OLTHOFF DR
I
!
Feet
0 750 1,500 3,000
SHERMAN BLVD
9TH ST
CITY OF MUSKEGON
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MI
Bear Lake
UNPAVED ROADS
ME
M OR SEPTEMBER 2022
IA LD
R
2220754
City of North WEST
Muskegon
DR
AN
DIM
RUD
Laketon
Township
DR
INE
EL
E
OR
AV
IS
SH
Muskegon Lake
R
R
O
M
4
TH
ST
LEGEND
6T
H
Unpaved
ST
7T
H
ST
J:\GIS_Client\Mskgn-GD\Mskgn-GD\2220754_TAMP\CAMP\2220754_TAMP_Appendix F_Unpaved Roads_West.mxd - PN\EJD - 9/7/2022 2:03:53 PM
8T
H
ST
BE
AC
H
ST
RE
SOUTHERN AVE
TE
RD
E
AV
Y
ER
M
O
G
NT
O
M
City of LAKETON AVE
Muskegon
ADDISON
ST
LAKESHORE DR
BE
A
M
CH
CG
BARCLAY S T
RA
ST
SEAWAY DR
HENRY ST
FT
PARK ST
PA
RK
R
D
LINC OLN ST
LEBOEUF ST
City of
Muskegon
Lake Michigan SHERMAN BLVD
City of
Ru d dima n C r
e ek
Heights
I
!
Norton City of
Feet
0 750 1,500 3,000
Shores Roosevelt Park
9TH ST
CITY OF MUSKEGON
1 BR MACARTHUR RD
M
US 3
12
0
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MI
S
ACCES
M 12
SH
UNPAVED ROADS
WY
0
QUARTER LINE RD
SEPTEMBER 2022
Muskegon Lake Fo ur Mile Cr e ek
2220754
EAST
B ROA DM OOR S T
R
ED
L IN
Y
N US 31
S US 31
SK
HARVEY ST
Ryerson C re ek
DR
INE
E
EL
AV
E
ER
AV
E E
OR
AV
City of
ST AV
IS
N B
SH
N
RR ER WE GO
MO ST SK
E
Muskegon
HOME ST
E
W E MU
AV
4 AY
CL
TH
ST
APPLE AVE
LEGEND
Muskegon Unpaved
Township
7T
H
ST
8T
J:\GIS_Client\Mskgn-GD\Mskgn-GD\2220754_TAMP\CAMP\2220754_TAMP_Appendix F_Unpaved Roads_East.mxd - PN\EJD - 9/7/2022 2:03:23 PM
H
SANFORD ST
ST
CRESTON ST
IRWIN AVE
NI
S OUTHERN AVE M
S
ST
LAKETON AVE
HENRY ST
PORT CITY BLVD
VD
BL
L
RIA
INDUST
KEATING AVE
k
ee
EV
AN
Cr
ST
ON
PARK ST
n
i
AV
ma
dd
HOYT ST
E
BLACK CREEK RD
Ru
SHERIDAN RD
SEAWAY DR
City of
6TH ST
GETTY ST
Muskegon
PECK ST
Heights
OLTHOFF DR
I
!
Feet
0 750 1,500 3,000
SHERMAN BLVD
9TH ST
List of Planned
Appendix 1 Projects
ProjectName ProjectCost ProjectDescription FiscalYear Status TreatmentDescription Length Funding
Second St, Houston to Muskegon $500,000 Reconstruct 2025 Planned Reconstruction 0.1 Local
Southern, Lakeshore to Division $950,000 Reconstruct 2025 Planned Reconstruction 0.75 TIP + Match
Ottawa St Bridge $500,000 Remove Bridge 2024 Funded Complete Removal of Bridge Bridge Program (State) + Match
Sanford, Apple to Laketon $2,100,000 SRF Sewer project 2023 Funded Reconstruction 1 SRF/DWRF + Match
Glenside Phase II $1,800,000 SRF Sewer project 2024 Planned Reconstruction 0.275 SRF/DWRF + Match
Sherman, Seaway to Barclay $2,300,000 Reconstruct with concrete 2024 Planned Reconstruction 0.5 TIP & EGLE (Scrap Tire Grant)
Peck St, Keating to Laketon $1,100,000 Reconstruct 2024 Planned Reconstruction 0.25 Local
Amity, Myrtle to Fork $600,000 Removal of bridge, place road at grade 2025 Planned Reconstruction Bridge Program (State) + Match
Roberts, Barney to Laketon $800,000 Rehabilitation (Pavement Inlay) 2023 Funded Reconstruction 1 MEDC Grant + Local Match
Houston, 9th to 3rd $1,400,000 Recosntruct including water main replacement 2023 Bid Reconstruction 0.5 Local
Terrace St, Apple to Shoreline $2,000,000 Remove SB lanes, reconstruct to 2-Lane in old NB lanes. 2023 Bid Reconstruction 0.5 TIP + Local Match
Olthoff Dr, Extension East $1,000,000 Extension with water and sewer extensions also, to serve new development 2023 Planned 0.5 MEDC, TEDF, Local
CITY OF MUSKEGON
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MI
Bear Lake
PLANNED PROJECTS
ME
M OR SEPTEMBER 2022
IA LD
R
2220754
City of North WEST
Muskegon
DR
AN
DIM
RUD
Laketon
Township
DR
INE
EL
E
OR
AV
IS
SH
Muskegon Lake
R
R
O
M
4
TH
ST
LEGEND
6T
H
Planned Projects
ST
7T
H
J:\GIS_Client\Mskgn-GD\Mskgn-GD\2220754_TAMP\CAMP\2220754_TAMP_Appendix F_Planned_Projects_West.mxd - PN\EJD - 9/7/2022 2:17:22 PM
ST
8T
H
ST
BE
AC
H
ST
RE
SOUTHERN AVE
TE
RD
E
AV
Y
ER
M
O
G
NT
O
M
City of LAKETON AVE
Muskegon
ADDISON
ST
LAKESHORE DR
BE
A
M
CH
CG
BARCLAY S T
RA
ST
SEAWAY DR
HENRY ST
FT
PARK ST
PA
RK
R
D
LINC OLN ST
LEBOEUF ST
City of
Muskegon
Lake Michigan SHERMAN BLVD
City of
Ru d dima n C r
e ek
Heights
I
!
Norton City of
Feet
0 750 1,500 3,000
Shores Roosevelt Park
9TH ST
CITY OF MUSKEGON
1 BR MACARTHUR RD
M
US 3
12
0
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MI
S
ACCES
M 12
SH WY
PLANNED PROJECTS
0
QUARTER LINE RD
SEPTEMBER 2022
Muskegon Lake Fo ur Mile Cr e ek
2220754
EAST
B ROA DM OOR S T
R
ED
L IN
Y
N US 31
S US 31
SK
HARVEY ST
Ryerson C re ek
DR
INE
E
EL
AV
E
ER
AV
E E
OR
AV
City of
ST AV
IS
N B
SH
N
RR ER WE GO
MO ST SK
E
Muskegon
HOME ST
E
W E MU
AV
4 AY
CL
TH
ST
APPLE AVE
Muskegon LEGEND
Township
7T
H
Planned Projects
ST
J:\GIS_Client\Mskgn-GD\Mskgn-GD\2220754_TAMP\CAMP\2220754_TAMP_Appendix F_Planned_Projects_East.mxd - PN\EJD - 9/7/2022 2:16:30 PM
8T
H
SANFORD ST
ST
CRESTON ST
IRWIN AVE
NI
S OUTHERN AVE M
S
ST
LAKETON AVE
HENRY ST
PORT CITY BLVD
VD
BL
L
RIA
INDUST
KEATING AVE
k
ee
EV
AN
Cr
ST
ON
PARK ST
n
i
AV
ma
dd
HOYT ST
E
BLACK CREEK RD
Ru
SHERIDAN RD
SEAWAY DR
City of
6TH ST
GETTY ST
Muskegon
PECK ST
Heights
OLTHOFF DR
I
!
Feet
0 750 1,500 3,000
SHERMAN BLVD
9TH ST
CITY OF MUSKEGON
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MI
Bear Lake
MAP OF CULVERTS
ME
M OR SEPTEMBER 2022
IA LD
R
2220754
City of North WEST
Muskegon
DR
AN
DIM
RUD
Laketon
Township
DR
INE
EL
E
OR
AV
IS
SH
Muskegon Lake
R
R
O
M
4
TH
ST
LEGEND
6T
Rated Culvert
H
ST
7T
Unrated Culvert
H
ST
8T
H
ST
J:\GIS_Client\Mskgn-GD\Mskgn-GD\2220754_TAMP\CAMP\2220754_TAMP_Appendix F_Culverts_West.mxd - PN\EJD - 9/7/2022 1:57:57 PM
BE
AC
H
ST
RE
SOUTHERN AVE
TE
RD
E
AV
Y
ER
M
O
G
NT
O
M
City of LAKETON AVE
Muskegon
ADDISON
ST
LAKESHORE DR
BE
A
M
CH
CG
BARCLAY S T
RA
ST
SEAWAY DR
HENRY ST
FT
PARK ST
PA
RK
R
D
LINC OLN ST
LEBOEUF ST
City of
Muskegon
Lake Michigan SHERMAN BLVD
City of
Ru d dima n C r
e ek
Heights
I
!
Norton City of
Feet
0 750 1,500 3,000
Shores Roosevelt Park
9TH ST
CITY OF MUSKEGON
1 BR MACARTHUR RD
M
US 3
12
0
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MI
S
ACCES
M 12
SH WY
MAP OF CULVERTS
0
QUARTER LINE RD
SEPTEMBER 2022
Muskegon Lake Fo ur Mile Cr e ek
2220754
EAST
B ROA DM OOR S T
R
ED
L IN
Y
N US 31
S US 31
SK
HARVEY ST
Ryerson C re ek
DR
INE
E
EL
AV
E
ER
AV
E E
OR
AV
City of
ST AV
IS
N B
SH
N
RR ER WE GO
MO ST SK
E
Muskegon
HOME ST
E
W E MU
AV
4 AY
CL
TH
ST
APPLE AVE
LEGEND
Muskegon Rated Culvert
Township
7T
H
Unrated Culvert
ST
8T
H
SANFORD ST
ST
CRESTON ST
J:\GIS_Client\Mskgn-GD\Mskgn-GD\2220754_TAMP\CAMP\2220754_TAMP_Appendix F_Culverts_East.mxd - PN\EJD - 9/7/2022 1:56:56 PM
IRWIN AVE
NI
S OUTHERN AVE M
S
ST
LAKETON AVE
HENRY ST
PORT CITY BLVD
VD
BL
L
RIA
INDUST
KEATING AVE
k
ee
EV
AN
Cr
ST
ON
PARK ST
n
i
AV
ma
dd
HOYT ST
E
BLACK CREEK RD
Ru
SHERIDAN RD
SEAWAY DR
City of
6TH ST
GETTY ST
Muskegon
PECK ST
Heights
OLTHOFF DR
I
!
Feet
0 750 1,500 3,000
SHERMAN BLVD
9TH ST
CITY OF MUSKEGON
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MI
Bear Lake
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATIONS
ME
M OR SEPTEMBER 2022
IA LD
R
2220754
City of North WEST
Muskegon
DR
AN
DIM
RUD
Laketon
Township
DR
INE
EL
E
OR
AV
IS
SH
Muskegon Lake
R
R
O
M
4
TH
ST
LEGEND
6T
H
k
j
ST
Traffic Signal
7T
H
ST
8T
H
ST
J:\GIS_Client\Mskgn-GD\Mskgn-GD\2220754_TAMP\CAMP\2220754_TAMP_Appendix F_Signals_West.mxd - PN\EJD - 9/7/2022 2:02:52 PM
MUCT-BA
BE
AC
k
j
H
ST
RE
SOUTHERN AVE
TE
RD
E
AV
Y
ER
M
O
G
NT
O
MUCT-04
M
City of k
j k
j
Muskegon MUCT-07 LAKETON AVE
ADDISON
ST
LAKESHORE DR
k
j NEW
BE
A
M
CH
CG
MUCT-BB
BARCLAY S T
MUCT-03
RA
ST
HENRY ST
FT
k
j
PARK ST
PA
k
j
SEAWAY DR
RK
R
D
LINC OLN ST
LEBOEUF ST
City of
Muskegon
Lake Michigan SHERMAN BLVD
k
j
City of
MUCT-29
k
j
MUCT-30
k
j
MUCT-26
Ru d dima n C r
e ek
MUCT-28
Heights
I
!
Norton City of k Feet
j 0 750 1,500 3,000
Shores Roosevelt Park
9TH ST
CITY OF MUSKEGON
1 BR MACARTHUR RD
M
US 3
12
0
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MI
S
ACCES
M 12
SH WY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATIONS
0
QUARTER LINE RD
SEPTEMBER 2022
Muskegon Lake Fo ur Mile Cr e ek
2220754
EAST
BROADMOOR ST
R
ED
L IN
MUCT-14
Y
MUCT-16
SK
k
j k
jk
j MUCT-15
k
j
N US 31
MUCT-13
S US 31
AV E
HARVEY ST
Ryerson C re ek
GON
DR
INE
SK E
EL
E
MUCT-37
AV
MU
OR
City of
IS
SH
RR E
MO AV
k
j
Muskegon
HOME ST
RN E
TE
4 W
ES
CL
AY
AV
k
j MUCT-23
TH
ST
APPLE AVE
LEGEND
Muskegon k
j
Township
7T
Traffic Signal
H
ST
8T
H
SANFORD ST
ST
CRESTON ST
J:\GIS_Client\Mskgn-GD\Mskgn-GD\2220754_TAMP\CAMP\2220754_TAMP_Appendix F_Signals_East.mxd - PN\EJD - 9/7/2022 2:02:13 PM
k
j MUCT-02
IRWIN AVE
NI
S OUTHERN AVE M
S
ST
MUCT-11 MUCT-08
MUCT-07
k
j k
jk
j k
j k
j MUCT-12
MUCT-06 MUCT-10 MUCT-05
LAKE TON AVE
k
j k
j k
j
HENRY ST
PORT CITY BLVD
MUCT-09 VD
BL
L
RIA
INDUST
KEATING AVE
k
ee
EV
AN
Cr
ST
ON
PARK ST
k
j
n
i
AV
ma
dd
HOYT ST
E
BLACK CREEK RD
Ru
SHERIDAN RD
SEAWAY DR
City of
6TH ST
GETTY ST
Muskegon
PECK ST
k
j
Heights
MUCT-31
OLTHOFF DR
I
!
Feet
0 750 1,500 3,000
SHERMAN BLVD
k
j
9TH ST
M
U
CHANNEL
DR
BR
S
DR
OW
FULTON
VE
RD NA
NE
KE LTO
K
LA FU
ST
CH
EA
B
E
NELSON ST
SAND ST
RO DG ERS AV E
G
O
HI L L
CT
N R IVER
SIM PS ON AVE ON
MUSKEG O
N
PIG E
BR IG H
E
TO N A
BE
OC K C T V E
SAND D
CT
VE
AC
AA
K
Laketon
N
R
D IA
H
BA
Township
IN
ST
ND
A
RE
BE
WINDWARD DR
SA
HA R
E
AC
Muskegon
T
L
RD
NE
HS
B
Township
ARLINGTON AV E
OU
L
LSO
T
RT
PARK PL
R
NS
O
W NE CI R T
A
S
T
Be
R
A
ATE
a ch
K
E
E DGE W
St
T
C
City of B
CH
WN
E
Muskegon
LA
M 12
ER
O D
WO
RY
0
VE
S
XA
PL
T
O
IL C
UM
W
AV
E
AV
E
N
SO
D
P
OM
R
TH
S
RK
O
T
CT S
NS
RW
TO N
Lakeshore Dr
O
KE A
E
AT
S
PA R
W
MILLARD ST
0
M 12
S
DR
S BR US 31/N
M
12
ES
0
S M 120/N BR US 31
City of
N
DU LA
KE
North
E E
AV
LAK
SH
Muskegon
N OR
LA
P SO ED
M R
SA
DR
T
BANK S
Lakeshore Dr
IN E
E
AV
YL
E
LA
N AV
SK
RK
O BA
FT DR VE YO
BE
IN
UF RO UA
Getty St
D
K E M I
ST
BL O VE
AC
O G
W E E
HS
F AV AG
UR RT TT
T
S
SO CO
CO
DU
QUARTERLINE RD
RE BU
UN
NE
HARVEY ST
Be TL BRUSSE AVE
FA
ac ER
TR
Quarterline Rd
BRUSSE AVE
ST
hS ST
IRL
Y
t
DR
CLUB DR
T
A
D
S
O
CRESTON ST
W
MORGA N AVE
MEE KING ST
O
WA
N
W CT CR
LT OS ADAMS AVE
TA
SH ON AT ST
BROADMOOR S T
SA
BO
DR ATZ ST
VE
OT
ADAMS AVE
VE
SH
NA
ER
LEO NAR D AVE LE
ER
O
W
NA
CAMPBELL ST
GUNN ST
LEONARD AVE
O
RD
ST
T
O
AVE
KRAFT ST
NS
LANGLE Y ST
D
Marquette Ave
WE
SU
CT
MN
SO
CHARLES ST
BENNETT ST
C
ER MARQUETTE AVE Marquette Ave
I CK
AV Marquette Ave
E
MARSHALL ST
T
ER
AV E
SS
K S ON DUCEY AVE
DUCE Y AVE
H
C
V IU
MULDER ST
JA ROBLANE ST
D CT
MCLAREN ST
DEANER DR
ROBERTS ST
HERRICK ST
TA
Creston St
ALVA ST
MARGARET ST
M ARLANE CT
N US 31
JAMES AVE JAMES AVE
OC
KN OLLWO O
GI D
ABBEY ST
MARY ST
SUELAN E ST
Sherman Blvd DI N
Quarterline Rd
AGNE S ST
HA GS ALBERT AVE
SH ER MA N BLVD
E
IG
LL AV
AV E SU MN ER AVE ALBERT AV E
V IRIDIAN E ALBERT AVE
K
S US 31
GLEN CT
SU MN ER AVE
ST
DR
NB
ST
A
BA
S A WE SLEY AVE Wesley Ave
HO WESLEY AVE Wesley Ave
City of
W
YU
RE TA
City of L L
Muskegon
WESLEY AVE
OT
PO INT DR
INE
SCHOOL ST
NB
MA RC OUX AVE
Harvey St
O R ST
/
Norton
SB
A N
Sh eb
W MARC OUX AVE
Shores
W
or ste
ris EB
Mor
eli r
MA
ST
Creston St
ne
R Ave
M ARINA D ER
B R OA D MO
E
RS
TE RRA CE
/S
AV
B
RA
CE
N DUDL EY AVE
H
Te TO
TH
rr AL
ST
RA
1S ac WHITE AVE
ER eS W
T
TS
BO
TER
RA t e
Av
APPL
T
MU
CE ter
RN
Te
S bs LA W RENCE AVE
DR
r
RP
ra
e
E
ve
E
W
ce
E
E/ N U
nA
T
ST
Oa
AV
AV
HY
NE
OA K AVE kA
S
o ve
eg
t
N
CE
S
ELI
RI ER sk
ST
HILL OAK AVE
T ter u
VE CRE OAK AVE
OR
S 31
DA
EMERALD ST
S bs M
OR
M E We Ave L EA ORCHAR D AVE ST
DR
R
3r
W
Te St
RT
SCOTT ST
SH
WILLIAM S ST
d
KENNETH ST
ST
HOME ST
E
rra
MY
R A MP
St
AV
ce
2N
E
STEVEN S ST
AY AV
Wood St
D
3R
CL
FORK ST
ON
SP
1S
ST
3r
Ter St
LT AMITY AVE
DS
( 009C
Home St
M
St d
RI
T
A
AR
rac
W
ST
NG
T
T
e
3r t
JAY S T
d
ST
ST
)
EVART ST
S
Sanford St
ALLE N AVE
Te
Apple Allen Ave
AP
5T
rr ac
9D)
n Ave
PLYM OUTH ST
H
DR
go
PL E
eS
ke
ST
ve s E
(00
E
rA u e E APPL E AVE
AV
t
M Av AV
IN
/S U
AM
st e
ON
3r
RD
EL
eb
S US 31/APPLE RAMP
d
BR
HA MILTO N AVE O
SO
W G
ROBERTS ST
E
OR
St
S3
E NC
OAK GRO VE ST
AV SK
OS
PIN
CO AD A AVE
PH
SH RN
1R
U E ADA AVE
IA
M
1ST ST
ADA AVE
IA
E
ES
ST AV
AM
ST
D
S
RD
4T
E OR
EAS TGATE ST
T
T
E
GREEN ST
W F
AV
P (0
H
N
H A RT
Getty St
E ISABEL LA AVE
ve W AV
ST
ER VE
CRESTON ST
ISABELLA AVE
WOOD ST
nA E O A
7t
EA
09E
ST o AV NK
N AN
h
EB eg MONROE AVE DI R
St
ON WA
3r
sk U
AV
E VE
)
d
W u T LA AA CAT HER INE AVE
3R
HOLT ST
M A
St
S DE L
JEFFERSO N ST
ON
MADISON ST
OU EL CATHER INE AVE
D
I
H AB
ST MAPLE ST
ST
MERR ILL AVE IS
N
7t
RA
h
ve
SP
MC LAU GH LIN AVE
St
rA MCLAUGHLIN AVE
9T
E
TE
O
NS
RI
e
bs
t AV
H
RR
NG
e E VE MCLAUGHLIN AVE
O
G
ST
W e O
Av Strong Ave
M
LA
A
NR
ST
Western Ave on
CE
E
L CATAWBA AV E
ST
7th
O RI CALV IN AVE
Franklin
W E STE R keg M CALV IN AVE
ER HI CA LVIN AV E
St
N AV E s
ST
K
CHEST NUT ST
E
St
u
H
E LL
M M AV AV
ET
AV
S
AR
ROBERTS ST
Michigan Ave N E
NG
NN
O BE EV FRA NCIS AVE
8T
U
SANFORD ST
TH
AS O NT CA AN FRA NCIS AVE
H
KE
M R ON ST
7T
Peck St
MIC HIG AN AVE
UR
ST TA
M
ON
ST
AVE
H
E E W AV
BA E
ST
AV AV
ST
LANGELAND AVE
ER AV
S VE LAN GELAND AVE
Division St
WAS HIN GTON AVE PU NA U E
Creston St
WASHINGTON AVE LI BA MANGIN AVE
NEW ST
M Irwin Ave
H IRWIN AVE Irwin Ave
GLA DE ST
WAS HINGTON AVE CA UG LO
Eva
nst HOWARD AVE
A
Park St
HI L UI on
GARDEN AVE
ST
MC A
6TH ST
G S ve
H AV IRWIN AVE
AU
GRA ND AVE
JIRO CH ST
ST E
WINTERS ST
GRA ND AVE FLOWE R AVE
RN
GRA ND AVE NI
SAMBURT ST
M
HA
GRAND AVE
LEAHY ST
KAMP ENGA AVE KAMPENGA AVE
PECK ST
S
E
BURTON RD
DIV ISION ST
ST
AV
Southern
CLINTON ST
Southern Ave GRA ND AVE
ER
Ave
HUDSON ST
Southern Ave Ni
E
BEIDLER ST
M
KINGSLEY ST
SOUTHE RN AVE Southern Ave m FLEMIN G AVE
AV
L
s
GETTY ST
PA
St
Y
ME
ER
FOREST AVE
M
SSLER ST
VE FOREST AVE EMERSON AVE
O
RUDDIM AN ST
G
PIN E ST
R
Wood St
NT
N FOREST AVE
FRANKLIN ST
O IRE LAN D AVE
DAVIS ST
FOREST AVE
O
N FOREST AVE
HUIZENGA ST
IV
M
PL Y FOREST AVE
GLADE ST
EL ST
Division St
M DAL E AVE
MCG RAFT ST
Park St
SC ST DAL E AVE G
HOYT ST
H DAL E AVE R
U DALE AVE
MADISON ST
AC
DYSON ST
YL DALE AVE DALE AVE
LA
HENRY ST
E
VULCAN ST
ER AV
B U RTON RD
KE
LARCH AVE
5TH ST
ST LARCH AVE
EDWIN ST
E
M
TO
O
LARCH AVE AUROR A AVE
O
JEFFERSON ST
N/ N
PARK ST
Dr
RE
L AK
SMITH ST
re G Laketon Ave LARCH AVE
ST
ho RE
US
ETO
s LARC H AVE
ke R EL
La
SUPERIO R ST
O Laketon Ave
31
MANZ ST
EY
MC ILWRAITH ST
BI
SEAWAY DR
N/ S
LAK ETO N AVE
DOWD ST
N Laketon Ave TURNER AVE
VA ST
RA
SO Laketon Ave LAKETO N AVE
ND
JARMAN ST
BARCLAY S T
US
N
MP
FRANKLIN ST
ER ST Laketon Ave
NE VADA ST
LI
RAY ST
31 R
LAKETON AVE
( 00
E
ND
COMMER CE ST
TEMPLE ST
ALPHA AVE
AV
E
8B
WIN DSO R AVE
JIROCH ST
RO
N
A MP
S
LEAHY ST
DR
CO NTINENTA L ST
LA
T
)
RE IL lvd
Peck St
ELWOOD ST
CROWLEY ST
HO SO lB
NO
Wood St
ES ia
D
AUSTIN ST
r
VALL EY ST
( 008
N t
LAK us V
Addison St
CLINTON ST
ST HOLBRO OK AVE HOLBRO OK AVE
Ind BL
Roberts St
REYNOLDS ST
HOWDEN ST
HUIZENGA ST
E IA L
A DDISON S T
AV SHELBY ST
D)
TR
Barclay St
PORT CITY BLVD
N
INDUS
O
R IS
9TH ST
Henry St
R YO UNG AV E
Port City Blvd
Harvey St
HA PA RS LO W DR
Park St
8TH ST
YO UNG AV E
LO
OP
LYMA N AVE KEATIN G AVE
BOURDON ST
FAIR AVE KEATING AVE Keating Ave
MA
Keating Ave
RD
KEATING AVE Keating Ave
BRUN SWICK ST
Keating Ave
VULCAN ST
EK AVE
DOWD ST
KEATING AVE
NN
Lakeshore Dr
DCRE KEATING AVE
WIL SON AVE DELA NO AV E
OO
VA ND INTHER DR
SHER IN ST
ST
VE
Lincoln
LARUE ST
NA
CLIFFORD ST
W
M
M
O
St
R IS
cG
C
R VE
ROBERTS ST
RA
G
HA
CT BEIDLER ST
ra
HA NC OC K AVE
TORRENT ST
E
R
ft
MI N RO
AF
Getty St
MO
P
MO RTON AV E DELA NO AVE LA
ar
SE TIM Latimer
T
SEE INSET AT TOP RIGHT
k
BLODG ETT ST
KIN SEY ST
e
ON
W Av
PA
Dr
R
Hackley Black Creek Rd
LINCOLN ST
MIN ER AVE OO ER
d
AV E
DEN
HA CK LEY AV E
R
Hackley Ave
DR
MEUR ER CT
K
N D
ST
RT O LN Hackley Ave
R
MO
MA
HARVEY ST
D
MO RTON AVE
LEON ST
VE
GA
RK
S TEIN ST
AUSTIN ST
CO NTINENTA L ST
VALLEY ST
DIN
HUDS ON ST
EDGEBROO K
R
HA GL EN AVE
ST
N US 31
HA RD ING AVE GLE N AVE Gle HACK LEY AVE
McCracken
HA CK LEY AVE
V INCENT DR
n
LEBOEUF ST
Av
BLACK CREEK RD
ESTES ST
e
CUMBERLAND ST
BA RN EY AV E
St
T
NS
GLADE ST SEAWAY DR
SO
FO UN TA IN ST
SIS
S US 31
Lincoln St
GROVE ST
G
CR OZIER AVE
City of
R
Roberts St
AL BE RTA AV E
MCCRACKE N ST
WESTWO OD ST
EE
LEXINGTON AVE
Muskegon
BARN EY AVE
N
BEIDLER ST
Barclay St
SHERIDAN RD
W
Heights
WICKHA M DR
O
Sheridan Rd
O
CUTLER AVE POLISKI DR
GLENSIDE BLV D
PULASKI AVE
D
CU TLER AVE
ST
DENM ARK ST
Glenside Blvd
LA
PH ILO AV E BEARDSLEY AVE
K E S IDE DR
Henry St
PH ILO AVE RA ND OLPH AVE
PINE GROV E ST
W SH
LEON ST
LE TA RT AV E
WINCH ESTER DR
LETART AVE
E RM
TORRENT ST
MO NTA GU E AVE
A N/ N
CY DR SUNDOLPHIN RD Olthoff St
SH ER MA N BLVD MER OLTHO FF ST
Sherman Blvd
HARRIS DR
US 3
7C)
1R
(0 0
AM
City of
P
M
P(
RA
Norton MA
N
00
Shores City of
7E
1/SHER
Roosevelt
)
Park
Fruitport
S US 3
Township
CITY OF MUSKEGON
I Feet
LEGEND
City of Muskegon Boundary
FIGURE
KEY9: ROUTES
10: KEY ROUTES
AUGUST 2022
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
City of Muskegon Key Route
2220754
PROOF OF ACCEPTANCE
PUBLIC ACT 325
CERTIFICATION OF TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
Certification Year: 2022
Local Road-owning Agency Name: City of Muskegon
Beginning October 2022 and on a three-year cycle thereafter, certification must be made for
compliance to Public Act 325. A local road-owning agency with 100 certified miles or more must
certify that it has developed an asset management plan for the road and bridge assets. Signing this
form certifies that the hitherto referred agency meets with minimum requirements as outlined by
Public Act 325 and agency-defined goals and objectives.
This form must be signed by the mayor of the local road-owning agency and the chief financial
officer of the local road-owning agency.
Signature
Printed Name: Ken Johnson, Mayor
Date: _____________________, 2022
Signature
Printed Name: Ken Grant, Finance Director
Date: _____________________, 2022
Due every three years based on agency submission schedule.
Submittal Date: _______________________, 2022.
See attached resolution.
26
CITY OF MUSKEGON
RESOLUTION
Certification of 2022 Compliance Asset Management Plan
WHEREAS, Beginning October, 2022 and on a three-year cycle thereafter, certification must be
made for compliance of Public Act 325; and
WHEREAS, A local road-owning agency with 100 certified miles or more must certify that it has
developed an asset management plan for the road, bridge, culvert and traffic signal assets.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT BE RESOLVED; the City of Muskegon hereby certifies the 2022
Compliance Asset Management Plan and authorizes the Mayor and Finance Director to sign the
Proof of Acceptance form.
Yeas:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
I certify that the above Resolution was adopted by the City Commission of the City of Muskegon
on _________________________, 2022.
BY: Ann Meisch, City Clerk
________________________________________________________________________
Signature Date
27
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: October 11th, 2022 Title: Combination Sewer
Truck
Submitted By: Joe Buckingham DPW - Equipment
Brief Summary:
Staff is requesting approval to purchase a new combination sewer truck.
Detailed Summary & Background:
The equipment division is seeking approval to purchase one (900 ECO) Combination Sewer Truck
from Fredrickson Supply within the Sourcewell Contract in the amount of $565,555.00.
Currently we have two combination sewer trucks that are each approaching 15 years of age and
are due for replacement. The existing trucks require extensive upkeep and maintenance and have
surpassed their useful life. In the future we are looking to shorten the length of use for this piece of
equipment and only maintain one active combination sewer truck in our fleet but cycle it through for
replacement on a more frequent basis to lessen the maintenance costs and increase operational
efficiencies.
Delivery of the truck and payments are estimated at least 1 year out from date of order.
Staff originally budgeted to finance this vehicle over 5-years with the first payment amount shown
in the 22/23 budget. Given the rapid increase in interest rates staff plans to re-evaluate the
available financing mechanisms to best make this purchase. As noted below the first payments
will not be due until next fiscal year which allows us additional time to research those options.
Goal/Focus Area/Action Item Addressed:
Financial Infrastructure / Identify specific major capital projects across all departments
Amount Requested: $565,555.00 (23/24) Amount Budgeted: $107,000 (22/23)
Fund(s) or Account(s): 661-563-971 Fund(s) or Account(s): 661-563-971
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the purchase of a new 900 ECO Combination Sewer Truck from Fredrickson Supply in
the amount of $565,555.00
Approvals: Guest(s) Invited / Presenting
Immediate Division Head Information Technology
Other Division Heads Communication Yes
Legal Review No
For City Clerk Use Only:
Commission Action:
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: October 11th, 2022 Title: Parks Donation Policy
Submitted By: Matt Schwemin / Leo Evans DPW - Parks
Brief Summary:
Staff is presenting a revised policy to cover donations made for City Parks.
Detailed Summary & Background:
Staff previously presented a new policy related to donations made towards the City Parks at the
August Work Session meeting. Staff has made noted revisions to the document and returns it for
further discussion and/or adoption. Major revisions made are as follows:
• Added language to the “Donation Cost” section that allowed for City to partner on specific
projects at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Director when those projects are
deemed to be in extensive mutual interest to both the donor and the City Park system.
Intended to provide a mechanism for shared cost on select donation items when
appropriate.
• Added language to the “Donation Term” section that encouraged donors to partner with the
CFFMC on donations that are intended to exist in perpetuity.
• Added language to the “Donation Term” section to define an Act of God.
Goal/Focus Area/Action Item Addressed:
Destination Community & Quality of Life / Enhanced Parks and Recreation Department and
Services
Amount Requested: $0 Amount Budgeted: $0
Fund(s) or Account(s): N/A Fund(s) or Account(s): N/A
Recommended Motion: Approve the Donation Policy for City Parks
Approvals: Guest(s) Invited / Presenting
Immediate Division Head Information Technology
Yes
Other Division Heads Communication
Legal Review No
For City Clerk Use Only:
Commission Action:
DONATION POLICY
for
PARKS DEPARTMENTCITY
PARKS
EFFECTIVE: August 9th, 2022TBD
PURPOSE
The City of Muskegon adopts the following policy in order to formalize the process and procedures
surrounding donations to the Parks Department.
GOALS
The City of Muskegon maintains this policy with the goals of:
• Providing amenities within the park system that are a benefit to all users
• Offering residents and visitors a means to create a memorial
• Creating a sustainable and uniform policy
• Spreading the donations to underserved areas of the city
GENERAL RULES & OUTLINE
The Director of Parks and Recreation or their proxy will serve as the lead point of contact for the city on
all donation requests, installations, and follow up.
Donation requests will be accepted and reviewed year-round. Installation of approved donations will be
seasonally limited at the discretion of the staff representative.
Donation types, costs, locations, term, and timeframe are outlined in the sections below.
PRE-EXISTING DONATIONS
Donations that existed prior to this policy will remain in place until such time that they require
replacement. That time shall be established at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Director based
on the condition of the donation and the expected life of that donation. At such time that the Parks and
Recreation Director determines a replacement is necessary they will attempt to contact the original donor
and offer them an opportunity to renew their donation in accordance with this policy. If the original donor
is unable to be contacted or they decline to renew the donation opportunity will be offered to a new
donor.
DONATION TYPES
Donation types are as classified below. Types 1-4 are standardized items, with Type 5 allowing for
consideration of alternatives on a case by case basis:
1. Bench set on a concrete pad
2. Tree of an approved species
3. Paver/Plaque with inscription along boardwalk/walkway
4. Brochure (monetary donation to support creation of a comprehensive park brochure)
5. Other donations considered on a case by case basis
3
DONATION COSTS
Donation costs for donation types 1-2 will be specified by the Parks and Recreation Director at the time
of the request and will include the full cost to purchase, install, and maintain the donated facilities
throughout the expected life of the donation.
Donation costs for donation type 3 will be specified by the Parks Supervisor and will be a standardized
cost per foot donation to sponsor and support the long-term maintenance and replacement costs
associated with the boardwalks and walkways throughout the park system.
Donation costs for donation type 4 can be any monetary amount to support the creation and printing of
a comprehensive park brochure for all city parks. The estimated cost to create and print these brochures
is $XXXX). Once the goalsufficient funds are is reached donors will receive a printed copy with other copies
created for general sale/distribution to promote the park system. Brochures will include a recognition
section for all donors involved in the process.
Donation costs for donation type 5 are determined on a case by case basis.
.
Donation requests that are approved for locations within the Lakeside, Glenside, and Beachwood/Bluffton
neighborhoods will be charged double the actual cost as outlined above. The additional proceeds
generated will be used to provide matching amenities to parks in other areas of the city that have not
traditionally received as high of demand for donations.
Donation costs (except Type 3) do not include a plaque. Plaques may be permitted on certain donation
types; however, the purchase of the plaque shall be the responsibility of the donor. City reserves the right
to approve the material, content, and size of any plaques. City will install donor provided and City
approved plaques as a part of the donation cost.
In instances where there is extensive mutual interest in a particular investment City staff (within the
confines of the appropriate level of purchasing authority) may negotiate with a donor to partner on a
particular donation. These instances will be handled on a case by case basis at the discretion of the Park
and Recreation Director.
DONATION LOCATIONS
Donor can request their donation at any location within the city park system, or any location within the
city right-of-way.
Location requests within the park system will be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation
Director on a case by case basis.
Location requests within the right-of-way will be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation
Director and the Engineering Department on a case by case basis.
4
DONATION TERM
Donation term will be specified by the Parks and Recreation Director and will be variable based on the
type of donation, location of the donation, and the expected life of the donation.
During the term of the donation the City will be responsible to provide reasonable maintenance and care
for the donation to sustain a usable condition.
Donors are encouraged to partner with the Community Foundation For Muskegon County to establish a
perpetual care fund for donations that are intended to exist in perpetuity. The Parks and Recreation
Director should be consulted in these discussions to assist in establishing the life cycle cost of a particular
donation that is desired to remain in perpetuity. Donations provided with a perpetual care fund will be
considered automatically renewed at the end of the original and any subsequent terms.
Any damage caused by an Act of God (including floods, storms, wind, lighting, hail, or other comparable
natural disasters) during the term of the agreement will void the donation term. The original donor will
be offered an opportunity to renew their donation in this instance. If the original donor declines to renew
the donation opportunity can be offered to another party.
At the first cause for replacement of a donation after the expiration of the donation term the original
donor will be offered an opportunity to renew their donation. If the original donor declines to renew the
donation opportunity can be offered to another party.
DONATION TIMELINE
The timeline for any given donation request can be variable based on the seasonal demand of the Parks
Department staff responsible for the review of requests. In general, the process will follow along these
lines:
Step 1 – Prospective donors need to make contact via email with the Parks Department staff to express
their interest in initiating a donation. Inquiries can be made at ([email protected]) and
should include the type of donation requested, a description of the location with photo, and the donors
contact information.
Step 2 – Parks Supervisor will review the inquiry and provide a preliminary response to the donor
indicating a preliminary acceptance of the donation type and location along with any conditions that
apply. The response will include a price, and term for the donation based on the above guidelines along
with a copy of the memorandum of understanding.
Step 3 – Donor must return the memorandum of understanding along with payment to the City to indicate
their acceptance of the terms.
Step 4 – Parks and Recreation Director will proceed to procurement and provide the donor with a
preliminary schedule based on the estimated procurement date and seasonal availability to provide the
city obligations.
5
Step 5 – Parks and Recreation Director and Donor can attempt to work together on a specific installation
date, however this can’t always be guaranteed to succeed.
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Justified
Memorandum of Understanding – Park Donation
The City of Muskegon Parks Department will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Name / Phone / Email
effective upon _____________________________.
Date
The City of Muskegon Parks Department will order, install and maintain a donation of
_____________________________________________________________________________________
to be located __________________________________________________________________________
for the term of __________________________ and for a cost of _______________________________.
During the term of the donation the City will be responsible to provide reasonable maintenance and care
for the donation to sustain a usable condition.
Any damage caused by an Act of God during the term of the agreement will void the donation term. The
original donor will be offered an opportunity to renew their donation in this instance. If the original donor
declines to renew the donation opportunity can be offered to another party.
At the first cause for replacement of a donation after the expiration of the donation term the original
donor will be offered an opportunity to renew their donation. If the original donor declines to renew the
donation opportunity can be offered to another party.
The Parks Department retains final say in the donation location which will be coordinated with the donor
6
prior to installation.
CITY STAFF USE ONLY: APPROVED / DENIED
NAME/TITLE:_________________________________________________________
DATE:_____________ FEE:_________________
NOTES:______________________________________________________________
7
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: October 11, 2022 Title: Rezoning 398 Catawba
Ave
Submitted By: Mike Franzak Department: Planning
Brief Summary: Request to rezone the property at 398 Catawba Ave from R-3, Single Family High
Density Residential to B-4, General Business, by Gordon Painting and Pressure Washing, LLC.
Detailed Summary & Background: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
rezoning by a 7-0 vote.
Goal/Focus Area/Action Item Addressed:
Goal 2: Economic development, micro-commercial areas in neighborhoods.
Amount Requested: Amount Budgeted:
Fund(s) or Account(s): Fund(s) or Account(s):
Recommended Motion: I move to rezone the property at 398 Catawba Ave from R-3, Single Family
High Density Residential to B-4, General Business.
Approvals: Guest(s) Invited / Presenting
Immediate Division Head Information Technology
Other Division Heads Communication Yes
Legal Review No
For City Clerk Use Only:
Commission Action:
Planning Commission Excerpt:
Hearing; Case 2022-26: Request to rezone the property at 398 Catawba Ave from R-3, Single Family
High Density Residential to B-4, General Business, by Gordon Painting and Pressure Washing, LLC.
SUMMARY
1. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Single Family Residential.
2. The commercial building on site is considered grandfathered and has been used by Gordon
Painting for many years.
3. The applicant would like to put an addition on to the building in order to start a power washing
business alongside the painting business. However, non-conforming uses are only allowed to
expand their buildings up to twenty-five percent.
4. The property is adjacent to a commercial/industrial corridor.
5. Staff had initially discussed rezoning the property to Light Industrial since it is adjacent to light
industrial properties. However, these uses can be located in a General Business zone and will offer
protection to the residential neighborhood that more intensive uses will not be able to be located
there.
6. Notice was sent to all properties within 300 feet. At the time of this writing, staff had not received
any comments from the public.
398 Catawba Ave
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
CITY OF MUSKEGON
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICHIGAN
ORDINANCE NO.
An ordinance to amend the zoning map of the City to provide for a zone change for 398 Catawba Ave from R-3 to B-4
THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MUSKEGON HEREBY ORDAINS:
The zoning map of the City of Muskegon is hereby amended to change the zoning for 398 Catawba Ave St from R-3 to B-
4.
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 ENTIRE LOTS 7 & 10 PART LOTS 8 & 9 BLK 263 DESC AS COM
@ NELY COR OF SD BLK BEING NELY COR LOT 9 SD BLK TH S 56D 39M 12S W ALG N LN SD LOT 9 40 FT TO
POB TH S 33D 26M 50S E PAR WITH ELY LN SD LOT 9 132 FT TH S 19D 29M 54S E 69.80 FT TH N 89D 53M
26S E 20 FT TO SLY LN LOT 8 ALSO BEING WLY LN WOOD ST TH S 00D 06M 39S E 63.68 FT TH S 56D 39M
12S W ALG SLY LN LOT 7 57.33 FT TO SWLY COR LOT 7 TH N 33D 26M 50S W ALG WLY LN LOTS 7 & 10 264
FT TO NWLY COR LOT 10 TH N 56D 39M 12S E ALG NLY LN LOTS 10 & 9 92.44 FT TO POB SD PARCEL
CONTAINS 0.52 AC M/L SUBJECT TO ANY & ALL ESMT OR RES OF REC OR APPARENT (DESC CHANGE
10/19/99)
This ordinance adopted:
Ayes:
Nayes:
Adoption Date:
Effective Date:
First Reading:
Second Reading:
CITY OF MUSKEGON
By: __________________________
Ann Meisch, MMC
City Clerk
CERTIFICATE (Rezoning 398 Catawba Ave from R-3 to B-4)
The undersigned, being the duly qualified clerk of the City of Muskegon, Muskegon County, Michigan, does hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of an ordinance adopted by the City Commission of the City of
Muskegon, at a regular meeting of the City Commission on the 11th day of October 2022, at which meeting a quorum
was present and remained throughout, and that the original of said ordinance is on file in the records of the City of
Muskegon. I further certify that the meeting was conducted and public notice was given pursuant to and in full
compliance with the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, Public Acts of Michigan No. 33 of 2006, and that minutes were kept
and will be or have been made available as required thereby.
DATED: ___________________, 2022 ________________________________
Ann Meisch, MMC
Clerk, City of Muskegon
Publish Notice of Adoption to be published once within ten (10) days of final adoption.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
NOTICE OF ADOPTION
Please take notice that on October 11, 2022, the City Commission of the City of Muskegon adopted an
ordinance amending the zoning map to provide for the change of zoning for 398 Catawba Ave from R-3 to B-4:
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 ENTIRE LOTS 7 & 10 PART LOTS 8 & 9 BLK 263 DESC
AS COM @ NELY COR OF SD BLK BEING NELY COR LOT 9 SD BLK TH S 56D 39M 12S W ALG N LN
SD LOT 9 40 FT TO POB TH S 33D 26M 50S E PAR WITH ELY LN SD LOT 9 132 FT TH S 19D 29M 54S
E 69.80 FT TH N 89D 53M 26S E 20 FT TO SLY LN LOT 8 ALSO BEING WLY LN WOOD ST TH S 00D
06M 39S E 63.68 FT TH S 56D 39M 12S W ALG SLY LN LOT 7 57.33 FT TO SWLY COR LOT 7 TH N 33D
26M 50S W ALG WLY LN LOTS 7 & 10 264 FT TO NWLY COR LOT 10 TH N 56D 39M 12S E ALG NLY LN
LOTS 10 & 9 92.44 FT TO POB SD PARCEL CONTAINS 0.52 AC M/L SUBJECT TO ANY & ALL ESMT
OR RES OF REC OR APPARENT (DESC CHANGE 10/19/99)
Copies of the ordinance may be viewed and purchased at reasonable cost at the Office of the City Clerk in the City Hall,
933 Terrace Street, Muskegon, Michigan, during regular business hours.
This ordinance amendment is effective ten days from the date of this publication.
Published ____________________, 2022 CITY OF MUSKEGON
By ___________________________
Ann Meisch, MMC
City Clerk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISH ONCE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF FINAL PASSAGE.
Account No. 101-80400-5354
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: October 11, 2022 Title: Firefighting Turnout Set
Submitted By: Timothy Kozal, Director of Public Safety Department: Fire
Brief Summary: The Fire Department seeking approval to purchase firefighting turnout gear to
replace worn and aging equipment.
Detailed Summary & Background:
The Fire Department is seeking approval to purchase ten (10) sets of firefighting turnout gear.
Each set is comprised of a coat and pants with suspenders. The current sets are worn and contain
PFAS materials that are harmful to firefighters. The waterproofing materials in firefighting turnouts
were found to contain PFAS. The vendor allowed us the same price break the City of Grand
Rapids received for their recent purchase if turnout gear.
Goal/Focus Area/Action Item Addressed:
Refer to the 2022-2027 Long Term Goals document.
Amount Requested: $29,650.00 Amount Budgeted: $30,000
Fund(s) or Account(s): 101-901-982-092114 Fund(s) or Account(s): 101-901-982-092114
Recommended Motion: To approve staff to purchase ten sets of firefighting turnout gear from MES
of Sanford Michigan.
Approvals: Get approval from division head at a minimum prior Guest(s) Invited / Presenting
to sending to the Clerk.
Immediate Division Head Information Technology Yes
Other Division Heads Communication No
Legal Review
For City Clerk Use Only:
Commission Action:
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: October 11, 2022 Title: Ten Month Extension to Complete
Construction of Home at 1210 Morgan Ave.
Submitted By: Hope Griffith Department: Planning Department
Brief Summary: City staff is seeking authorization of a 10-month extension for the construction of a
single-family home on the vacant lot at 1210 Morgan Avenue that was sold to Mr. Edward Pierce
Jr.
Detailed Summary: The City Commission approved the vacant lot sale of 1210 Morgan Ave. to Mr.
Edward Pierce Jr. at their May 11, 2021, meeting. Mr. Pierce was given 18 months to construct a
single-family home on the property starting from the closing date of July 7, 2021. Mr. Pierce is
asking for an extension from the January 7, 2023, deadline due to scheduling issues with a
contractor for the construction. Mr. Pierce stated that he will be trying to find another contractor
and is asking for an extension until November 30, 2023.
Amount Requested: None. Amount Budgeted: $0
Fund(s) or Account(s): N/A Fund(s) or Account(s): N/A
Recommended Motion: Staff recommends approval of the time extension, as well as authorization
for both the City Mayor and Clerk to sign the attached resolution.
Check if the following Departments need to approve the item first:
Police Dept.
Fire Dept.
IT Dept.
For City Clerk Use Only:
Commission Action:
Resolution No. _______
MUSKEGON CITY COMMISSION
RESOLUTION APPROVING A TEN-MONTH EXTENSION TO COMPLETE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 1210 MORGAN
AVENUE.
WHEREAS, Mr. Edward Pierce Jr. has submitted a request for a time extension; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Edward Pierce Jr. has shown a commitment to complete the construction of the
home; and
WHEREAS, the property is described as: City of Muskegon Urban Renewal Plat Number 4 Lot
737 with a Parcel # 61-24-613-000-737-00; and
WHEREAS, this ten month extension will expire on November 30, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the completion of the construction of the home will further enhance the ambiance
of the City’s residential area.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Mr. Edward Pierce Jr. be granted an additional
ten months to complete the construction of the home located at 1210 Morgan Avenue.
Adopted this 11th day of October 2022.
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
By: _________________________
Ken Johnson
Mayor
Attest: ________________________
Ann Marie Meisch, MMC
Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I hearby 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 October 11, 2022.
By: ________________________
Ann Marie Meisch, MMC
Clerk
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: October 11, 2022 Title: Ordinance Amendment
– Reduced Housing Unit Size
Minimums
Submitted By: Mike Franzak Department: Planning
Brief Summary: Staff-initiated request to amend section 2319 of the zoning ordinance to reduce the
minimum size requirements for single-family houses, rowhomes, duplexes and small multiplexes (up
to 6 units) from 850 sf of floor area to 550 sf (total) and to also change the minimum size requirements
for large multiplexes (6 units and above), mixed-use buildings and accessory dwelling units from 650
sf of floor area to 375 sf (total).
Detailed Summary & Background: A motion to recommend approval of the original request failed
by a 2-3 vote at the August 11 Planning Commission meeting. At the august 23 City Commission
meeting, staff requested to remove the item from the agenda in order to make some changes to
the proposal and bring back to Planning Commission. The proposal was amended and brought
back to the Planning Commission at their September 15 meeting, where they recommended
approval of the new amendments by a 6-1 vote.
The changes to the original amendment include requiring an additional 100 sf for each additional
bedroom; additional language stating that all units located in single-family residential districts must
comply with Section 400 of the zoning ordinance, which will prevent single-family houses from being
split into additional units. It should also be noted that the current minimum housing size is measured by
“floor area,” which is defined by the zoning ordinance as “the area in a dwelling unit included in the
determination of occupancy restrictions. It includes the sum of floor areas of bedrooms, and common
living areas. The floor area of storage areas and closet, basements without a second egress, attached
garages, breezeways, and enclosed and unenclosed porches shall be excluded.” Staff is proposing to
no longer use this method in determining the minimum size, but rather by measuring from the outside
wall of the unit.
Goal/Focus Area/Action Item Addressed:
Goal 2: Economic Development, Housing, and Business/Diverse Housing Types/2.3 Increase
Variety of Housing Types/2.4 Develop Subsidies to Improve Housing Affordability
Amount Requested: Amount Budgeted:
Fund(s) or Account(s): Fund(s) or Account(s):
Recommended Motion: I move to approve the request to amend section 2319 of the zoning
ordinance to reduce the minimum size requirements for single-family houses, rowhomes, duplexes
and small multiplexes (up to 6 units) from 850 sf of floor area to 550 sf (total) and to also change the
minimum size requirements for large multiplexes (6 units and above), mixed-use buildings and
accessory dwelling units from 650 sf of floor area to 375 sf (total).
Approvals: Guest(s) Invited / Presenting
Immediate Division Head Information Technology
Other Division Heads Communication Yes
Legal Review No
For City Clerk Use Only:
Commission Action:
Planning Commission Excerpt:
Case 2022-22: Staff-initiated request to amend section 2319 of the zoning ordinance to reduce the minimum
size requirements for single-family houses, rowhomes, duplexes and small multiplexes (up to 6 units) from
850 sf of floor area to 550 sf (total) and to also change the minimum size requirements for large multiplexes
(6 units and above), mixed-use buildings and accessory dwelling units from 650 sf of floor area to 375 sf
(total).
SUMMARY
1. This case was presented at the August 11 Planning Commission meeting. The board did not
recommend approval of the amendments at the meeting. At the following City Commission meeting,
staff requested to take the case back to the Planning Commission with some changes and
clarification, to which the City Commission approved.
2. Staff is now proposing to keep the requirement that an additional 100 sf is required for each
additional bedroom.
3. Staff has added that all units located in single-family residential districts must comply with Section
400 of the zoning ordinance, which will prevent single-family houses from being split into additional
units.
4. For one and two family homes, staff has proposed the clause that states that if the house is less than
850 sqft and is to be located on a lot that is large enough to split under the zoning regulations, it must
be placed in such a fashion as to allow enough room to split the lot and create an additional buildable
lot. This clause had previously been proposed for the for the mixed-use building section as well, but
is not needed because these types of requirements are addressed elsewhere in the ordinance,
specifically the form based code and multifamily sections of the code.
5. It should be noted the current minimum housing size is measured by “floor area,” which is defined by
the zoning ordinance as the area in a dwelling unit included in the determination of occupancy
restrictions. It includes the sum of floor areas of bedrooms, and common living areas. The floor area
of storage areas and closet, basements without a second egress, attached garages, breezeways, and
enclosed and unenclosed porches shall be excluded. Staff is proposing to no longer use this method in
determining the minimum size, but rather by measuring from the outside wall of the unit.
Summary of the case from the precious meeting:
6. In an effort to address housing affordability and to provide residents with a wide range of housing
choices, staff is proposing to reduce the minimum housing size requirements listed in the Residential
Design Criteria section of the zoning ordinance.
7. Currently, single-family houses and duplexes are required to have a minimum living area (excluding
all basement area) of 850 sqft for a one bedroom dwelling. For each bedroom thereafter, an additional
100 sqft of living space is required.
8. Living area is defined in the zoning ordinance as the area in a dwelling unit included in the
determination of occupancy restrictions. It includes the sum of floor areas of bedrooms, and common
living areas. The floor area of storage areas and closet, basements without a second egress, attached
garages, breezeways, and enclosed and unenclosed porches shall be excluded.
9. Staff is proposing to reduce the minimum size of single-family houses, rowhomes, duplexes and small
multiplexes (up to 6 units) to 550 sqft total (excluding all basement area) per unit, measured by the
outside dimensions of the building, not by using the “living area” definition in the zoning ordinance.
There would also be a stipulation that structures under the current minimum size of 850 sqft, which are
to be placed on large lots, must be placed on the property in a way as to leave room for a potential lot
split, if the property is large enough to split under its zoning designation regulations.
10. Staff is proposing to reduce the minimum size of apartment units in large multiplexes (6 units and
above) and mixed-use buildings from 650 sqft of living space to 375 sqft total. The current size
requirements are too large for developers to be able to provide traditional studio apartments.
Current ordinance excerpt:
SECTION 2319: [RESIDENTIAL DESIGN CRITERIA]
In the case of a one (1) family or two (2) family dwelling unit which is of standard construction, a mobile
home, a premanufactured, or a precut dwelling structure, and any additions or alterations thereto, erected or
placed in the City of Muskegon, other than a mobile home located in a licensed mobile home park approved
under the provisions of Article V, MHP Mobile Home Park Districts, shall conform to the following regulations
in addition to all other regulations of this Ordinance:
1. The dwelling unit shall have a minimum living area (excluding all basement area) of eight hundred and
fifty (850) square feet for a one (1) bedroom dwelling. For each bedroom thereafter, an additional
100 square feet of living space shall be provided.
In the case of a multi-family (more than 2 units) dwelling structure which is of standard construction, a mobile
home, a premanufactured, or a precut dwelling structure, and any additions or alterations thereto, erected or
placed in the City of Muskegon, other than a mobile home located in a licensed mobile home park approved
under the provisions of Article V, MHP Mobile Home Park Districts, shall conform to the following regulations
in addition to all other regulations of this Ordinance:
1. Each dwelling unit shall have a minimum living area (excluding all basement area) of six hundred and
fifty (650) square feet for a one (1) bedroom unit, of eight hundred and seventy-five (875) square
feet for a two (2) bedroom unit, and of twelve hundred (1200) square feet for a three (3) bedroom
unit. For each bedroom thereafter, an additional 100 square feet of living space shall be provided.
Proposed ordinance:
All single-family houses, duplexes, rowhouses and small multiplexes (3-6 units), other than a mobile home
located in a licensed mobile home park approved under the provisions of Article V, MHP Mobile Home
Park Districts, shall conform to the following regulations in addition to all other regulations of this
Ordinance:
1. Each dwelling unit shall have a minimum size of 550 sqft, excluding all basement area. This shall be
measured from the outside wall of the unit as described on the site plan.
2. If a principal structure is less than 850 sqft and is to be located on a lot that is large enough to split
under the zoning regulations, it must be placed in such a fashion as to allow enough room to split the
lot and create an additional buildable lot. The lot does not actually have to be split at the time of
construction and may be done at a later date at the property owners discretion.
3. All buildings located in single family residential districts must comply with Section 400.2 of the zoning
ordinance. Multiple family dwellings are only allowed in single-family residential districts if the home
has already been altered with prior approval to allow for multiple dwellings. One-family dwellings may
not be altered to allow for multiple dwellings, not may new homes be built for multiple dwellings.
All dwelling units within large multiplexes (6 units and above), mixed-use buildings and accessory
dwelling units shall conform to the following regulations in addition to all other regulations of this
Ordinance:
1. Each dwelling unit shall have a minimum size (excluding all basement area) of 375 sqft. This shall be
measured from the outside wall of the unit as described on the site plan.
2. All buildings located in single family residential districts must comply with Section 400.2 of the zoning
ordinance. Multiple family dwellings are only allowed in single-family residential districts if the home
has already been altered with prior approval to allow for multiple dwellings. One-family dwellings may
not be altered to allow for multiple dwellings, not may new homes be built for multiple dwellings.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICHIGAN
ORDINANCE NO._____
An ordinance to amend the section 2319 of the zoning ordinance to reduce the minimum size requirements for
single-family houses, rowhomes, duplexes and small multiplexes (up to 6 units) from 850 sf of floor area to
550 sf (total) and to also change the minimum size requirements for large multiplexes (6 units and above),
mixed-use buildings and accessory dwelling units from 650 sf of floor area to 375 sf (total).
THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MUSKEGON HEREBY ORDAINS:
All single-family houses, duplexes, rowhouses and small multiplexes (3-6 units), other than a mobile home
located in a licensed mobile home park approved under the provisions of Article V, MHP Mobile Home
Park Districts, shall conform to the following regulations in addition to all other regulations of this
Ordinance:
1. Each dwelling unit shall have a minimum size of 550 sqft, excluding all basement area. This shall be
measured from the outside wall of the unit as described on the site plan.
2. If a principal structure is less than 850 sqft and is to be located on a lot that is large enough to split
under the zoning regulations, it must be placed in such a fashion as to allow enough room to split the
lot and create an additional buildable lot. The lot does not actually have to be split at the time of
construction and may be done at a later date at the property owners discretion.
3. All buildings located in single family residential districts must comply with Section 400.2 of the zoning
ordinance. Multiple family dwellings are only allowed in single-family residential districts if the home
has already been altered with prior approval to allow for multiple dwellings. One-family dwellings may
not be altered to allow for multiple dwellings, not may new homes be built for multiple dwellings.
All dwelling units within large multiplexes (6 units and above), mixed-use buildings and accessory
dwelling units shall conform to the following regulations in addition to all other regulations of this
Ordinance:
1. Each dwelling unit shall have a minimum size (excluding all basement area) of 375 sqft. This shall be
measured from the outside wall of the unit as described on the site plan.
2. All buildings located in single family residential districts must comply with Section 400.2 of the zoning
ordinance. Multiple family dwellings are only allowed in single-family residential districts if the home
has already been altered with prior approval to allow for multiple dwellings. One-family dwellings may
not be altered to allow for multiple dwellings, not may new homes be built for multiple dwellings.
This ordinance adopted:
Ayes:______________________________________________________________
Nayes:_____________________________________________________________
Adoption Date:
Effective Date:
First Reading:
Second Reading:
CITY OF MUSKEGON
By: _________________________________
Ann Meisch, MMC, City Clerk
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned, being the duly qualified clerk of the City of Muskegon, Muskegon
County, Michigan, does hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of an
ordinance adopted by the City Commission of the City of Muskegon, at a regular meeting of the
City Commission on the 11th day of October 2022, at which meeting a quorum was present and
remained throughout, and that the original of said ordinance is on file in the records of the City
of Muskegon. I further certify that the meeting was conducted and public notice was given
pursuant to and in full compliance with the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, Public Acts of
Michigan No. 33 of 2006, and that minutes were kept and will be or have been made available as
required thereby.
DATED: ___________________, 2022. __________________________________________
Ann Meisch, MMC
Clerk, City of Muskegon
Publish: Notice of Adoption to be published once within ten (10) days of final adoption.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
NOTICE OF ADOPTION
Please take notice that on August 23, 2022, the City Commission of the City of Muskegon adopted an
ordinance to amend section 2319 of the zoning ordinance to reduce the minimum size requirements for
single-family houses, rowhomes, duplexes and small multiplexes (up to 6 units) from 850 sf of floor area
to 550 sf (total) and to also change the minimum size requirements for large multiplexes (6 units and
above), mixed-use buildings and accessory dwelling units from 650 sf of floor area to 375 sf (total).
All single-family houses, duplexes, rowhouses and small multiplexes (3-6 units), other than a mobile
home located in a licensed mobile home park approved under the provisions of Article V, MHP Mobile
Home Park Districts, shall conform to the following regulations in addition to all other regulations of
this Ordinance:
1. Each dwelling unit shall have a minimum size of 550 sqft, excluding all basement area. This shall
be measured from the outside wall of the unit as described on the site plan.
2. If a principal structure is less than 850 sqft and is to be located on a lot that is large enough to split
under the zoning regulations, it must be placed in such a fashion as to allow enough room to split
the lot and create an additional buildable lot. The lot does not actually have to be split at the time
of construction and may be done at a later date at the property owners discretion.
3. All buildings located in single family residential districts must comply with Section 400.2 of the
zoning ordinance. Multiple family dwellings are only allowed in single-family residential districts
if the home has already been altered with prior approval to allow for multiple dwellings. One-
family dwellings may not be altered to allow for multiple dwellings, not may new homes be built
for multiple dwellings.
All dwelling units within large multiplexes (6 units and above), mixed-use buildings and accessory
dwelling units shall conform to the following regulations in addition to all other regulations of this
Ordinance:
1. Each dwelling unit shall have a minimum size (excluding all basement area) of 375 sqft. This shall
be measured from the outside wall of the unit as described on the site plan.
2. All buildings located in single family residential districts must comply with Section 400.2 of the
zoning ordinance. Multiple family dwellings are only allowed in single-family residential districts
if the home has already been altered with prior approval to allow for multiple dwellings. One-
family dwellings may not be altered to allow for multiple dwellings, not may new homes be built
for multiple dwellings.
Copies of the ordinance may be viewed and purchased at reasonable cost at the Office of the City Clerk
in the City Hall, 933 Terrace Street, Muskegon, Michigan, during regular business hours.
This ordinance amendment is effective ten days from the date of this publication.
Published ____________________, 2022. CITY OF MUSKEGON
By _________________________________
Ann Meisch, MMC
City Clerk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISH ONCE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF FINAL PASSAGE.
Account No. 101-80400-5354