City Commission Packet 12-13-2011

View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer

  CITY OF MUSKEGON
    CITY COMMISSION MEETING
                 DECEMBER 13, 2011
 CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS @ 5:30 P.M.
                             AGENDA


CALL TO ORDER:
PRAYER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
HONORS AND AWARDS:
INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
   A. Approval of Minutes. CITY CLERK
   B. 2012 User Fee Update. FINANCE
   C. Request to Deny & Accept Properties That Did Not Sell During the Tax
      Sale for 2011. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
   D. Deficit Elimination Plan for Home Rehabilitation Fund and State Grants
      Fund. FINANCE
   E. Improvement Plan for Hackley Park – Donor. PLANNING & ECONOMIC
      DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
   A. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Amendment.             PLANNING &
      ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNICATIONS:
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Consolidation of Services Plan – EVIP. FINANCE
B. 2012 National League of Cities Membership Dues. CITY CLERK
   ANY OTHER BUSINESS:
   PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
   Reminder: Individuals who would like to address the City Commission shall do the following:
   Fill out a request to speak form attached to the agenda or located in the back of the room.
    Submit the form to the City Clerk.
   Be recognized by the Chair.
   Step forward to the microphone.
   State name and address.
   Limit of 3 minutes to address the Commission.
   (Speaker representing a group may be allowed 10 minutes if previously registered with City Clerk.)

   CLOSED SESSION:
   ADJOURNMENT:
ADA POLICY: The City of Muskegon will provide necessary auxiliary aids and services to individuals who
want to attend the meeting upon twenty four hour notice to the City of Muskegon. Please contact Ann
Marie Cummings, City Clerk, 933 Terrace Street, Muskegon, MI 49440 or by calling (231) 724-6705 or
TTY/TDD: dial 7-1-1 and request a representative to dial (231) 724-6705.
Date:     December 13, 2011
To:       Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From:     Ann Marie Cummings, City Clerk
RE:       Approval of Minutes




SUMMARY OF REQUEST:             To approve minutes of the City
Commission Meeting that was held on Tuesday, November 22, 2011.


FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.


BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the minutes.
     CITY OF MUSKEGON
       CITY COMMISSION MEETING
                   NOVEMBER 22, 2011
    CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS @ 5:30 P.M.
                               MINUTES

   The Regular Commission Meeting of the City of Muskegon was held at City
Hall, 933 Terrace Street, Muskegon, Michigan at 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, November
22, 2011.
   Vice Mayor Gawron opened the meeting with a prayer from Pastor Josh
Dear from the Lakeside Baptist Church after which the Commission and public
recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL FOR THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING:
   Present: Vice Mayor Stephen Gawron, Commissioners Chris Carter, Clara
Shepherd, Lawrence Spataro, and Steve Wisneski, City Manager Bryon Mazade,
City Attorney John Schrier, and City Clerk Ann Marie Cummings.
   Absent: Mayor Stephen Warmington and Commissioner Sue Wierengo (both
excused)
2011-83 CONSENT AGENDA:
     A. Approval of Minutes. CITY CLERK
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:        To approve minutes of the November 7th City
Commission Meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the minutes.
     B. Approval of Realtor and Title Company for CNS.        COMMUNITY &
        NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To extend the Procurement Contract to June 30, 2012,
for Exit Lakeshore Realty and Midstate Title Agency to be used by the City of
Muskegon Community and Neighborhood Services office.
The CNS office put out public notices for a variety of trades. No bids were
received for realtors or title companies. We already have a good working
relationship with Exit Lakeshore Realty and Midstate Title Agency. We would


                                     1
like to extend their contract until June 30, 2012.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The funding for any project the realtor or title company
would be used for would come out of the funds the house was originally
established under: CDBG, HOME or NSP1.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the extension of the Procurement
Contracts for Exit Lakeshore Realty and Midstate Title Agency for the Community
and Neighborhood Services office.
      C. Budgeted Vehicle Replacement. PUBLIC WORKS
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Authorize staff to purchase one 2012 Ford F-450 4x4
Dump Truck. This vehicle will be an addition to the Highway Department for
alley plowing and cul-de-sac clean up.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: $28,396.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None, the price of this vehicle is under what the
Equipment Division has budgeted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to purchase one 2012 Ford F-450 4x4
Dump Truck from Vanderhyde Ford who was the lowest responsible bidder.
      D. Intergovernmental Agreement for Traffic Signal Maintenance Contract
         Extension. PUBLIC WORKS
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Authorize Staff to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement
for Traffic Signal Maintenance. This is a one-year contract extension, from a
previous three-year contract, with the Muskegon County Road Commission,
along with other municipalities from March 9, 2012, thru March 9, 2013, with
Windemuller Electric Inc. as the traffic signal maintenance contractor. The
agreement calls for MCRC to administer the project and charge the
participating agencies 15% overhead. The local agencies included in the
Muskegon County Signal Maintenance Group are Muskegon, Muskegon
Heights, Norton Shores, Roosevelt Park and MDOT.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Approximate costs for the previous contract including
emergency repairs have been $35,064 in 2009, and $33,982 in 2010.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None, budgeted for in the Highway Majors budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve request.
      E. Consideration of Bids/Contract Award for Roof Replacement over
         Police Department. ENGINEERING
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Authorize staff to enter into an agreement with Gale
Roofing out of Hart to replace the roofing system over the Police Department
portion of City Hall (Jefferson side) for a total cost of $12, 223. Gale was the


                                          2
lowest responsible bidder with the only other bidder being J. Stevens
Construction for $19,600.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The construction cost of $12,223.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:         None, this project was budgeted for in the
2011/2012 CIP.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to enter into an agreement with Gale
Roofing to replace the roofing system over the Police Department.
      F. Request to Amend Existing Resolution 2011-69(b) for an Obsolete
         Property Certificate – J&J Bail Bonds, 41 E Apple Ave. PLANNING &
         ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Pursuant to Public Act 146 of the Michigan Public Acts
of 2000, J&J Bail Bonds, 41 E. Apple Avenue, was approved for an obsolete
property certificate on September 27, 2011. The Michigan State Tax Commission
has requested that the resolution be amended to include language stating that
the City will not allow an extension of additional years, pursuant to the City of
Muskegon Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Policy.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.
Motion by Commissioner Carter, second by Commissioner Wisneski to approve
the Consent Agenda as read.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Gawron, Shepherd, Spataro, Wisneski, and Carter
            Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
2011-84 PUBLIC HEARINGS:
      A. Request for an Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate – ADAC
         Plastics. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Pursuant to Public Act 198 of 1974, as amended, ADAC
Plastics, 1801 E. Keating Avenue, has requested the issuance of an Industrial
Facilities Tax Exemption Certificate. The company will be making an investment
of $4,690,000 in real property improvements and plans on creating 130 jobs
within two years. They are eligible for a 12 year abatement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City will capture certain additional property taxes
generated by the expansion.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the resolution granting an Industrial


                                       3
Facilities Exemption Certificate for a term of 12 years on real property.
The Public Hearing opened to hear and consider any comments from the
public. John Shape, representative of ADAC Plastics spoke.
Motion by Commissioner Spataro, second by Commissioner Shepherd to close
the Public Hearing and approve the resolution granting an Industrial Facilities
Exemption Certificate for a term of 12 years on real property for ADAC.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Shepherd, Spataro, Wisneski, Carter, and Gawron
             Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
      B. Request for Exemption of New Personal Property (PA 328) – ADAC
         Plastics. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Pursuant to Public Act 328 of 1998, as amended, ADAC
Plastics, Inc., 1801 E. Keating Avenue, has requested an exemption of new
personal property. The company plans on investing $15,780,000 in personal
property improvements and is seeking a 12 year exemption on personal
property. The exemption would include all new personal property investments
during the duration of the exemption.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City will forgo 100% of the personal property taxes for
the length of the abatement.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:           Approval of the exemption of new personal
property for a duration of 12 years.
The Public Hearing opened to hear and consider any comments from the
public. No public comments were heard.
Motion by Commissioner Carter, second by Commissioner Spataro to close the
Public Hearing and approve the request for Exemption of New Personal Property
for ADAC Plastics for a term of 12 years.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Spataro, Wisneski, Carter, Gawron, and Shepherd
             Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
      C. Establishment of a Commercial Rehabilitation District – 363 Ottawa
         Street. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Pursuant to Public Act 210 of 2005, as amended, Lake
Welding Supply has requested the establishment of a Commercial Rehabilitation
District. The creation of the district will allow the building owner to apply for a
Commercial Rehabilitation Certificate, which will freeze the taxable value of the
building and exempt the new real property investment from local taxes.

                                         4
The school operating tax and the State Education Tax are still levied on the new
investment. Land and personal property cannot be abated under this act.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Establishment of the Commercial Rehabilitation
District at 363 Ottawa Street.
The Public Hearing opened to hear and consider any comments from the
public. Comments were heard from Greg Teerman, representative of Lake
Welding .
Motion by Commissioner Carter, second by Commissioner Wisneski to close the
Public Hearing and establish a Commercial Rehabilitation District at 363 Ottawa
Street.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Wisneski, Carter, Gawron, Shepherd, and Spataro
             Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
2011-85 NEW BUSINESS:
   A. Holidays in the City – Resolution of Support.      PLANNING & ECONOMIC
      DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: A request to sign the resolution in support of Holidays in
the City, an event starting this Saturday in downtown Muskegon that will
showcase the holiday events and unique retail destinations of downtown
Muskegon. Everyone is encouraged to come downtown for the Teddy Bear
Breakfast, Festival of Trees, the lighting of Hackley Park, shopping and dinning, a
window decorating contest with prizes for voters and a movie showing at the
Frauenthal Theatre.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the resolution.
Motion by Commissioner Spataro, second by Commissioner Carter to adopt the
resolution of support for the various Holidays in the City activities for this coming
weekend.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Wisneski, Carter, Gawron, Shepherd, and Spataro
             Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
   B. Winter Ice Rink in Downtown Muskegon.             PLANNING & ECONOMIC


                                         5
      DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Downtown Muskegon Now (DMN) is planning an
outdoor ice rink in downtown Muskegon, from mid-January to mid-February. The
ice rink will be located on the vacant lot owned by Parkland Properties. The ice
rink will provide another opportunity for the public to enjoy the downtown during
the winter season (free of charge), in addition to shopping, restaurant and
entertainment venues. Andrew Haan, DMN Director, has been working with City
staff to develop a plan for installation of the rink. Since they are unable to use
the fire hydrant, a separate water service must be installed. DMN is requesting
that the costs associated with establishing this service be waived. Other
partners in this venture include Parkland Properties (Jon Rooks), the Muskegon
Lumberjacks and the Muskegon Winter Sports Complex.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: If the Commission chooses to waive the entire fee (which
includes materials, equipment and labor), the total is estimated to be $1,964.07.
Of this amount, the cost for materials (which must be purchased) is $611.69.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To consider the request from DMN and partner with
the organization on some level to ensure the ice rink is established in downtown
Muskegon for the benefit of the public.
Motion by Commissioner Spataro, second by Commissioner Carter to approve
the request from Downtown Muskegon Now and its partners to provide the water
hook up so that they may have an ice rink downtown.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Wisneski, Carter, Gawron, Shepherd, and Spataro
            Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Public comments received.
ADJOURNMENT: The City Commission Meeting adjourned at 6:12 p.m.


                                            Respectfully submitted,




                                            Ann Marie Cummings, MMC
                                            City Clerk




                                        6
Date: December 13, 2011
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Finance
RE: 2012 User Fee Update


SUMMARY OF REQUEST: City departments have reviewed and updated their user fees and
these have been incorporated into the Master Fee Resolution that is attached for your consideration.

The new fees and fee changes that are being proposed are highlighted on the attached spreadsheet and
include the following:

x   Establishment of new fees to cover costs associated with rental re-inspection “no-shows” and
    repeated non-compliance inspections;

x   Increase in the landlord affidavit filing fee for landlords seeking to have tenants directly responsible
    for payment of water and sewer bills;

x   Modification of some fees related to special events (note: these fees are shown under DPW and
    under Special Events);

x   Changes to Clerk’s fees for gaming licenses, transient businesses/peddlers, encroachments &
    fireworks

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Increased revenue for fee supported activities.


BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None at this time.                     Adoption of the Master Fee Resolution will
help the city attain its budgeted revenue estimates.



STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval.


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: None.




                                                                                              1
                                                         City of Muskegon

                                                           RESOLUTION


A resolution adopting fees for services in the City entitled "Master Fee Resolution".

The City of Muskegon hereby RESOLVES:

1.       The City of Muskegon has in the past adopted resolutions from time to time which set fees for various services in the City.

2.       That in addition to the specifically adopted resolution fees, there are fees which are charged pursuant to ordinances and
         codes as well the fees which are charged in the exercise of various other functions of the City which serve the public.

3.       That the City Commission has reviewed all of the fees which are charged from time to time pursuant to resolution,
         ordinance and in the affording of services to and for the public, and has determined to adopt the resolution a comprehensive
         schedule of fees by this resolution which is hereby called the "Master Fee Resolution".

4.       That the City Commission and its committees, with the advice of the staff of the City, have carefully investigated and
         examined the fees set forth in this Master Resolution and have determined that they are reasonably related to the actual cost
         of affording the services involved.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COMMISSION HEREBY RESOLVES:

1.       That the schedule of fees attached to this resolution is hereby adopted and shall be charged for the services set forth in the
         schedule and under the conditions set forth therein.

2.       That any fees listed which are also listed in specific resolutions, rules or regulations, shall be charged in accordance with
         those resolutions, rules and regulations, and with the practices of the City in affording the appropriate services.

3.       That the adoption of this resolution does not amend or change previous specific resolutions for the charging of fees for
         services, and does not preclude the existence of previous or future resolutions setting forth fees which are not included
         herein.

This resolution adopted.

Ayes

Nays

                                                                       CITY OF MUSKEGON


                                                                       ___________________________________________
                                                                       Ann Marie Cummings, City Clerk


                                                         CERTIFICATE
This Resolution was adopted at a meeting of the City Commission of the City of Muskegon, held on December 13, 2011.
The meeting was properly held and noticed pursuant to the Open Meetings Act of the State of Michigan, Act 267 of the Public Acts
of 1976.


                                                                       ____________________________________________
                                                                       Ann Marie Cummings, City Clerk
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                       PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                           DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                   2010       2011          2012                                       %
               DEPT                                       DESCRIPTION                                                                                       COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                      UNIT                      FEE        FEE           FEE                                     CHANGE


   1             ALL          ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD ON SALES TO OUTSIDE PARTIES   TOTAL BALANCE DUE             15.00%     15.00%        15.00%


   2             ALL          COPIES FOR PUBLIC (STANDARD SIZES)                        PER COPY                     0.25       0.25          0.25


   3             ALL          FAX CHARGE FOR INFORMATION REQUESTS                       PER PAGE                     0.50       0.50          0.50


   4             ALL          LATE FEE ON CITY RECEIVABLES (EXCEPT TAXES)           PAST DUE BALANCE               1.00%      1.00%         1.00%    PER MO./IMPOSED AFTER 30 DAYS



   5        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES EVERGREEN MAUSOLEUM (CRYPTS A-B)                 EACH                   1,339.00   1,339.00      1,339.00


   6        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES EVERGREEN MAUSOLEUM (CRYPTS A-B) NR *            EACH                   1,664.00   1,664.00      1,664.00


   7        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES EVERGREEN MAUSOLEUM (CRYPTS C-F)                 EACH                   1,533.00   1,533.00      1,533.00


   8        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES EVERGREEN MAUSOLEUM (CRYPTS C-F) NR *            EACH                   1,906.00   1,906.00      1,906.00


   9        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (EVERGREEN)                      ONE GRAVE                  700.00     700.00        700.00    50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  10        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (EVERGREEN)                      TWO GRAVES                1,300.00   1,300.00      1,300.00   50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  11        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (EVERGREEN) NR *                 TWO GRAVES                1,599.00   1,599.00      1,599.00   50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  12        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (EVERGREEN) NR *                 ONE GRAVE                  827.00     827.00        827.00    50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  13        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (LAKESIDE)                       ONE GRAVE                  700.00     700.00        700.00    50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  14        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (LAKESIDE)                       TWO GRAVES                1,300.00   1,300.00      1,300.00   50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  15        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (LAKESIDE) NR *                  ONE GRAVE                  827.00     827.00        827.00    50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  16        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (LAKESIDE) NR *                  TWO GRAVES                1,599.00   1,599.00      1,599.00   50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  17        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (OAKWOOD)                        ONE GRAVE                  700.00     700.00        700.00    50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  18        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (OAKWOOD)                        TWO GRAVES                1,300.00   1,300.00      1,300.00   50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  19        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (OAKWOOD) NR *                   TWO GRAVES                1,599.00   1,599.00      1,599.00   50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  20        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (OAKWOOD) NR *                   ONE GRAVE                  827.00     827.00        827.00    50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  21        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (RESTLAWN-FLUSH MARKER)          ONE GRAVE                  650.00     650.00        650.00    50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE




                                                                                                        Page 1
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                     PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                        DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                 2010       2011          2012                                    %
               DEPT                                        DESCRIPTION                                                                                   COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                        UNIT                  FEE        FEE           FEE                                  CHANGE


  22        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (RESTLAWN-FLUSH MARKER)            TWO GRAVES            1,200.00   1,200.00      1,200.00   50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  23        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (RESTLAWN-FLUSH MARKER) NR *       ONE GRAVE              717.00     717.00        717.00    50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  24        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (RESTLAWN-FLUSH MARKER) NR *       TWO GRAVES            1,423.00   1,423.00      1,423.00   50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  25        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (RESTLAWN-UPRIGHT MARKER)          ONE GRAVE              700.00     700.00        700.00    50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  26        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (RESTLAWN-UPRIGHT MARKER)          TWO GRAVES            1,300.00   1,300.00      1,300.00   50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  27        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (RESTLAWN-UPRIGHT MARKER) NR *     ONE GRAVE              827.00     827.00        827.00    50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  28        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (RESTLAWN-UPRIGHT MARKER) NR *     TWO GRAVES            1,599.00   1,599.00      1,599.00   50% GOES TO PERPETUAL CARE



  29        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES IN-GOUND SPACE FOR CREMAINS (RESTLAWN)            EACH                 289.00     289.00        289.00


  30        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES IN-GOUND SPACE FOR CREMAINS (RESTLAWN) NR*        EACH                 347.00     347.00        347.00


  31        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (1/2 GRAVE--ALL CEMETERIES)          EACH                 462.00     462.00        462.00


  32        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES GRAVE PRICES (1/2 GRAVE--ALL CEMETERIES) NR *     EACH                 578.00     578.00        578.00


  33        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES OPENING (1/2 GRAVE)                               EACH                 260.00     260.00        260.00


  34        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES OPENING (1/2 GRAVE) NR                            EACH                 318.00     318.00        318.00


  35        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES OPENING (CREMATION)                               EACH                 300.00     300.00        300.00


  36        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES OPENING (CREMATION) NR                            EACH                 312.00     312.00        312.00


  37        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES OPENING (CREMATION, GRASS, CHAIRS)                EACH                 330.00     330.00        330.00


  38        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES OPENING (CREMATION, GRASS, CHAIRS) NR             EACH                 370.00     370.00        370.00


  39        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES OPENING (CREMATION, TENT, GRASS, CHAIRS)          EACH                 370.00     370.00        370.00


  40        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES OPENING (CREMATION, TENT, GRASS, CHAIRS) NR       EACH                 404.00     404.00        404.00


  41        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES SECOND CREMAINS (OPEN GRAVESITE)                  EACH                  58.00      58.00          58.00      FOR ADDITIONAL ASHES



  42        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES OPENING                                            EACH                500.00     500.00         500.00




                                                                                                      Page 2
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                               PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                            DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                             2010     2011          2012                       %
               DEPT                                       DESCRIPTION                                                                        COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                   UNIT                   FEE      FEE           FEE                     CHANGE


  43        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES OPENING (DEVICE) NR                           EACH                  607.00   607.00       607.00


  44        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES OPENING (STILLBORN IN BABYLAND)               EACH                  145.00   145.00       145.00


  45        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES OPENING (STILLBORN IN BABYLAND) NR            EACH                  173.00   173.00       173.00


  46        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES OPENING (STILLBORN NOT IN BABYLAND)           EACH                  260.00   260.00       260.00


  47        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES OPENING (STILLBORN NOT IN BABYLAND) NR        EACH                  318.00   318.00       318.00


  48        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES OVERTIME (MON-FRI AFTER 2:30PM)               EACH                  200.00   200.00       200.00


  49        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES OVERTIME (SATURDAYS & HOLIDAYS)               EACH                  300.00   300.00       300.00


  50        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES OVERTIME (SUNDAYS)                            EACH                  450.00   450.00       450.00


  51        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES NICHES COLUMBARIUUM                           EACH                  800.00   800.00       800.00


  52        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES NICHES COLUMBARIUM NR                         EACH                  850.00   850.00       850.00


  53        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES NICHES (OPEN/CLOSING)                         EACH                  125.00   125.00       125.00


  54        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES NICHES (OPEN/CLOSING) NR                      EACH                  175.00   175.00       175.00


  55        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES HEADSTONE SERVICE                        PER SQUARE INCH              0.55     0.55         0.55   MINIMUM $60.00



  56        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES SERVICE (GOVERNMENT MARKERS)                  EACH                   60.00    60.00        60.00


  57        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES SERVICE (MAUSOLEUM VASES)                     EACH                   75.00    75.00        75.00


  58        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES SERVICE HEADSTONE PRE-PLACEMENT               EACH                   25.00    25.00        25.00


  59        CEMETERIES        CEMETERIES SERVICE (SMALL VASES) RESTLAWN                EACH                   40.00    40.00        40.00


  60        CEMETERIES        ENTOMBMENT - EVERGREEN MAUSOLEM                          EACH                  173.00   173.00       173.00


  61        CEMETERIES        ENTOMBMENT NR - EVERGREEN MAUSOLEUM                      EACH                  231.00   231.00       231.00


  62        CEMETERIES        TRANSFER & AFFIDAVIT FEE PER GRAVE SPACE                 EACH                   50.00    50.00        50.00


  63        CEMETERIES        CHAPEL FUNERAL SERVICE                                   EACH                   50.00    50.00        50.00




                                                                                                    Page 3
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                                PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                                  DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                              2010     2011          2012                                                                  %
               DEPT                                        DESCRIPTION                                                                                                             COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                                     UNIT                  FEE      FEE           FEE                                                                CHANGE


  64        CEMETERIES        FAMILY TREE SEARCH                                                     SINGLE SEARCH              3.00     3.00          3.00


  65        CEMETERIES        FAMILY TREE SEARCH                                                     FIVE SEARCHES             10.00    10.00         10.00


  66           CLERK          ADDRESS LABELS - VOTER REGISTRATION                                        EACH                   0.05     0.05          0.05


  67           CLERK          BUSINESS REGISTRATION                                                      EACH                  30.00    30.00         30.00


  68           CLERK          BUSINESS TRANSIENT/PEDDLER                                                PER DAY                25.00    25.00         30.00                                                               20.00%



  69           CLERK          BUSINESS AUCTIONEER LICENSE (INDIVIDUAL EVENT)                            PER DAY                10.00    10.00         10.00


  70           CLERK          BUSINESS AUCTIONEER LICENSE (REGULAR)                                     PER YEAR              100.00   100.00       100.00


  71           CLERK          AUCTION FEE                                                               PER DAY                30.00    30.00         30.00


  72           CLERK          BUSINESS COMMERCIAL GARBAGE HAULER                                        PER YEAR              100.00   100.00       100.00


  73           CLERK          BUSINESS ENTERTAINMENT OCCUPANCY                                          PER YEAR              125.00   125.00       125.00


  74           CLERK          GAMING LICENSE REQUEST/PERMIT (30 DAYS OR MORE ADVANCE NOTICE)             EACH                  50.00    50.00         75.00                                                               50.00%



  75           CLERK          GAMING LICENSE REQUEST (LESS THAN 30 DAYS ADVANCE NOTICE)                  EACH                   0.00     0.00       100.00                                                               ***NEW FEE***



                                                                                                                                                              CHARGED TO LAW FIRMS AND OTHER FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
  76           CLERK          CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM RENTAL                                          PER HOUR               25.00    25.00         25.00
                                                                                                                                                               WISHING TO USE FACILITIES FOR NON-CITY RELATED BUSINESS




  77           CLERK          ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FEE                                        EACH                 100.00   100.00       100.00


  78           CLERK          ENCROACHMENT PERMIT CERTIFICATE FEE                                    EACH LOCATION             50.00    50.00         50.00                     SAME AS RENEWAL FEE



  79           CLERK          ENCROACHMENT/RENTAL FEE (BUS BENCHES)                                PER BENCH/PERMONTH           5.00     5.00          5.00


  80           CLERK          ENCROACHMENT 1-YEAR RENEWAL                                                EACH                  10.00    10.00         25.00                                                              150.00%



  81           CLERK          ENCROACHMENT 1-YEAR RENEWAL (INSPECTION REQ'D)                             EACH                   0.00     0.00         50.00                                                              ***NEW FEE***



  82           CLERK          ENCROACHMENT PERMIT TO WORK IN R-O-W                                      PER UNIT               10.00    10.00         10.00           OR ACTUAL COSTS (WHICHEVER IS GREATER)


                              FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT PROCESSING FEE (30 OR MORE DAYS ADVANCE
  83           CLERK                                                                                     EACH                  50.00    50.00         75.00                                                               50.00%
                              NOTICE)

                              FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT PROCESSING FEE (LESS THAN 30 DAYS ADVANCE
  84           CLERK                                                                                     EACH                 100.00   100.00        150.00                                                               50.00%
                              NOTICE)




                                                                                                                     Page 4
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                          PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                  DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                      2010       2011          2012                                              %
               DEPT                                         DESCRIPTION                                                                                            COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                            UNIT                   FEE        FEE           FEE                                            CHANGE


  85           CLERK          LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL                                            EACH                 100.00     100.00         100.00


  86           CLERK          LIQUOR LICENSE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OR LOCATION                  EACH                 250.00     250.00        250.00


                              DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AREA CLASS-C ON-PREMISES LIQUOR LICENSE
  87           CLERK                                                                            EACH                2,500.00   2,500.00      2,500.00   SAME REVIEW PROCESS AS FOR RENEWAL
                              (FORMERLY DOWNTOWN DEV AUTH LICENSE)


  88           CLERK          LIQUOR LICENSE NEW CLASS C LICENSE                                EACH                2,500.00   2,500.00      2,500.00           IF LICENSE AVAILABLE



  89           CLERK          LIQUOR LICENSE NEW SDD OR SDM                                     EACH                 250.00     250.00        250.00


  90           CLERK          GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALE                                        EACH                  50.00      50.00          50.00       UP TO ONE MONTH - RENEWABLE



  91           CLERK          LIQUOR LICENSE (EXPANSION OF EXISTING LICENSE)                    EACH                  25.00      25.00          25.00


  92           CLERK          ORDINANCE BOOK                                                    EACH                 250.00     250.00         250.00


  93           CLERK          ORDINANCE BOOK ON CD-ROM                                          EACH                 250.00     250.00         250.00


  94           CLERK          ORDINANCE BOOK SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE (BI-ANNUAL UPDATES)         PER YEAR                50.00      50.00          50.00          IN ADDITION TO BASE FEE



  95           CLERK          PASSPORT APPLICATION FEE                                          EACH                  25.00      25.00          25.00           FEDERAL LAW CHANGE



  96           CLERK          PASSPORT PHOTO FEE                                              2 PHOTOS                10.00      10.00          10.00


  97           CLERK          PRECINCT MAPS (SMALL)                                             EACH                    2.00       2.00          2.00


  98           CLERK          PUBLIC NOTARY FEE                                                 EACH                    5.00       5.00          5.00        CONSISTENT WITH COUNTY FEE



  99           CLERK          TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT NEW PROVIDER FEE                           EACH                 500.00     500.00        500.00    PER NEW STATE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT



  100          CLERK          VOTER INFORMATION - ON DISK                                       EACH                  25.00      25.00          25.00


  101          CLERK          VOTER REGISTRATION - HARDCOPY LIST                             PER LISTING               0.01       0.01           0.01


  102          CLERK          VOTER REGISTRATION - MAILING LABELS                            PER LABEL                  0.05      0.05           0.05


  103           CNS           MORTGAGE REFINANCE FEE                                            EACH                  50.00      50.00          50.00


  104           CNS           REHAB LOAN APPLICATION FEE                                        EACH                 200.00     200.00         200.00


  105           CNS           RENTAL REHAB APPLICATION FEE FEE                                PER LOAN               100.00     100.00        100.00




                                                                                                           Page 5
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                            PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                      DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                        2010       2011          2012                                                 %
               DEPT                                         DESCRIPTION                                                                                                COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                             UNIT                    FEE        FEE           FEE                                               CHANGE


  106           DPW           ADDITIONAL GARBAGE SERVICE (1 TOTER)                            PER MONTH                 13.00      13.00          13.00


  107           DPW           APPLIANCE STICKER                                                  EACH                   25.00      25.00          25.00


  108           DPW           GARBAGE CART REPLACEMENT - DAMAGED BY USER                         EACH                   55.00      55.00          55.00


  109           DPW           GARBAGE SERVICE - SMALL BUSINESS                                PER MONTH                 16.00      16.00          16.00    INCLUDES CHURCHES AND NON-PROFITS



  110           DPW           GARBAGE SERVICE - UNAUTORIZED USE OF CARTS                     PER INCIDENT               30.00      30.00          30.00


  111           DPW           GARBAGE SERVICE - REPLACE LOST/STOLEN CART                         EACH                   55.00      55.00          55.00


  112           DPW           GARBAGE SERVICE - NEW SERVICE STARTUP                              EACH                   55.00      55.00          55.00


  113           DPW           GARBAGE SERVICE - MIXED REFUSE STICKER                             EACH                     2.00       2.00          2.00       BUY 6 FOR $10.00 - UNIT PRICE $1.67



  114           DPW           FEE FOR SPECIAL COLLECTION OF ILLIEGAL MATERIALS                   EACH                   50.00      50.00          50.00   OR ACTUAL COSTS (WHICHEVER IS GREATER)


                              FEE FOR BULK YARD WASTE DROP OFF (DURING REGULAR HOURS) - BY
  115           DPW                                                                              EACH                   25.00      25.00          25.00
                              APPOINTMENT ONLY


  116           DPW           SENIOR TRANSIT                                                   PER RIDE                   1.50       1.50          1.50


  117           DPW           REPLACE EMPLOYEE ID/ACCESS TKC CARD                            PER LOST CARD              50.00      50.00          50.00     NO CHARGE FOR FIRST REPLACEMENT



  118           DPW           STORM SEWER CONNECTION FEE                                         EACH                  800.00     800.00         800.00                   STUB FEE



  119           DPW           TREE REPLACEMENT PLANTING FEE                                      EACH                  200.00     200.00        200.00


  120           DPW           TREE REMOVAL FEE (12" AND UNDER DIAMETER)                          EACH                  200.00     200.00        200.00       TREE MEASURED AT 4' ABOVE GRADE



  121           DPW           TREE REMOVAL FEE (12" - 18" DIAMETER)                              EACH                  345.00     345.00        345.00       TREE MEASURED AT 4' ABOVE GRADE



  122           DPW           TREE REMOVAL FEE (18" - 24" DIAMETER)                              EACH                  650.00     650.00        650.00       TREE MEASURED AT 4' ABOVE GRADE



  123           DPW           TREE REMOVAL FEE (24" - 30" DIAMETER)                              EACH                  750.00     750.00        750.00       TREE MEASURED AT 4' ABOVE GRADE



  124           DPW           TREE REMOVAL FEE (30" - 36" DIAMETER)                              EACH                 1,000.00   1,000.00      1,000.00      TREE MEASURED AT 4' ABOVE GRADE



  125           DPW           TREE REMOVAL FEE (36" - 42" DIAMETER)                              EACH                 1,700.00   1,700.00      1,700.00      TREE MEASURED AT 4' ABOVE GRADE



  126           DPW           TREE REMOVAL FEE (42" AND OVER DIAMETER)                           EACH                 1,900.00   1,900.00      1,900.00      TREE MEASURED AT 4' ABOVE GRADE




                                                                                                             Page 6
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                                 PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                                    DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                               2010     2011          2012                                                                     %
               DEPT                                         DESCRIPTION                                                                                                              COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                                   UNIT                     FEE      FEE           FEE                                                                   CHANGE


  127           DPW           HANG AND/OR REMOVE BANNER                                            EACH REQUEST                450.00   450.00       450.00                  EACH ADDITIONAL BANNER: $50.00



  128       DPW (PARKS)       EXCLUSIVE USE OF HACKLEY PK FOR SPECIAL EVENTS                         PER DAY                     0.00     0.00       125.00                                                                  ***NEW FEE***



  129       DPW (PARKS)       EXCLUSIVE USE OF PERE MARQUETTE LARGE OVAL FOR SPECIAL EVENTS          PER DAY                     0.00     0.00       125.00                                                                  ***NEW FEE***



  130       DPW (PARKS)       EXCLUSIVE USE OF MARGARET DRAKE ELLIOTT PK FOR SPECIAL EVENTS          PER DAY                     0.00     0.00       125.00                                                                  ***NEW FEE***


                              CLEANING DEPOST FOR EXCLUSIVE USE OF HACKLEY, PERE MARQUETTE OR
  131       DPW (PARKS)                                                                                EACH                      0.00     0.00         50.00                                                                 ***NEW FEE***
                              MARGARET DRAKE ELLIOTT PARKS


  132       DPW (PARKS)       MC GRAFT PARK BUILDING USE                                          11:00AM - 4:00PM               0.00   100.00        100.00


  133       DPW (PARKS)       MC GRAFT PARK BUILDING USE                                          5:00PM - 10:00PM               0.00     0.00       100.00                                                                  ***NEW FEE***



  134       DPW (PARKS)       MC GRAFT PARK BUILDING USE (RESV. MADE BETWEEN 4/15 - 9/30)              EACH                      0.00     0.00         25.00                                                                 ***NEW FEE***



  135       DPW (PARKS)       MC GRAFT PARK BUILDING USE                                        PER ADDITIONAL HOUR              0.00    25.00         25.00


  136       DPW (PARKS)       MC GRAFT PARK BUILDING USE (CLEANING/SECURITY DEPOSIT)                   EACH                     50.00    50.00         50.00


  137       DPW (PARKS)       MC GRAFT PARK MUSIC BOWL                                                 HOUR                     45.00    45.00         45.00


  138       DPW (PARKS)       PARKS (LIGHT COSTS SPORT FIELDS & COURTS)                                EACH                     40.00    40.00         40.00

                                                                                                                                                               DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
  139       DPW (PARKS)       PARKS (WOOD SNOW FENCE RENTAL)                                           EACH                     30.00    30.00         30.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
                                                                                                                                                                                    UP IS REQUIRED
                                                                                                                                                              DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
  140       DPW (PARKS)       PARKS (USE OF GARBAGE CANS)                                              EACH                      5.00     5.00          5.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
                                                                                                                                                                                     UP IS REQUIRED


  141       DPW (PARKS)       PARKS (PLASTIC BAGS FOR GARBAGE CANS)                                  PER CASE                    0.00    25.00         30.00     REFLECTS COST INCREASE; REFUND FOR UNOPENED CASES            20.00%



  142       DPW (PARKS)       SPORTS FIELD & COURT RENTAL (EXLUDES SETUP SERVICES)                2 HOUR RENTAL                 25.00    25.00         25.00


  143       DPW (PARKS)       CHANNEL SHELTER RENTAL                                                   EACH                     50.00    50.00         50.00


  144       DPW (PARKS)       PICNIC SHELTER RENTAL (MADE BEFORE 4/15 OR AFTER 9/30)               EACH SESSION                100.00   100.00       100.00


  145       DPW (PARKS)       PICNIC SHELTER RENTAL (MADE BETWEEN 4/15 AND 9/30)                   EACH SESSION                100.00   125.00       125.00


  146       DPW (PARKS)       PICNIC SHELTER RENTAL RESERVATION CHANGE                                 EACH                      0.00    15.00         15.00


  147       DPW (PARKS)       CLEANING DEPOSIT FOR RENTALS                                             EACH                     50.00    50.00         50.00       REFUNDED IF CLEANUP AND OTHER RULES ADHERED TO




                                                                                                                      Page 7
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                                          PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                                              DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                               2010             2011           2012                                                                      %
               DEPT                                           DESCRIPTION                                                                                                                      COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                            UNIT                            FEE              FEE            FEE                                                                    CHANGE


  148       DPW (PARKS)       PICNIC SHELTER RENTAL (KRUSE #4 - 200 PERSON SHELTER)           RESIDENT                        125.00           125.00           125.00


  149       DPW (PARKS)       GROUPED TABLES (4) AT DRAKE-ELLIOTT (48 PEOPLE)                   EACH                           50.00            50.00            50.00


  150       DPW (PARKS)       WEDDING RESERVATIONS IN/ON CITY PARKS/BEACHES                     EACH                          100.00           100.00           125.00                                                                  25.00%



  151       DPW (PARKS)       KEY DEPOSIT (RESTROOM)                                            EACH                            0.00            25.00            25.00


                                                                                                                                                                          DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
  152       DPW (PARKS)       CITY SERVICES (55-GAL METAL TRASH CANS)                          EACH                             5.00             5.00             5.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
                                                                                                                                                                                               UP IS REQUIRED


                                                                                                                                                                          DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
  153       DPW (PARKS)       CITY SERVICES RENTAL OF POSTS                                  EACH POST                          3.00             3.00             3.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
                                                                                                                                                                                               UP IS REQUIRED


                                                                                                                                                                          DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
  154       DPW (PARKS)       CITY SERVICES (PICNIC TABLES)                                     EACH                           10.00            10.00            10.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
                                                                                                                                                                                               UP IS REQUIRED


  155       DPW (PARKS)       CITY SERVICES (LABOR PARKS OR DPW STAFF)                        PER HOUR                         60.00            60.00            60.00


  156       ENGINEERING       CHARGE FOR BLUEPRINTS (PLANS & UTILITY MAPS)                      EACH                             8.00             8.00            8.00


  157       ENGINEERING       CHARGE FOR BID DOCUMENTS (STANDARD)                               EACH                           40.00            40.00            40.00


  158       ENGINEERING       CHARGE FOR BID DOCUMENTS (NON-STANDARD)                           EACH                   ACTUAL COSTS     ACTUAL COSTS     ACTUAL COSTS


  159       ENGINEERING       STORM WATER MANAGEMENT BILLING FEE                              PER BILL                          5.00             5.00             5.00


  160       ENGINEERING       STORM WATER MANAGEMENT HOOKUP FEE FOR SYSTEM AVAILABILITY         EACH                          175.00           175.00           175.00                  5,000 GALLON PER DAY MAXIMUM



  161       ENGINEERING       STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FEE                     EACH                          500.00           500.00           500.00


  162       ENGINEERING       STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM USE FEE                       PER 1,000 GALLONS                     0.20             0.20             0.20


  163       ENGINEERING       PROPERTY OWNER WORKING IN R-O-W FEE                            EACH UNIT                         20.00            20.00            20.00


  164       ENGINEERING       R-O-W/SIDEWALK CUT PERMIT FEE                                  APPROACH                          20.00            20.00            20.00


  165       ENGINEERING       UTILITY ANNUAL PERMIT FEE                                         EACH                         1,750.00         1,750.00         1,750.00


  166       ENGINEERING       UTILITY CUT PERMIT APPLICATION FEE                                EACH                           50.00            50.00            50.00


  167       ENGINEERING       UTILITY CUT PERMIT FEE                                            UNIT                           20.00            20.00            20.00




                                                                                                              Page 8
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                               PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                                 DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                           2010       2011          2012                                                                   %
               DEPT                                        DESCRIPTION                                                                                                            COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                               UNIT                     FEE        FEE           FEE                                                                 CHANGE


  168       ENGINEERING       UTILITY CUT (PAVEMENT REMOVAL-PAVEMENT <4 YEARSOLD)              SQUARE YARD                100.00     100.00        100.00            FEES ADJUSTED TO REFLECT RESIDUAL VALUE



  169       ENGINEERING       UTILITY CUT (PAVEMENT REMOVAL-PAVEMENT 4-9 YEARSOLD)             SQUARE YARD                 75.00      75.00         75.00            FEES ADJUSTED TO REFLECT RESIDUAL VALUE



  170       ENGINEERING       UTILITY CUT (PAVEMENT REMOVAL-PAVEMENT >10 YEARSOLD)             SQUARE YARD                 50.00      50.00         50.00            FEES ADJUSTED TO REFLECT RESIDUAL VALUE



  171       ENGINEERING       UTILITY CUT (PROJECT DURATION)                                       WEEK                    27.50      27.50         27.50


  172      ENV SERVICES       ALERT NOTIFICATION - FAX                                         ANNUAL - LOCAL              20.00      20.00         20.00


  173      ENV SERVICES       ALERT NOTIFICATION - FAX                                     ANNUAL - LONG DISTANCE          75.00      75.00         75.00


  174      ENV SERVICES       TERRACE VIOLATIONS                                              FIRST VIOLATION              30.00      30.00         30.00            PLUS HOURLY COST FOR WORK PERFORMED.

                                                                                                                                                              PLUS HOURLY COST FOR WORK PERFORMED. FEE FOR EACH
  175      ENV SERVICES       TERRACE VIOLATIONS (EACH SUBSEQUENT IN YEAR)                   EACH SUBSEQUENT                 5.00       5.00         5.00    SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS INCREMENT $5 (E.G. 2ND VIOLATION =
                                                                                                                                                                               $35; 3RD = $40, ETC


  176      ENV SERVICES       GRASS, TRASH AND LEAF VIOLATIONS                                FIRST VIOLATION              70.00      70.00         70.00            PLUS HOURLY COST FOR WORK PERFORMED.

                                                                                                                                                               PLUS HOURLY COST FOR WORK PERFORMED. FEE FOR EACH
  177      ENV SERVICES       GRASS, TRASH AND LEAF VIOLATIONS (EACH SUBSEQUENT IN YEAR)     EACH SUBSEQUENT               10.00      10.00         10.00    SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS INCREMENT $10 (E.G. 2ND VIOLATION =
                                                                                                                                                                                $80; 3RD = $90, ETC


  178      ENV SERVICES       VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION                                    VACANT BUILDING               0.00       0.00          0.00                   VACANT LESS THAN ONE YEAR



  179      ENV SERVICES       VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION                                    VACANT BUILDING             500.00     500.00        500.00              VACANT 1 YEAR BUT LESS THAN 2 YEARS



  180      ENV SERVICES       VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION                                    VACANT BUILDING            1,000.00   1,000.00      1,000.00             VACANT 2 YEARS BUT LESS THAN 3 YEARS



  181      ENV SERVICES       VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION                                    VACANT BUILDING            2,000.00   2,000.00      2,000.00             VACANT 3 YEARS BUT LESS THAN 5 YEARS



  182      ENV SERVICES       VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION                                    VACANT BUILDING            3,500.00   3,500.00      3,500.00            VACANT 5 YEARS BUT LESS THAN 10 YEARS



  183      ENV SERVICES       VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION                                    VACANT BUILDING            5,000.00   5,000.00      5,000.00                       VACANT 10 YEARS



  184      ENV SERVICES       VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION                                    VACANT BUILDING             500.00     500.00        500.00               EACH YEAR VACANT BEYOND 10 YEARS



  185      ENV SERVICES       VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION - FORMAL APPEAL FEE                  OCCURRENCE                 50.00      50.00         50.00


  186    FARMERS' MARKET      FRONT CORNER                                                       0-2 MONTHS               300.00     313.00        313.00       FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  187    FARMERS' MARKET      FRONT REGULAR                                                      0-2 MONTHS               275.00     288.00        288.00       FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  188    FARMERS' MARKET      BACK CORNER                                                        0-2 MONTHS               175.00     188.00        188.00       FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM




                                                                                                                Page 9
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                     PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                   DEPARTMENT
                                                                                   2010     2011          2012                                                         %
               DEPT                           DESCRIPTION                                                                           COMMENTS
LINE                                                          UNIT                  FEE      FEE           FEE                                                       CHANGE


  189    FARMERS' MARKET      BACK REGULAR                  0-2 MONTHS             150.00   163.00       163.00    FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  190    FARMERS' MARKET      FRONT CORNER                  3 MONTHS               330.00   348.50        348.50   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  191    FARMERS' MARKET      FRONT REGULAR                 3 MONTHS               303.00   321.50        321.50   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  192    FARMERS' MARKET      BACK CORNER                   3 MONTHS               193.00   211.50        211.50   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  193    FARMERS' MARKET      BACK REGULAR                  3 MONTHS               165.00   183.50        183.50   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  194    FARMERS' MARKET      FRONT CORNER                  4 MONTHS               336.00   361.00        361.00   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  195    FARMERS' MARKET      FRONT REGULAR                 4 MONTHS               308.00   333.00        333.00   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  196    FARMERS' MARKET      BACK CORNER                   4 MONTHS               196.00   221.00        221.00   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  197    FARMERS' MARKET      BACK REGULAR                  4 MONTHS               168.00   193.00        193.00   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  198    FARMERS' MARKET      FRONT CORNER                  5 MONTHS               345.00   376.50        376.50   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  199    FARMERS' MARKET      FRONT REGULAR                 5 MONTHS               316.00   347.50        347.50   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  200    FARMERS' MARKET      BACK CORNER                   5 MONTHS               201.00   232.50        232.50   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  201    FARMERS' MARKET      BACK REGULAR                  5 MONTHS               173.00   204.50        204.50   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  202    FARMERS' MARKET      FRONT CORNER                  6 MONTHS               354.00   392.00        392.00   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  203    FARMERS' MARKET      FRONT REGULAR                 6 MONTHS               325.00   363.00        363.00   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  204    FARMERS' MARKET      BACK CORNER                   6 MONTHS               207.00   245.00        245.00   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  205    FARMERS' MARKET      BACK REGULAR                  6 MONTHS               177.00   215.00        215.00   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  206    FARMERS' MARKET      FRONT CORNER                  7 MONTHS               360.00   404.00        404.00   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  207    FARMERS' MARKET      FRONT REGULAR                 7 MONTHS               330.00   374.00        374.00   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  208    FARMERS' MARKET      BACK CORNER                   7 MONTHS               210.00   254.00        254.00   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  209    FARMERS' MARKET      BACK REGULAR                  7 MONTHS               180.00   224.00        224.00   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM




                                                                         Page 10
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                            PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                          DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                          2010     2011          2012                                                         %
               DEPT                                           DESCRIPTION                                                                                  COMMENTS
LINE                                                                               UNIT                    FEE      FEE           FEE                                                       CHANGE


  210    FARMERS' MARKET      FRONT CORNER                                       8 MONTHS                 375.00   421.00        421.00   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  211    FARMERS' MARKET      FRONT REGULAR                                      8 MONTHS                 344.00   390.00        390.00   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  212    FARMERS' MARKET      BACK CORNER                                        8 MONTHS                 219.00   265.00        265.00   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  213    FARMERS' MARKET      BACK REGULAR                                       8 MONTHS                 188.00   234.00        234.00   FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  214         FINANCE         REPLACEMENT OF LOST PAYROLL CHECK               EACH OCCURRENCE              25.00    25.00         25.00


  215         FINANCE         COPIES OF CITY BUDGET OR CAFR (FOIA REQUESTS)        EACH                    25.00    25.00         25.00


  216           FIRE          FIRE REPORT COPY (MAJOR FIRE)                        EACH                    15.00    15.00         15.00


  217           FIRE          FIRE REPORT COPY (REGULAR)                           EACH                     5.00     5.00          5.00


  218           FIRE          PHOTOGRAPH REPRODUCTION (ENLARGED)                   EACH                    15.00    15.00         15.00


  219           FIRE          PHOTOGRAPH REPRODUCTION (STD SIZE)                   EACH                    10.00    10.00         10.00


  220           FIRE          PHOTOGRAPH REPRODUCTION (CD-ROM)                     EACH                     5.00     5.00          5.00


  221           FIRE          INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION ESCROW                  EACH INCIDENT               15.00    15.00         15.00              PLUS RELATED COURT COSTS



  222           FIRE          FIRE INSPECTION ADDITIONAL VISIT                 EACH INCIDENT               75.00    75.00         75.00


  223           FIRE          ARSON FIRE RESTITUTION FEE                       PER HR ON CALL             720.00   720.00       720.00               PLUS RELATED COURT COSTS



  224           FIRE          FALSE ALARM FEE                                  PER HR ON CALL             720.00   720.00        720.00          AFTER 3RD FALSE ALARM IN ONE YEAR



  225           FIRE          WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE FIRE FEE                      PER HR ON CALL             720.00   720.00       720.00


  226           FIRE          CONFINED SPACE RESCUE FEE                        PER HR ON CALL             720.00   720.00       720.00


  227           FIRE          ICE RESCUE CALL                                  PER HR ON CALL             110.00   110.00        110.00


  228           FIRE          DOWNED POWER LINE                                   PER HR                  185.00   185.00        185.00                  AFTER FIRST HOUR



  229           FIRE          SPECIAL USE PERMITS (PER UFC)                    EACH PER YEAR              100.00   100.00       100.00


  230           FIRE          STRUCTURE FIRE RESPONSE                              EACH                   500.00   500.00        500.00     CHARGED TO HOMEOWNER'S INSURANCE COMPANY




                                                                                                Page 11
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                                               PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                                                   DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                            2010                  2011              2012                                                                 %
               DEPT                                         DESCRIPTION                                                                                                                             COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                    UNIT                                 FEE                   FEE               FEE                                                               CHANGE


  231           FIRE          PI ACCIDENT RESPONSE                                      EACH                               500.00                500.00                500.00    CHARGED TO AT FAULT DRIVER'S AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY



  232       FLEA MARKET       DEALERS SPACE - CORNER COVERED SPACE                      DAILY                                 8.00                  9.00                  9.00    FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  233       FLEA MARKET       DEALERS SPACE - 10 x 15 COVERED SPACE                     DAILY                                 7.00                  8.00                  8.00    FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  234       FLEA MARKET       DEALERS SPACE - 10 x 30 ASHPHALT SPACE                    DAILY                                 6.00                  7.00                  7.00    FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  235       FLEA MARKET       DEALERS SPACE - 10 x 40 FIELD SPACE                       DAILY                                 5.00                  6.00                  6.00    FEE INCREASE TO SUPPORT EBT BRIDGE CARD PROGRAM



  236        INCOME TAX       DELINQUENT PAYMENT AGREEMENT ADMINISTRATION FEE           EACH                                15.00                 15.00                 15.00             PLUS RELATED PENALTIES & INTEREST



  237   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION FEE                        EACH                                15.00                 15.00                 15.00


                                                                                                               25% of Value; Min     25% of Value; Min     25% of Value; Min
  238   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING DEMOLITION PERMIT (COMMERCIAL)                     EACH
                                                                                                                    $60.00                $60.00                $60.00


  239   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING DEMOLITION PERMIT (GARAGE)                         EACH                                35.00                 35.00                 35.00


  240   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING DEMOLITION PERMIT (RESIDENTIAL)                    EACH                                60.00                 60.00                 60.00


  241   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($1-$500 VALUE)                        EACH                                35.00                 35.00                 35.00                 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE



  242   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($501-$2,000 VALUE)                    BASE                                35.00                 35.00                 35.00                 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE



  243   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($501-$2,000 VALUE)            EACH ADDITIONAL $100                          3.05                  3.05                  3.05                PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE



  244   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($2,001-$25,000 VALUE)                 BASE                                80.75                 80.75                 80.75                 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE



  245   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($2,001-$25,000 VALUE)         EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000                      14.00                 14.00                 14.00                 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE



  246   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($25,001-$50,000 VALUE)                BASE                               403.25                403.25                403.25                 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE



  247   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($25,001-$50,000 VALUE)        EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000                      10.10                 10.10                 10.10                 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE



  248   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($50,001-$100,000 VALUE)               BASE                               655.25                655.25                655.25                 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE



  249   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($50,001-$100,000 VALUE)       EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000                        7.00                  7.00                  7.00                PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE



  250   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($100,001-$500,000 VALUE)              BASE                             1,005.25              1,005.25              1,005.25                 PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE



  251   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($100,001-$500,000 VALUE)      EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000                        5.60                  5.60                  5.60                PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE




                                                                                                     Page 12
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                            PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                 DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                        2010       2011          2012                                        %
               DEPT                                        DESCRIPTION                                                                                            COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                           UNIT                      FEE        FEE           FEE                                      CHANGE


  252   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($500,001-$1,000,000 VALUE)                   BASE                   3,245.25   3,245.25      3,245.25     PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE



  253   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES ($500,001-$1,000,000 VALUE)           EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000             4.75       4.75          4.75     PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE



  254   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES (OVER $1,000,000 VALUE)                       BASE                   5,608.75   5,608.75      5,608.75     PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE



  255   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT FEES (OVER $1,000,000 VALUE)               EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000             3.65      3.65          3.65      PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE



  256   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT (INSPECTION-SPECIAL. REINSPECTION, ETC.)         PER HOUR                   60.00      60.00         60.00           MINIMUM 2 HOURS



  257   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT (PRE-MANUFACTURED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE)           EACH                    50.00%     50.00%        50.00%    OF REGULAR BUILDING PERMIT FEE



  258   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FEE (INCL FIRE REVIEW)                     PERMIT FEE                 65.00%     65.00%        65.00%       OF APPLICABLE PERMIT FEE



  259   INSPECTION SERVICES CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FEE                      EACH                    100.00     100.00        100.00


  260   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (BASE PERMIT)                                    BASE                     45.00      45.00         45.00


  261   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (BASEBOARD HEAT UNITS)                           EACH                       9.00       9.00         9.00


  262   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (CIRCUITS)                                       EACH                       6.00       6.00          6.00


  263   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (DISHWASHER)                                     EACH                       9.00      9.00          9.00


  264   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (ENERGY RETROFIT/TEMP CONTROL)                   EACH                     45.00      45.00         45.00


  265   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (FEEDERS, BUS DUCTS, ETC.)                      EACH 50'                   9.00       9.00          9.00


  266   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (FIRE ALARM 1-10 DEVICES)                        EACH                     75.00      75.00         75.00


  267   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (FIRE ALARM 11-20 DEVICES)                       EACH                    150.00     150.00        150.00


  268   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (FIRE ALARM EA. STATION OVER 20 DEV)         EACH DEVICE                   8.00       8.00          8.00


  269   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (FURNACE-UNIT HEATER)                            EACH                      9.00       9.00          9.00


  270   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-ADDITIONAL)                        PER HOUR                   45.00      45.00         45.00           MINIMUM 1 HOUR



  271   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-FINAL)                               EACH                     45.00      45.00         45.00


  272   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-HOURLY FEE)                          HOUR                     60.00      60.00         60.00           MINIMUM 1 HOUR




                                                                                                            Page 13
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                          PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                      DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                         2010     2011         2012                                                      %
               DEPT                                       DESCRIPTION                                                                                  COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                UNIT                  FEE      FEE          FEE                                                    CHANGE


  273   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-SPECIAL/SAFETY)           HOUR                 50.00    50.00         50.00                 MINIMUM 1 HOUR



  274   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (KVA OR HP UP TO 20)                  EACH                  9.00     9.00          9.00


  275   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (KVA & HP 21 TO 50)                   EACH                 15.00    15.00         15.00


  276   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (KVA & HP 50 AND OVER)                EACH                 18.00    18.00         18.00


  277   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (LIGHTING FIXTURES-PER 25)            EACH                 10.00    10.00         10.00


  278   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (METER INSPECTION/POWER TURN-ON)      EACH                 45.00    45.00         45.00


  279   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (MOBILE HOME SITE)                    EACH                  9.00     9.00          9.00


  280   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (POWER OUTLETS-INC RANGES, DRYERS)    EACH                 10.00    10.00         10.00


  281   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SITE)           EACH                  8.00     8.00          8.00


  282   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SERVICES 0 TO 200 AMP)               EACH                 15.00    15.00         15.00


  283   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SERVICES 201 TO 600 AMP)             EACH                 20.00    20.00         20.00


  284   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SERVICES 601 TO 800 AMP)             EACH                 23.00    23.00         23.00


  285   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SERVICES 801 TO 1200 AMP)            EACH                 30.00    30.00         30.00


  286   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SERVICES OVER 1200 AMP/GFI ONLY)     EACH                 50.00    50.00         50.00


  287   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SIGNS LETTER)                        EACH                 15.00    15.00         15.00


  288   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SIGNS NEON)                         EACH 25'               2.00     2.00          2.00


  289   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SIGNS UNIT)                          EACH                 10.00    10.00         10.00


  290   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PERMIT (SPECIAL CONDUIT/GROUNDING)           EACH                 45.00    45.00         45.00


  291   INSPECTION SERVICES ELECTRICAL PLAN REVIEW FEE                              EACH                25.00%   25.00%       25.00%             OF APPLICABLE PERMIT FEE



  292   INSPECTION SERVICES FIRE ALARM PLAN REVIEW FEE                                                  25.00%   25.00%       25.00%    OF PERMIT FEE FOR ANY SYSTEM OVER 10 DEVICES



  293   INSPECTION SERVICES GARAGE MOVING FEE                                       EACH                200.00   200.00        200.00




                                                                                              Page 14
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                                      PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                                       DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                                    2010     2011          2012                                                                 %
               DEPT                                      DESCRIPTION                                                                                                                    COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                                         UNIT                    FEE      FEE           FEE                                                               CHANGE


  294   INSPECTION SERVICES BUILDING MOVING FEE (EXCEPT GARAGE)                                              EACH                   500.00   500.00       500.00


  295   INSPECTION SERVICES RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION (ANNUAL)                                         SINGLE UNIT                35.00    35.00        35.00    INCLUDES INSPECTION/REINSPECTION ONCE EVERY 4 YEARS



  296   INSPECTION SERVICES RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION (ANNUAL)                                           DUPLEX                   40.00    40.00        40.00    INCLUDES INSPECTION/REINSPECTION ONCE EVERY 4 YEARS



  297   INSPECTION SERVICES RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION (ANNUAL - BASE)                                   3+ UNITS                  50.00    50.00        50.00    INCLUDES INSPECTION/REINSPECTION ONCE EVERY 4 YEARS



  298   INSPECTION SERVICES RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION (ANNUAL - PER UNIT)                            PER UNIT OVER 3               5.00     5.00         5.00    INCLUDES INSPECTION/REINSPECTION ONCE EVERY 4 YEARS



  299   INSPECTION SERVICES RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION (INSPECTION NO-SHOW)                                                        50.00    50.00         0.00                                                              -100.00%



  300   INSPECTION SERVICES RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION (INSPECTION NO-SHOW FIRST TIME)                   PER UNIT                   0.00     0.00        50.00                                                              ***NEW FEE***



                                                                                                                                                                   ADDED TO BASE NO SHOW FEE; EACH NO SHOW INSTANCE WILL
  301   INSPECTION SERVICES RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION (INSPECTION NO-SHOW EACH ADDT'L TIME)             PER UNIT                   0.00     0.00        10.00                                                              ***NEW FEE***
                                                                                                                                                                   CAUSE INSPECTION FEE TO INCREASE BY AN ADDITIONAL $10.00




                                                                                                                                                                     FEE TO BE ASSESSED TO PROPERTIES NOT BROUGHT INTO
  302   INSPECTION SERVICES RENTAL PROPERTY NON-COMPLIANCE FEE (5TH REINSPECTION)                          PER UNIT                   0.00     0.00        40.00                                                              ***NEW FEE***
                                                                                                                                                                              COMPLIANCE BY FOURTH INSPECTION



                                                                                                                                                                   ADDED TO BASE NON-COMPLIANCE FEE; EACH REINSPECTION
                              RENTAL PROPERTY NON-COMPLIANCE FEE (STARTING WITH 6TH COMPLIANCE
  303   INSPECTION SERVICES                                                                                PER UNIT                   0.00     0.00        10.00 INSTANCE WILL CAUSE NON-COMPLIANCE FEE TO INCREASE BY AN     ***NEW FEE***
                              REINSPECTION)                                                                                                                                           ADDITIONAL $10.00


                                                                                                                                                                     FEE ASSESSED TO PROPERTIES IN COMPLIANCE INTERIOR
                              RENTAL PROPERTY EXTERIOR ONLY NON-COMPLIANCE FEE (1ST EXTERIOR ONLY
  304   INSPECTION SERVICES                                                                                PER UNIT                   0.00     0.00        25.00     REQUIREMENTS BUT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH EXTERIOR         ***NEW FEE***
                              REINSPECTION)                                                                                                                                REQUIREMENTS BY FOURTH REINSPECTION


                                                                                                                                                                      ADDED TO BASE EXTERIOR NON-COMPLIANCE FEE; EACH
                              RENTAL PROPERTY EXTERIOR ONLY NON-COMPLIANCE FEE (STARTING WITH 2ND
  305   INSPECTION SERVICES                                                                                PER UNIT                   0.00     0.00         5.00 REINSPECTION INSTANCE WILL CAUSE EXTERIOR NON-COMPLIANCE     ***NEW FEE***
                              EXTERIOR ONLY COMPLIANCE REINSPECTION)                                                                                                        FEE TO INCREASE BY AN ADDITIONAL $5.00


  306   INSPECTION SERVICES LATE FEE FOR RENTAL UNITS NOT REGISTERED BY DUE DATE                    EACH PROPERTY VIOLATION         100.00   100.00       100.00                 FEE CHARGED AFTER 90 DAYS



  307   INSPECTION SERVICES HOUSING-WARRANT INSPECTION FEE                                                   EACH                   150.00   150.00       150.00


  308   INSPECTION SERVICES LIQUOR LICENSE INSPECTION FEE                                                    EACH                    75.00    75.00        75.00


  309   INSPECTION SERVICES LIQUOR LICENSE RE-INSPECTION FEE                                                 EACH                    45.00    45.00        45.00


  310   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (AIR HANDLERS-COMMERCIAL HOODS)                                EACH                    20.00    20.00        20.00


  311   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (AIR HANDLERS-OVER 10,000 CFM)                                 EACH                    60.00    60.00        60.00


  312   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (AIR HANDLERS-RES BATH & KITCHEN)                              EACH                     5.00     5.00         5.00




                                                                                                                          Page 15
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                 PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                              DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                               2010     2011          2012                           %
               DEPT                                      DESCRIPTION                                                                           COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                       UNIT                 FEE      FEE           FEE                         CHANGE


  313   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (AIR HANDLERS-UNDER 10,000 CFM)              EACH                 20.00    20.00        20.00


  314   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (A/C & REFRIG-CHILLER)                       EACH                 30.00    30.00        30.00


  315   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (A/C & REFRIG-COMPRESSOR)                    EACH                 30.00    30.00        30.00


  316   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (A/C & REFRIG-COOLING TOWERS)                EACH                 30.00    30.00        30.00


  317   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (A/C & REFRIG-EVAPORATOR COILS)              EACH                 30.00    30.00        30.00


  318   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (A/C & REFRIG-REFRIGERATION SPLIT SYSTEM)    EACH                 30.00    30.00        30.00


  319   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (BASE PERMIT)                                EACH                 45.00    45.00        45.00


  320   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (FIRE SUPPRESSION/DUCT)                     PER FOOT               0.10     0.10         0.10   $25.00 MINIMUM FEE



  321   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (FIRE SUPPRESSION/PIPING)                   PER FOOT               0.10     0.10         0.10   $25.00 MINIMUM FEE



  322   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (FIRE SUPPRESSION/RESTAURANT HOODS)          EACH                150.00   150.00       150.00


  323   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (FIRE SUPPRESSION/SPRINKLER HEADS)          PER HEAD               0.75     0.75         0.75   $20.00 MINIMUM FEE



  324   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEAT RECOVERY UNITS/THRU-WALL FAN COILS)    EACH                 10.00    10.00        10.00


  325   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-BOILER CONTROLS, PUMPS)             EACH                 10.00    10.00        10.00


  326   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-BOILERS)                            EACH                 30.00    30.00        30.00


  327   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-CHIMNEY, FACTORY BUILT)             EACH                 25.00    25.00        25.00


  328   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-FLUE/VENT DAMPER)                   EACH                  8.00     8.00         8.00


  329   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-GAS FIRE PLACES)                    EACH                 20.00    20.00        20.00


  330   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-GAS PIPE TESTING NEW SERVICE)       EACH                 45.00    45.00        45.00


  331   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-GAS PIPING EACH OPENING)            EACH                  5.00     5.00         5.00


  332   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-GAS/OIL BURNING EQUIPMENT)          EACH                 30.00    30.00        30.00


  333   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-HEAT PUMPS COMMERCIAL)              EACH                 30.00    30.00        30.00




                                                                                                     Page 16
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                  PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                               DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                  2010    2011         2012                   %
               DEPT                                     DESCRIPTION                                                                             COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                         UNIT                  FEE     FEE          FEE                 CHANGE


  334   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-HEAT PUMPS, COMPLETE RESIDENT)        EACH                 30.00   30.00        30.00


  335   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-HEAT PUMPS, COMPLETE RESIDENT)        EACH                 30.00   30.00        30.00


  336   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-RESIDENTIAL A/C)                      EACH                 30.00   30.00        30.00


  337   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-RESIDENTIAL SYSTEM)                   EACH                 50.00   50.00        50.00


  338   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-SOLAR, SET OF 3 PANELS)               EACH                 20.00   20.00        20.00


  339   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-SOLID FUEL EQUIPMENT COMPLETE)        EACH                 30.00   30.00        30.00


  340   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HEATING-WATER HEATER)                         EACH                 10.00   10.00        10.00


  341   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (HUMIDIFIERS)                                  EACH                 10.00   10.00        10.00


  342   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-ADDITIONAL)                        EACH                 45.00   45.00        45.00


  343   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-FINAL)                             EACH                 45.00   45.00        45.00


  344   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-HOURLY RATE)                       EACH                 60.00   60.00        60.00


  345   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-SPECIAL/SAFETY)                    EACH                 50.00   50.00        50.00


  346   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (INSPECTION-TURN ON GAS)                       EACH                 45.00   45.00        45.00


  347   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (PROCESS PIPING/HAZARDOUS 1-4 OUTLETS)         EACH                  5.00    5.00         5.00


  348   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (PROCESS PIPING/HAZARDOUS 5+ MORE OUTLETS)   PER OUTLET              1.00    1.00         1.00


  349   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (PROCESS PIPING/NON-HAZARDOUS 1-4 OUTLETS)     EACH                  2.00    2.00         2.00


  350   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (PROCESS PIPING/NON-HAZARDOUS 5+ OUTLETS)    PER OUTLET              0.50    0.50         0.50


  351   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (ROOFTOP HVAC UNIT)                            EACH                 60.00   60.00        60.00


  352   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (TANKS-ABOVEGROUND)                            EACH                 20.00   20.00        20.00


  353   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (TANKS-UNDERGROUND)                            EACH                 25.00   25.00        25.00


  354   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (UNIT HEATERS/TERMINAL UNITS)                  EACH                 15.00   15.00        15.00




                                                                                                        Page 17
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                        PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                         DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                       2010     2011         2012                                 %
               DEPT                                      DESCRIPTION                                                                                      COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                             UNIT                   FEE      FEE          FEE                               CHANGE


  355   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PERMIT (UNIT VENTILATORS)                                 EACH                  10.00    10.00        10.00


  356   INSPECTION SERVICES MECHANICAL PLAN REVIEW FEE                                           EACH                 25.00%   25.00%       25.00%   OF APPLICABLE PERMIT FEE



  357   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (BASE PERMIT)                                        EACH                  45.00    45.00        45.00


  358   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (CONNECTION BLDG. DRAIN; SEWERS AT STREET)           EACH                   9.00     9.00         9.00


  359   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (FIXTURES, FLOOR DRAINS, LAB DEVICES)                EACH                   9.00     9.00         9.00


  360   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (INSPECTION ADDITIONAL)                              EACH                  45.00    45.00        45.00


  361   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (INSPECTION FINAL)                                   EACH                  45.00    45.00        45.00


  362   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (INSPECTION HOURLY FEE)                              EACH                  60.00    60.00        60.00     MINIMUM TWO HOURS



  363   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (INSPECTION SPECIAL/SAFETY)                          EACH                  50.00    50.00        50.00


  364   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (MANHOLES-CATCHBASINS)                               EACH                  10.00    10.00        10.00


  365   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (MEDICAL GAS INSTALLATION)                         PER OUTLET               8.00     8.00         8.00


  366   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW PREVENTER 1/4" TO 2")     EACH                  10.00    10.00        10.00


  367   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW PREVENTER OVER 2")        EACH                  20.00    20.00        20.00


  368   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (SEWAGE SUMPS & EJECTORS)                            EACH                  10.00    10.00        10.00


  369   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (SEWERS-SANITARY OR STORM OVER 6")                   EACH                  25.00    25.00        25.00


  370   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (SEWERS-SANITARY OR STORM UNDER 6")                  EACH                  10.00    10.00        10.00


  371   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (STACKS, VENTS, CONDUCTORS)                          EACH                   6.00     6.00         6.00


  372   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (SUB-SOIL DRAINS)                                    EACH                   9.00     9.00         9.00


  373   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM--1-1/2")                  EACH                  30.00    30.00        30.00


  374   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM--1-1/4")                  EACH                  23.00    23.00        23.00


  375   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM--1")                      EACH                  15.00    15.00        15.00




                                                                                                            Page 18
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                                          PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                                             DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                               2010            2011            2012                                                                   %
               DEPT                                         DESCRIPTION                                                                                                                       COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                          UNIT                              FEE             FEE             FEE                                                                 CHANGE


  376   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM--2")                  EACH                              38.00            38.00              38.00


  377   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM--3/4")                EACH                               8.00             8.00               8.00


  378   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM--OVER 2")             EACH                              45.00            45.00              45.00


  379   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER SERVICE 2" TO 6")                         EACH                              25.00            25.00              25.00


  380   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER SERVICE LESS THAN 2")                     EACH                              10.00            10.00              10.00


  381   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (WATER SERVICE OVER 6")                          EACH                              50.00            50.00              50.00


  382   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PLAN REVIEW FEE                                          EACH                            25.00%          25.00%              25.00%                 OF APPLICABLE PERMIT FEE



  383   INSPECTION SERVICES PLUMBING PERMIT (GREASE TRAP INSPECTION)                         EACH                              45.00            45.00              45.00


  384   INSPECTION SERVICES PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE APPEAL APPLICATION FEE                 EACH                             100.00           100.00             100.00


                                                                                                                   APPLICABLE BLDG PERMIT FEE BASED ON VALUE OF
  385   INSPECTION SERVICES ROOFING PERMIT (RE-ROOF OVER OLD ROOF/1LAYERS MAX)         $100 PER SQUARE
                                                                                                                   SQUARES

                                                                                                                   APPLICABLE BLDG PERMIT FEE BASED ON VALUE OF
  386   INSPECTION SERVICES ROOFING PERMIT (STRIP THEN RE-ROOF)                        $200 PER SQUARE
                                                                                                                   SQUARES

                                                                                                                   APPLICABLE BLDG PERMIT FEE BASED ON VALUE OF
  387   INSPECTION SERVICES ROOFING PERMIT (STRIP, RE-SHEET, THEN RE-ROOF)             $250 PER SQUARE
                                                                                                                   SQUARES


  388   INSPECTION SERVICES Telecommunications Outlets                                    1 - 10 Outlets                       50.00            50.00              50.00


  389   INSPECTION SERVICES Telecommunications Outlets                                   11 - 20 Outlets                      100.00           100.00             100.00



  390   INSPECTION SERVICES Telecommunications Outlets                             Over 20 Outlets - Per Outlet                 2.00             2.00               2.00



  391          MARINA         20 FOOT SLIP                                                    EACH                              0.00             0.00               0.00   5% DISCOUNT IS GIVEN IF FEE PAID IN FULL BY FEBRUARY 1



  392          MARINA         30 FOOT SLIP                                                    EACH                           2,005.00        2,005.00         2,005.00     5% DISCOUNT IS GIVEN IF FEE PAID IN FULL BY FEBRUARY 1



  393          MARINA         40 FOOT SLIP                                                    EACH                           3,050.00        3,050.00         3,050.00     5% DISCOUNT IS GIVEN IF FEE PAID IN FULL BY FEBRUARY 1



  394          MARINA         60 FOOT SLIP                                                    EACH                           5,355.00        5,355.00         5,355.00     5% DISCOUNT IS GIVEN IF FEE PAID IN FULL BY FEBRUARY 1


                                                                                                                                                                           ADDITIONAL 5% DISCOUNT IS GIVEN IF FEE PAID IN FULL BY
  395          MARINA         MULTIPLE SLIP RENTAL                                  RENT ADDITIONAL SLIP                        0.00             0.00               0.00
                                                                                                                                                                                               FEBRUARY 1


  396          MARINA         HARD ACCESS (SLIPS 37-46, 69) UNDER 27' ONLY                   EACH                           1,317.00         1,317.00         1,317.00




                                                                                                             Page 19
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                 DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                              2010     2011          2012                                                                 %
               DEPT                                         DESCRIPTION                                                                                           COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                   UNIT                    FEE      FEE           FEE                                                               CHANGE


  397          MARINA         CLASS A MOORING                                          EACH                   468.00   491.00        491.00    5% DISCOUNT IS GIVEN IF FEE PAID IN FULL BY FEBRUARY 1



  398          MARINA         CLASS B MOORING                                          EACH                   397.00   417.00        417.00    5% DISCOUNT IS GIVEN IF FEE PAID IN FULL BY FEBRUARY 1



  399          MARINA         DAILY LAUNCH RAMP                                        EACH                    10.00    10.00         10.00


  400          MARINA         SEASONAL LAUNCH RAMP STICKER                           RESIDENT                  40.00    40.00         40.00


  401          MARINA         SEASONAL LAUNCH RAMP STICKER                         NON-RESIDENT                55.00    55.00         55.00


  402          MARINA         SEASONAL LAUNCH RAMP STICKER (SENIOR/HANDICAPPED)      RESIDENT                  25.00    25.00         25.00


  403          MARINA         SEASONAL LAUNCH RAMP STICKER (SENIOR/HANDICAPPED)    NON-RESIDENT                40.00    40.00         40.00


  404          MARINA         END OF SEASON LAUNCH RAMP PERMIT                         EACH                    25.00    25.00         25.00                  SOLD AFTER SEPTEMBER 15



  405          MARINA         COMMERCIAL LAUNCH RAMP PERMIT                            EACH                   250.00   250.00       250.00


  406          MARINA         SMALL BOAT BASIN                                         EACH                   834.00   834.00        834.00    5% DISCOUNT IS GIVEN IF FEE PAID IN FULL BY FEBRUARY 1



  407          MARINA         DRY STORAGE (RESIDENTS - CATAMARAN)                      EACH                   134.00   134.00       134.00


  408          MARINA         DRY STORAGE (NON-RESIDENTS - CATAMARAN)                  EACH                   199.00   199.00       199.00


  409          MARINA         CANOE & KAYAK STORAGE                               PER SIX MONTHS               75.00    75.00         75.00           DRY STORAGE BASED ON VEHICLE LENGTH



  410          MARINA         DRY STORAGE                                         PER LINEAL FOOT              14.50    14.50         14.50           DRY STORAGE BASED ON VEHICLE LENGTH



  411          MARINA         TRAILER STORAGE                                          EACH                    60.00    60.00         60.00


  412          MARINA         PERSONAL WATERCRAFT STORAGE                              EACH                    65.00    65.00         65.00                  DOCKAGE FEE FOR JET SKI


                                                                                                                                              MINIMUM - FEE CHARGED BASED ON TRANSIENT VESSEL RATES
  413          MARINA         END OF SEASON LATE REMOVAL FEE                      PER DAY MINIMUM              24.00    24.00         24.00
                                                                                                                                                                 (VESSEL LENGTH)


  414        PLANNING         PRECINCT MAPS (LARGE)                                    EACH                    30.00    30.00         30.00


  415        PLANNING         MASTER PLAN COPY (CITY, DDA, LDFA) - COLOR               EACH                   130.00   130.00       130.00                          HARD COPY



  416        PLANNING         MASTER PLAN COPY (CITY, DDA, LDFA) - B & W               EACH                    35.00    35.00         35.00                         HARD COPY



  417        PLANNING         DOWNTOWN PLAN COPY                                       EACH                    30.00    30.00         30.00                         HARD COPY




                                                                                                    Page 20
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                  PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                      DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                              2010       2011          2012                                                                       %
               DEPT                                           DESCRIPTION                                                                                              COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                       UNIT                FEE        FEE           FEE                                                                     CHANGE


  418        PLANNING         MASTER PLAN COPY (CITY, DDA, LDFA) - COLOR                   EACH               15.00      15.00         15.00                          PROVIDED ON CD



  419        PLANNING         MASTER PLAN COPY (CITY, DDA, LDFA) - B & W                   EACH               15.00      15.00         15.00                          PROVIDED ON CD



  420        PLANNING         DOWNTOWN PLAN COPY                                           EACH               15.00      15.00         15.00                          PROVIDED ON CD



  421        PLANNING         OBSOLETE PROPERTY REHAB FILING & MONITORING FEE              EACH             1,000.00   1,000.00      1,000.00     2% OF ABATED TAXES (WHICHEVER IS LESS) - $200.00 MINIMUM



  422        PLANNING         NEZ APPLICATION FEE                                          EACH               25.00      25.00         25.00


  423        PLANNING         IFT/CFT APPLICATION FEE                                      EACH             1,722.00   1,722.00      1,722.00      2% OF ABATED TAXES (WHICHEVER IS LESS - MINIMUM $200)


                                                                                                                                                2% OF ABATED TAXES (WHICHEVER IS LESS - MINIMUM $200); NO FEE
  424        PLANNING         PERSONAL PROPERTY ABATEMENT FEE                              EACH                 0.00      0.00       1,722.00                                                                   ***NEW FEE***
                                                                                                                                                                    IF INCLUDED WITH IFT


  425        PLANNING         COMMERCIAL REHAB FILING/MONITORING FEE                       EACH             1,000.00   1,000.00      1,000.00      2% OF ABATED TAXES (WHICHEVER IS LESS - MINIMUM $200)



  426        PLANNING         GROUNDWATER ORDINANCE APPLICATION FEE                        EACH              500.00     500.00        750.00                                                                     50.00%



  427        PLANNING         BROWNFIELD DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEE                       EACH             2,500.00   2,500.00      2,500.00            IF TAX CAPTURE FEE BASED ON ACTUAL COSTS



  428        PLANNING         LEISURE SERVICES MASTER PLAN                                 EACH               30.00      30.00         30.00                             HARD COPY



  429        PLANNING         LEISURE SERVICES MASTER PLAN                                 EACH               15.00      15.00         15.00                                 CD



  430          POLICE         POLICE REPORTS - ACCIDENT & OFFENSE (EACH ADDITIONAL PAGE)   EACH                0.25       0.25          0.25


  431          POLICE         POLICE REPORTS - ACCIDENT & OFFENSE (FIRST PAGE)             EACH                 5.50      5.50          5.50


  432          POLICE         BIKE REGISTRATION (CHANGE OWNERSHIP)                         EACH                 2.00       2.00         2.00


  433          POLICE         BIKE REGISTRATION (DUPLICATE)                                EACH                 1.00      1.00          1.00


  434          POLICE         BIKE REGISTRATION (ENGRAVING)                                EACH                0.00       0.00          0.00                             NO CHARGE



  435          POLICE         BIKE REGISTRATION (NEW)                                      EACH                 2.00       2.00          2.00


  436          POLICE         CITATION COPY                                                EACH                 5.50       5.50          5.50


  437          POLICE         FALSE ALARM FEE (4TH IN YEAR)                                EACH               30.00      30.00         30.00


  438          POLICE         FALSE ALARM FEE (5TH IN YEAR)                                EACH               60.00      60.00         60.00




                                                                                                  Page 21
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                                                    PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                                                       DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                                          2010            2011           2012                                                                      %
               DEPT                                           DESCRIPTION                                                                                                                               COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                                         UNIT                          FEE             FEE            FEE                                                                    CHANGE


  439          POLICE         FALSE ALARM FEE (6TH OR MORE IN YEAR)                                          EACH                          75.00           75.00           75.00


  440          POLICE         LIQUOR - SPECIAL LICENSE (45 DAYS PRIOR TO EVENT)                              EACH                         250.00          250.00          250.00


  441          POLICE         LIQUOR - SPECIAL LICENSE (15 - 44 DAYS PRIOR TO EVENT)                         EACH                         350.00          350.00          350.00


  442          POLICE         LIQUOR - SPECIAL LICENSE (UNDER 15 DAYS PRIOR TO EVENT)                        EACH                    NOT ISSUED      NOT ISSUED      NOT ISSUED


                              LIQUOR - TEMPORARY EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE (45 DAYS PRIOR TO
  443          POLICE                                                                                        EACH                          50.00           50.00           50.00
                              EVENT)

                              LIQUOR - TEMPORARY EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE (15 - 44 DAYS PRIOR TO
  444          POLICE                                                                                        EACH                          75.00           75.00           75.00
                              EVENT)

                              LIQUOR - TEMPORARY EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE (UNDER 15 DAYS PRIOR
  445          POLICE                                                                                        EACH                    NOT ISSUED      NOT ISSUED      NOT ISSUED
                              TO EVENT)


  446          POLICE         LIQUOR - TEMPORARY EXISTING CLUB LICENSE (45 DAYS PRIOR TO EVENT)              EACH                          50.00           50.00           50.00


  447          POLICE         LIQUOR - TEMPORARY EXISTING CLUB LICENSE (15 - 44 DAYS PRIOR TO EVENT)         EACH                          75.00           75.00           75.00


  448          POLICE         LIQUOR - TEMPORARY EXISTING CLUB LICENSE (UNDER 15 DAYS PRIOR TO EVENT)        EACH                    NOT ISSUED      NOT ISSUED      NOT ISSUED


  449          POLICE         OUIL COST RECOVERY FEE                                                         EACH                  ACTUAL COSTS    ACTUAL COSTS    ACTUAL COSTS


  450          POLICE         PHOTOGRAPH REPRODUCTION (ENLARGED)                                             EACH                          15.00           15.00           15.00


  451          POLICE         PHOTOGRAPH REPRODUCTION (STD SIZE)                                             EACH                          10.00           10.00           10.00


  452          POLICE         PHOTOGRAPH REPRODUCTION (CD-ROM)                                               EACH                           5.00            5.00            5.00


  453          POLICE         VIN INSPECTION                                                                 EACH                          30.00           30.00           30.00


  454          POLICE         VEHICLE IMPOUND FEE (PRIVATE)                                                  EACH                          50.00           50.00           50.00


  455          POLICE         VEHICLE IMPOUND FEE (COURT-ORDERED)                                        EVERY 30 DAYS                     50.00           50.00           50.00


                                                                                                                                                                                   DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
  456     SPECIAL EVENTS      PARKS (WOOD SNOW FENCE RENTAL)                                                 EACH                          30.00           30.00           30.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
                                                                                                                                                                                                        UP IS REQUIRED



  457     SPECIAL EVENTS      PARKS (PLASTIC BAGS FOR GARBAGE CANS)                                        PER CASE                         0.00           25.00           30.00     REFLECTS COST INCREASE; REFUND FOR UNOPENED CASES            20.00%



                                                                                                                                                                                   DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
  458     SPECIAL EVENTS      CITY SERVICES (55-GAL METAL TRASH CANS)                                       EACH                            5.00            5.00            5.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
                                                                                                                                                                                                        UP IS REQUIRED




                                                                                                                         Page 22
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                               PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                                 DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                             2010     2011          2012                                                                     %
               DEPT                                           DESCRIPTION                                                                                                         COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                                     UNIT                 FEE      FEE           FEE                                                                   CHANGE


                                                                                                                                                             DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
  459     SPECIAL EVENTS      CITY SERVICES RENTAL OF POSTS                                            EACH POST               3.00     3.00          3.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
                                                                                                                                                                                  UP IS REQUIRED



                                                                                                                                                             DELIVERY/PICK-UP NOT INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LABOR
  460     SPECIAL EVENTS      CITY SERVICES (PICNIC TABLES)                                              EACH                 10.00    10.00         10.00 ($60.00/HR)AND VEHICLE RENTAL WILL APPLY IF DELEVERY OR PICK-
                                                                                                                                                                                  UP IS REQUIRED



  461     SPECIAL EVENTS      FILM & MUSIC EVENTS ADMINISTRATION FEE                                     EACH                 50.00    50.00         50.00


                              SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATION FEE FOR PEAK SEASON EVENTS (4/15-9/30)                                                              APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO APRIL 15 WILL RECEIVE
  462     SPECIAL EVENTS                                                                                 EACH                  0.00   100.00        100.00
                              SUBMITTED AT LEAST 60 DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OF EVENT                                                                                         50% DISCOUNT OFF REGULAR FEE.


                              SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATION FEE FOR PEAK SEASON EVENTS (4/15-9/30)                                                              APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO APRIL 15 WILL RECEIVE
  463     SPECIAL EVENTS                                                                                 EACH                  0.00   250.00        250.00
                              SUBMITTED 45-59 DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OF EVENT                                                                                               50% DISCOUNT OFF REGULAR FEE.


                              SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATION FEE FOR PEAK SEASON EVENTS (4/15-9/30)                                                              APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO APRIL 15 WILL RECEIVE
  464     SPECIAL EVENTS                                                                                 EACH                  0.00   400.00        400.00
                              SUBMITTED 30-44 DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OF EVENT                                                                                               50% DISCOUNT OFF REGULAR FEE.

                              SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATION FEE FOR OFF SEASON EVENTS (1/1-4/14 & 10/1-
  465     SPECIAL EVENTS                                                                                 EACH                  0.00    50.00         50.00
                              12/31) SUBMITTED AT LEAST 60 DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OF EVENT

                              SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATION FEE FOR OFF SEASON EVENTS (1/1-4/14 & 10/1-
  466     SPECIAL EVENTS                                                                                 EACH                  0.00   200.00        200.00
                              12/31) SUBMITTED 45-59 DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OF EVENT

                              SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATION FEE FOR OFF SEASON EVENTS (1/1-4/14 & 10/1-
  467     SPECIAL EVENTS                                                                                 EACH                  0.00   300.00        300.00
                              12/31) SUBMITTED 30-44DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OF EVENT

                              SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATION FEE FOR OFF SEASON EVENTS (1/1-4/14 & 10/1-
  468     SPECIAL EVENTS                                                                                 EACH                  0.00   500.00        500.00
                              12/31) SUBMITTED LESS THAN 30 DAYS PRIOR TO DATE OF EVENT


  469     SPECIAL EVENTS      CITY SERVICES (POLICE OFFICER - STRAIGHT TIME)                           PER HOUR               40.00    40.00         40.00


  470     SPECIAL EVENTS      CITY SERVICES (POLICE OFFICER - 1.5 OVERTIME)                            PER HOUR               60.00    60.00         60.00


  471     SPECIAL EVENTS      CITY SERVICES (POLICE OFFICER - TRIPLE OVERTIME)                         PER HOUR              120.00   120.00       120.00


  472        TREASURER        DUPLICATE TAX BILL COPY (COMPUTER PRINTOUT)                                EACH                  3.00     3.00          3.00


  473        TREASURER        PROPERTY TAX PROJECTION/ESTIMATE LETTER                                    EACH                  0.00     0.00         20.00                                                                 ***NEW FEE***



  474        TREASURER        NSF CHECK/NSF ACH HANDLING CHARGE                                          EACH                 30.00    30.00         30.00


  475        TREASURER        TAX RECEIPT INQUIRY (LESS THAN 3 YEARS OLD)                                EACH                  5.00     5.00          5.00


  476        TREASURER        TAX RECEIPT INQUIRY (MORE THAN 3 YEARS OLD)                                EACH                 12.00    12.00         12.00


  477        TREASURER        TRANSACTION SERVICE FEE (PAYMENTS MADE AT WINDOWW/O BILL)                  EACH                  2.00     2.00          2.00


  478        TREASURER        TRANSACTION ADMINISTRATIVE FEE (CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS BY PHONE)             EACH                  5.00     5.00          5.00




                                                                                                                   Page 23
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                                                           PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                                                       DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                                              2010              2011            2012                                                    %
               DEPT                                         DESCRIPTION                                                                                                                                 COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                                        UNIT                               FEE               FEE             FEE                                                  CHANGE


  479        TREASURER        PETTY CASH NUISANCE FEE (FAILURE TO RETURN RECEIPTS IN TIMELY FASHION)        EACH                               5.00              5.00              5.00


  480        TREASURER        PROPERTY TAX ROLL ON CD-ROM OR ELECTRONIC FILE                                EACH                             100.00            100.00            100.00


  481        TREASURER        PROPERTY TAX LIEN INQUIRY/LOOKUP (PERFORMED BY CITY STAFF)                    EACH                              35.00             35.00             35.00   PAYMENT IN ADVANCE W/CREDIT CARD REQUIRED



  482        TREASURER        PROPERTY TAX LIEN INQUIRY/LOOKUP (SELF-HELP INTERNET LOOKUP)                  EACH                              20.00             20.00             20.00


  483        TREASURER        PENALTY ASSESSMENT ON DELINQUENT TAXES                                        EACH                               3.0%              3.0%              3.0%


  484        TREASURER        PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION FEE (PTAF)                                        EACH                               1.0%              1.0%              1.0%


  485        TREASURER        LANDLORD'S AFFIDAVIT FILING                                                   EACH                                                                 300.00                                               ***NEW FEE***



  486    WATER FILTRATION     WATER TEST SAMPLE                                                          PER SAMPLE                           70.00             70.00             70.00        COVERS STAFF TIME AND LAB WORK



  487      WATER-SEWER        DELINQUENT PAYMENT PENALTY                                               PAST DUE BALANCE                      10.00%            10.00%            10.00%


                                                                                                                                    GREATER OF 20%    GREATER OF 20%    GREATER OF 20%
  488      WATER-SEWER        DELINQUENT PAYMENT PENALTY (TAX LIEN FEE)                                PAST DUE BALANCE
                                                                                                                                          OR $25.00         OR $25.00         OR $25.00


  489      WATER-SEWER        HYDRANT SERVICE (MAXIMUM 30 DAY) CONNECTION CHARGE                            EACH                              50.00             50.00             50.00   $200.00 REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT ALSO REQUIRED



  490      WATER-SEWER        SALE OF SCRAP HYDRANTS                                                        EACH                               0.00              0.00             35.00                                               ***NEW FEE***



  491      WATER-SEWER        INSTALLATION OF STUB LINE TO PROPERTY LINE (SEWER)                            EACH                             800.00            800.00            800.00


  492      WATER-SEWER        INSTALLATION OF STUB LINE TO PROPERTY LINE (WATER)                            EACH                             800.00            800.00            800.00


  493      WATER-SEWER        METER REPLACEMENT AT OWNER'S REQUEST                                          EACH                     ACTUAL COSTS      ACTUAL COSTS      ACTUAL COSTS


  494      WATER-SEWER        METER RESET AT OWNER'S REQUEST                                                EACH                              35.00             35.00             35.00


  495      WATER-SEWER        METER TEST                                                                    EACH                              35.00             35.00             35.00


  496      WATER-SEWER        MISSED METER APPOINTMENT                                                      EACH                              25.00             25.00             25.00


  497      WATER-SEWER        TEMPORARY (MINIMUM 30 DAY) SERVICE                                            EACH                              25.00             25.00             25.00


  498      WATER-SEWER        TURN ON CHARGE (AFTER HOURS)                                                  EACH                              35.00             35.00             35.00


  499      WATER-SEWER        TURN ON CHARGE (REGULAR HOURS)                                                EACH                              25.00             25.00             25.00




                                                                                                                          Page 24
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                                PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                     DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                           2010        2011          2012                                       %
               DEPT                                         DESCRIPTION                                                                                               COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                              UNIT                      FEE         FEE           FEE                                     CHANGE


  500      WATER-SEWER        TURN ON CHARGE (SEASONAL USE)                                       EACH                      12.50      12.50          12.50


  501      WATER-SEWER        TURN ON CHARGE (MISSED APPOINTMENT - SAME DAY TURN ON)              EACH                       0.00      40.00          40.00


  502      WATER-SEWER        UNAUTHORIZED WATER USE OR TAMPERING (MINIMUM CHARGE)                EACH                    200.00      200.00         200.00


  503      WATER-SEWER        UNAUTHORIZED WATER USE (ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR CONT'D USE)          PER DAY                    20.00      20.00          20.00


  504      WATER-SEWER        BACKFLOW PREVENTER DEVICE REGISTRATION/AUDIT FEE            ANNUAL FEE-EACH DEVICE            10.00      10.00          10.00


  505      WATER-SEWER        WATER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 5/8" OR 3/4"                           EACH                    800.00      800.00         800.00


  506      WATER-SEWER        WATER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 1"                                     EACH                   2,000.00    2,000.00       2,000.00


  507      WATER-SEWER        WATER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 1-1/4" OR 1-1/2"                       EACH                   4,000.00    4,000.00       4,000.00


  508      WATER-SEWER        WATER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 2"                                     EACH                   6,800.00    6,800.00       6,800.00


  509      WATER-SEWER        WATER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 3"                                     EACH                  12,800.00   12,800.00      12,800.00


  510      WATER-SEWER        WATER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 4"                                     EACH                  20,000.00   20,000.00      20,000.00


  511      WATER-SEWER        WATER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 6"                                     EACH                  40,000.00   40,000.00      40,000.00


  512      WATER-SEWER        WATER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - GREATER THAN 6"                        EACH                      TBD         TBD            TBD     BASED ON CALCULATED CAPACITY



  513      WATER-SEWER        FIRELINE SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE 2"                                    EACH                                   0.00           0.00      TIME & MATERIALS BASIS



  514      WATER-SEWER        FIRELINE SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE 4"                                    EACH                               6,800.00       6,800.00    PREVIOUSLY TIME & MATERIALS



  515      WATER-SEWER        FIRELINE SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE 6"                                    EACH                              12,800.00      12,800.00    PREVIOUSLY TIME & MATERIALS



  516      WATER-SEWER        FIRELINE SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE 8"                                    EACH                              20,000.00      20,000.00    PREVIOUSLY TIME & MATERIALS



  517      WATER-SEWER        FIRELINE SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE 12"                                   EACH                              40,000.00      40,000.00    PREVIOUSLY TIME & MATERIALS



  518      WATER-SEWER        SEWER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 5/8" OR 3/4"                           EACH                    800.00      800.00         800.00


  519      WATER-SEWER        SEWER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 1"                                     EACH                   2,000.00    2,000.00       2,000.00


  520      WATER-SEWER        SEWER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 1-1/4" OR 1-1/2"                       EACH                   4,000.00    4,000.00       4,000.00




                                                                                                              Page 25
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                                                                     PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                                       DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                                                2010        2011          2012                                                                  %
               DEPT                                            DESCRIPTION                                                                                                              COMMENTS
LINE                                                                                                    UNIT                     FEE         FEE           FEE                                                                CHANGE


  521      WATER-SEWER        SEWER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 2"                                           EACH                  6,800.00    6,800.00       6,800.00


  522      WATER-SEWER        SEWER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 3"                                           EACH                 12,800.00   12,800.00      12,800.00


  523      WATER-SEWER        SEWER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 4"                                           EACH                 20,000.00   20,000.00      20,000.00


  524      WATER-SEWER        SEWER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - 6"                                           EACH                 40,000.00   40,000.00      40,000.00


  525      WATER-SEWER        SEWER SERVICE TRUNKAGE FEE - GREATER THAN 6"                              EACH                     TBD         TBD            TBD                 BASED ON CALCULATED CAPACITY



                                                                                                                                                                    NO CHARGE IF CORRECTED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF DISCOVERY. FEE
                              STORM WATER CROSS CONNECTION SEWER TREATMENT CHARGE (AREAS UNDER
  526      WATER-SEWER                                                                                 PER DAY                    0.00        6.05           6.05    FOR AREAS OVER 45,000SF BASED ON CURRENT COUNTY WW
                              45,000 SF)                                                                                                                              TREATMENT CHARGE AND ASSUMED 36" ANNUAL RAINFALL



  527          ZONING         SPECIAL MEETING FEE (PLANNING, ZBA)                                   PER REQUEST                400.00      400.00         400.00


  528          ZONING         FENCE PERMIT FEE                                                          EACH                     30.00      30.00          30.00


  529          ZONING         LOT SPLIT REVIEW                                                          EACH                     30.00      30.00          30.00


  530          ZONING         ZONING, GIS MAPS (UP TO 17" x 24" )                                       EACH                    15.00       15.00          15.00


  531          ZONING         ZONING, GIS MAPS (17" x 24" TO 34" x 44" )                                EACH                     25.00      25.00          25.00


  532          ZONING         PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)                                            EACH                   500.00      500.00         500.00


  533          ZONING         SIDEWALK BENCH ENCROACHMENT                                        PER BENCH PER MONTH              5.00        5.00           5.00


  534          ZONING         SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE - MINOR                                              EACH                   100.00      100.00         100.00


  535          ZONING         SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE - MAJOR                                              EACH                   200.00      200.00         200.00


  536          ZONING         SPECIAL USE PERMIT                                                        EACH                   300.00      300.00         300.00


  537          ZONING         STREET VACATION                                                           EACH                   300.00      300.00         300.00


  538          ZONING         ZONING COMPLIANCE LETTER                                                  EACH                     30.00      30.00          30.00


  539          ZONING         ZONE CHANGE                                                               EACH                   300.00      300.00         300.00


  540          ZONING         ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION                                       EACH                   300.00      300.00         300.00                 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ONLY



  541          ZONING         ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION                                       EACH                   150.00      150.00         150.00                       RESIDENTIAL ONLY




                                                                                                                   Page 26
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Master Fee Resolution - Schedule of Fees
(Effective 1/1/2012)

                                                                                                        PROPOSED
                                                                                                                     DEPARTMENT
                                                                                        2010    2011         2012                   %
               DEPT                                      DESCRIPTION                                                  COMMENTS
LINE                                                                   UNIT              FEE     FEE          FEE                 CHANGE


  542          ZONING         ZONING ORDINANCE COPY                    EACH             25.00   25.00        25.00


  543          ZONING         ZONING ORDINANCE COPY W/ MAP             EACH             45.00   45.00        45.00




                                                                              Page 27
             Commission Meeting Date: December 13, 2011

Date:                 December 2, 2011
To:                   Honorable Mayor & City Commission
From:                 Planning & Economic Development Department
RE:                   Request to Deny & Accept Properties that did not
                      Sell During the Tax sale for 2011


SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The County of Muskegon held two delinquent tax auctions during 2011. There were twenty
three properties left after the last auction. According to the State’s new tax laws, the City
must state that they are not interested in obtaining them, otherwise the City will automatically
receive them. From the list that was provided, there are four houses, one commercial
building, and eighteen vacant lots. Community & Neighborhood Services would like to obtain
two of the houses and Planning would like to obtain eleven vacant lots with the remaining
parcels being denied.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.

BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
None.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To deny of ten parcels and accept thirteen parcels and authorize both the Mayor and the
Clerk to sign said resolution.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
None.
                                  Resolution No. _______

                           MUSKEGON CITY COMMISSION


RESOLUTION TO DENY ACCEPTANCE OF TAX REVERTED PROPERTY FROM THE
COUNTY TREASURER.

WHEREAS, The City may not accept the properties available under the urban homestead act,
1999 PA 127, MCL 125.2701 to 125.2709, PA 123 of 1999, MCL 211.78M(6) or for any other
lawful purpose, and;

WHEREAS, the City of Muskegon does not want to acquire ten parcels;

WHEREAS, the City of Muskegon will accept the remaining thirteen parcels;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Muskegon shall not accept fourteen
parcels that were remaining from the tax sale but will accept the remaining thirteen.

                   Legal Descriptions that will not be Accepted are as Follows:
       CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 S 45 FT LOT 1 BLK 68
       Parcel # 24-205-068-0001-10
       1073 Williams
       CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT 1903 S 1/2 LOT 6 BLK 74
       Parcel # 24-205-074-0006-10
       1126 Kenneth
       CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 W 29 FT LOT 7 BLK 74
       Parcel # 24-205-074-0007-10
       0 Catherine
       CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT 1903 LOT 2 BLK 77
       Parcel # 24-205-077-0002-00
       1123 Chestnut
       CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT 1903 LOT 7 BLK 214
       Parcel # 24-205-214-0007-00
       974 Jay
       CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 S 21.6 FT LOT 7 & N 22.4 FT LOT
       8 BLK 307
       Parcel # 24-205-307-0007-00
       1778 Pine
       CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 E 1/2 LOT 1 BLK 369
       Parcel # 24-205-369-0001-10
       371 Houston
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 E 1/2 LOT 4 BLK 371
Parcel # 24-205-371-0004-10
507 Houston
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 W 38 FT LOT 9 BLK 394
Parcel # 24-205-394-0009-00
24 Morrall
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 N 44 3/4 FT OF W 90 FT LOT 1
BLK 411
Parcel # 24-205-411-0001-00
1430 Beidler
           Legal Descriptions that will be Accepted are as Follows:
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 LOT 9 BLK 9
Parcel # 24-205-009-0009-00
509 Adams
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 LOT 3 BLK 47 EXC N 132 FT OF
E 10 FT TH'OF
Parcel # 24-205-047-0003-00
519 Orchard (for CNS)
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT 1903 LOT 12 BLK 82
Parcel # 24-205-082-0012-00
642 McLaughlin
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 E 35 FT LOT 12 BLK 88
Parcel # 24-205-088-0012-00
734 Hill
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 SLY 12 FT LOT 13 BLK 148
Parcel # 24-205-148-0013-10
299 Jackson
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 W 42 FT LOT 7 & W 42 FT OF S
10 FT LOT 8 BLK 264
Parcel # 24-205-264-0007-00
336 Catawba
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 ELY 29 FT LOT 12 BLK 264
Parcel # 24-205-264-0012-10
297 McLaughlin
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 LOT 14 & N 4 FT LOT 13 BLK
274
Parcel # 24-205-274-0014-00
1451 Leahy
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 S 35.7 FT LOT 2 BLK 281
Parcel # 24-205-281-0002-10
1530 Hoyt
        CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 E 1/2 OF LOT 9 BLK 375
        Parcel # 24-205-375-0009-10
        0 Washington
        CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 N 1/2 LOT 12 BLK 389
        Parcel # 24-205-389-0012-00
        1349 6th
        CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAT OF 1903 W 1/2 LOT 11 BLK 392
        Parcel # 24-205-392-0011-10
        0 Strong
        CITY OF MUSKEGON EASTLAWN SUB DIV OF BLKS 3-4 & 5 R P EASTONS
        2ND SUB DIV LOT 1 BLK 9
        Parcel # 24-255-009-0001-00
        1908 Superior (for CNS)

Adopted this 13th day of December, 2011

Ayes:

Nays:

Absent:
                                                 By: _________________________
                                                     Stephen J. Warmington, Mayor

                                               Attest: ________________________
                                                       Ann Marie Cummings, MMC
                                                                           Clerk
       CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the foregoing constitutes a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted
by the City Commission of the City of Muskegon, County of Muskegon, Michigan at a regular
meeting held on December 13, 2011.

                                                                By: ________________________
                                                                    Ann Marie Cummings, MMC
                                                                                        Clerk
Date:         November 23, 2011

To:           Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners

From:         Assistant Finance Director

RE:           Deficit Elimination Plan for Home Rehabilitation Fund and State
              Grants Fund



SUMMARY OF REQUEST: At June 30, 2011 the City of Muskegon Home
Rehabilitation Fund had a deficit balance of $166,174 and the State Grants Fund had a
deficit unassigned balance of $71,930. Act 275 of the Public Acts of 1980 requires that
the City file a Deficit Elimination Plan with the Michigan Department of Treasury. Staff is
requesting adoption of the Home Rehabilitation Fund and State Grants Fund Deficit
Elimination Plan Resolutions.


FINANCIAL IMPACT: As presented by the Deficit Elimination Plan the Home
Rehabilitation Fund and State Grants Fund will no longer have a deficit by June 30,
2013.

BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the Deficit Elimination Plan Resolutions.


COMMITTEE RECOMMENATION:
        Commission Meeting Date: December 13, 2011




Date:        December 6, 2011
To:          Honorable Mayor & City Commission
From:        Planning & Economic Development Department
RE:          Improvement Plan for Hackley Park- Donor


SUMMARY OF REQUEST: A potential donor has made a request through the
Community Foundation for Muskegon County, to provide funds for improvements to
Hackley Park, including a Foundation fund for future park maintenance. Staff has
met with the donor, as well as Schultz Transport, Inc., who is designing the
improvements. The Master Plan for Hackley Park has been consulted as
improvements are being designed. This is an exciting project which will provide for
attractive, as well as historic, improvements to the Park, when there are few City
funds available. The City has agreed to continue providing water to the Park as part
of our responsibility. There will be a marker placed in the park in memory of the
donor’s husband.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None for the City. The maintenance fund established through
the Community Foundation will pay for future maintenance, as well as replacement,
when necessary (with the exception of the water, which the City will provide).

BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the general plan for improvements to
Hackley Park and the establishment of a maintenance fund through the Community
Foundation; and authorize staff to continue coordinating with the Foundation, the
donor and Schultz Transport, Inc. on the specific design and improvements to be
made. Final improvements must be approved by the Historic District Commission.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The improvement plan will be presented to the
Commission Work Session on December 12, 2011 and the final plan will be
presented to the Historic District Commission for approval in January.
        Commission Meeting Date: December 13, 2011




Date:      November 15, 2011
To:        Honorable Mayor & City Commission
From:      Planning & Economic Development Department
RE:        Parks & Recreation Master Plan Amendment


SUMMARY OF REQUEST: In order to seek a Michigan Natural
Resources Trust Fund grant for projects, they must be included in the
Parks & Recreation Master Plan.         Therefore, amendments are
recommended for the Consumer’s Power site and Sheldon Park. In
addition, minor amendments are included for other parks, particularly in
relation to ADA requirements.


FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.


BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To adopt the “Muskegon Parks &
Recreation Master Plan 2009” Amendments and authorize the Mayor &
Clerk to sign any documents necessary related to the amendments.
                                             Resolution No. ______

                                    MUSKEGON CITY COMMISSION

                                        CITY OF MUSKEGON
                                   RECREATION PLAN AMENDMENT
                                     RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION

WHEREAS, the City of Muskegon has undertaken a Parks and Recreation Plan Amendment which
describes changes to the Five Year Parks and Recreation Plan originally adopted in 2009 and indicates
actions to be taken to improve and maintain recreation facilities during the same five year period; and

WHEREAS, a public comment session was held December 13, 2011 at City Hall, 933 Terrace St. to
provide an opportunity for citizens to express opinions, ask questions, and discuss all aspects of the
Recreation Plan Amendment; and

WHEREAS, after the public meeting, the City of Muskegon City Commission voted to adopt said
Recreation Plan Amendment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Muskegon City Commission hereby adopts
the City of Muskegon “Muskegon Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2009” Recreation Plan
Amendment.

Adopted this _____ of _______________, 2011.

          AYES:

          NAYS:

          ABSTAIN:

                                                                By:______________________________
                                                                        Stephen J. Warmington, Mayor

                                                               Attest:____________________________
                                                                        Ann Marie Cummings, City Clerk
                      PROPOSED CHANGES MADE TO THE MASTERPLAN
                                    December 2011

ACTION PLAN AND ASSESMENT

P. 12- Conclusion- Change ‘largest’ to ‘greatest’

P. 47- Relationships with other agencies- Add: “Recently, the city has established a relationship with the
organization “No More Sidelines”; a non-profit group helping children and young adults with disabilities
to participate in sports and other social events, which are hosted within many public facilities. The city has
also provided grant funding to assist with their softball and soccer program.”

P. 59- Facilities Chart- Remove: softball diamonds; Add: combined football and soccer field, basketball
court lights, picnic grills, observation pier, picnic shelters for Smith-Ryerson.

P. 63- Sheldon Park- Special Characteristics: Add last two sentences- “This is also home to the East Little
League, and a potential location for the “No More Sidelines” baseball program to take place. This
program is for children and young adults with disabilities; and could in turn bring much more interaction
to the park as the program is growing in popularity.”
P. 63- Sheldon Park- Condition: Add “The Park needs an automatic irrigation system.”
P. 63- Beachwood Park- Special Characteristics: Add last sentence- “Minor ADA upgrades are being
planned for the park, such as a route to the covered BBQ area and a path to the play area.”

P. 64- Conclusion- Add sentence- “Sheldon Park’s usage is expected to steadily rise as more programs and
interaction are expected to take place there. This gives it a higher priority when it comes to enhancing its
current state.”

P. 65- Smith-Ryerson- Facilities: Add- concession stand, observation pier, trail along creek, picnic
pavilion, and a combined soccer and football field.
P. 65- Smith-Ryerson- Condition: Remove “poor” and add “great” condition in first sentence.
P. 65- Smith Ryerson- Condition: Add/Update condition of basketball court. “The basketball courts have
recently been reconstructed with cement rather than asphalt which will minimize future inconvenience.
There are new basketball poles, backstops, and hoops. There is also a new timed lighting system for the
courts.”
P.65- Smith-Ryerson- Condition: Add- “The removal of the softball diamond has left more room for open
green space as well as more room for other recreational activities to take place.”
P. 65- Smith-Ryerson- Condition: Add/Update accessible facilities: “Accessibility is especially important
as the building is used as a voting precinct. The old restroom facility in the park has been converted to
storage for maintenance equipment. A new ADA accessible restroom and concession stand building have
been constructed on the site. A large picnic shelter has been added with ADA accessible grills and barrier
free picnic tables.”

P.66- Smith-Ryerson- Add/Update on irrigation: “An underground irrigation system has been added to the
park. This will keep the combined football and soccer field looking presentable and green.”
P. 66- Smith-Ryerson- Condition: Add/Update on parking: “The parking area has been reconstructed,
enlarged, striped and made ADA van accessible. There are more parking spaces overall with more spaces
added for people with disabilities.”
P.66- Smith-Ryerson- Condition: Add, “There is also an observation pier located at the creek as well as a
trail to walk along the creek.”
P.66- Smith-Ryerson- Condition: Change “The City ‘had’ to The City ‘has’ been awarded…” since this has
been done.
P.66- Smith-Ryerson- Condition: Add, “The improvements have been completed.”
P.66- Smith-Ryerson- Condition: Add, “Future renovation plans for the park include creating an ADA
accessible route to the playground area.”
 P. 66- Reese Park- Condition: Add, “These should include ADA accessible parking spaces. For every 50
spaces it is required to have one van accessible and one standard accessible parking space.”
P.66- Reese Park- Condition: Change, “The restroom and maintenance building need replacement to “The
restroom and maintenance building are in good condition.”
P. 66- Reese Park- Condition: Add, “A concession stand, as well as a place for storage is needed.”
P. 66- Reese Park- Condition: Add, “Getting a well water system in place should be looked into as a new
irrigation system for the soccer field is of high priority. An expansion of lights on the field is also needed.”
P. 66- Reese park- Condition: Add ‘accessible’ to last sentence

P. 76- Veterans Memorial Park- Special Characteristics: Add, “Each parking lot here will have at least one
ADA van accessible parking space.”
P. 76- Ryerson Creek Open Space- Facilities: Add, ‘pier overlooking creek’.

P. 77- Ryerson Creek Open Space- Condition: Add/Update on pathway/trail, “A trail has been constructed
along the creek in Smith-Ryerson Park and is approximately 1500-feet long and has been constructed
according to ASHTO standards. It has been designed with little to no slope so that it is accessible to
everyone. The trail veers off to a newly added pier overlooking the creek, which offers a good spot for
nature watching. The trail connects to two walkways that were previously on the site. In the future the city
would like to extend the trail past the park property.”

P. 84- Conclusions- Physical Issues- Add Smith-Ryerson to renovated parks list.
P. 84- Conclusions- Physical Issues- Add, “Perhaps, the future renovations of Sheldon Park can focus on
creating specific amenities geared toward the needs and interests of people with disabilities. The addition
of a baseball/softball complex on the Consumer’s Energy property would provide recreational
opportunities for residents of Muskegon County, as well as providing a venue for activities and
tournaments attracting participants from the entire State of Michigan.”

P. 99- Action Step IV- Remove Smith-Ryerson on list of parks to be updated.
P. 99- Action Step V- Add, “Public facilities geared toward people with disabilities could be created
throughout Sheldon Park, helping to bring them together and give them more of an opportunity to
participate in sports and other activities.”

P. 100- Goal #3 first paragraph: Add, “little to” no programs for preschoolers and the disabled (as there
is the “No More Sidelines” program)
P. 100- Goal #3 last paragraph: Add, “universal design, which will enrich” into sentence.
P. 104- Action Step XIII- Add, “Developing a relationship with the group, “No More Sidelines” is an
example of this.”

CAPITAL IMPORVMENTS SCHEDULE

    •    Smith-Ryerson: Remove all improvements except for ‘reconstruct tennis courts/fencing’ and
         ‘drinking fountains”.
    •    Smith Ryerson: Initial amount of project, $922,000 was changed to $110,000.
    •    Sheldon Park: Remove “sidewalks and paved parking” Add, “pave parking/alley, concrete
         sidewalk along south side of Isabella, asphalt sidewalks within park, baseball diamond”.
    •    Sheldon Park: Initial amount of project, $959,700 was changed to $923,700.
    •    Sports/Baseball/Softball Complex (Causeway Park): Change from “soccer” to “baseball/softball”.
         Take out Phase III. Change Phase I from “$800,000” to “$900,000” and change the total from
         “$3,300,000” to “$2,600,000”.
    •    Lighton Park: Remove “remove fountain”.
    •    Lighton Park: Initial amount of project, $1,230,000 was changed to $330,000.
Date: December 13, 2011
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Finance
RE: Consolidation of Services Plan - EVIP


SUMMARY OF REQUEST:                    Under the Economic Vitality Incentive Program (EVIP)
adopted by the state earlier this year, the City must meet certain criteria in order to continue
receiving statutory revenue sharing funds. The first criterion was to prepare and make
available a citizen’s guide and performance dashboard by October 1, 2011.

The second criterion the city must meet is to certify to the Michigan Department of Treasury
that by January 1, 2012 they have produced and made readily available to the public, a plan
with one or more proposals to increase its existing level of cooperation, collaboration, and
consolidation, either within the jurisdiction or with other jurisdictions.

The attached Economic Vitality Incentive Program - Consolidation of Services Plan is
presented for your approval. Once approved, the plan will be submitted to the Michigan
Department of Treasury and made available to the public on the City’s website.


FINANCIAL IMPACT: Failure to submit the plan to the state could result in the loss of
$321,642 - the consolidation of services portion of the EVIP payment.



BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Commission approval of the attached plan and
authorization for staff to submit the plan to the Michigan Department of Treasury.




                                               1
City of Muskegon,
Michigan



EVIP Consolidation of Services Plan




December 2011

                    www.shorelinecity.com
Michigan Department of Treasury
4887 (07-11)


Economic Vitality Incentive Program
&HUWL¿FDWLRQ RI &RQVROLGDWLRQ RI 6HUYLFHV
Issued under authority of Public Act 63 of 2011. Filing is mandatory to qualify for payments.


Each city/village/township applying for Consolidation of Services payments must:
     1. Certify to the Michigan Department of Treasury (Treasury) that the local unit listed below has produced and made readily
        available to the public, a plan to increase its existing level of cooperation, collaboration, and consolidation of services (either
           within the jurisdiction or with other jurisdictions). The plan shall include a listing of any previous services consolidated with the
           cost savings realized from each consolidation and an estimate of potential savings for any new service consolidations being
           planned.

        2. Submit to Treasury a copy of the plan to increase cooperation, collaboration, and consolidation of services.

7KLV FHUWL¿FDWLRQ DORQJ ZLWK D cooperation, collaboration, and consolidation plan, PXVW EH UHFHLYHG E\ -DQXDU\   RU WKH ¿UVW
day of a payment month) in order to qualify for that month’s payment. Post mark dates will not be considered. For questions, call
(517) 373-2697.

3$57  /2&$/ 81,7 ,1)250$7,21
Local Unit Name
 City of Muskegon
Local Unit Code                                                                        Local Unit County
 612020                                                                                 Muskegon
Contact Name                                                                           Contact Telephone Number
 Bryon Mazade                                                                           (231) 724-6724


3$57  &(57,),&$7,21
 ,Q DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK 3XEOLF $FW  RI  WKH XQGHUVLJQHG KHUHE\ FHUWL¿HV WR 7UHDVXU\ WKDW E\ -DQXDU\   WKH DERYH PHQWLRQHG ORFDO
 XQLW KDV SURGXFHG DQG PDGH UHDGLO\ DYDLODEOH WR WKH SXEOLF D SODQ WR LQFUHDVH FRRSHUDWLRQ FROODERUDWLRQ DQG FRQVROLGDWLRQ RI VHUYLFHV
 7KH SODQ IRU FRRSHUDWLRQ FROODERUDWLRQ DQG FRQVROLGDWLRQ RI VHUYLFHV LV DWWDFKHG WR WKLV VLJQHG FHUWL¿FDWLRQ
&KLHI $GPLQLVWUDWLYH 2I¿FHU 6LJQDWXUH DV GH¿QHG LQ 0&/ E


Title                                                                                  Date
 City Manager                                                                           12/14/11

Completed and signed forms (including required attachments) should be e-mailed to: 7UHDV257$#PLFKLJDQJRY

If you are unable to submit via e-mail, mail the completed form and required attachments to:
Michigan Department of Treasury
2I¿FH RI 5HYHQXH DQG 7D[ $QDO\VLV
PO Box 30722
Lansing MI 48909




                                                                          7UHDVXU\ 8VH 2QO\
EVIP Eligible                                               &HUWL¿FDWLRQ 5HFHLYHG                             EVIP Notes
                         Y              N
)LQDO &HUWL¿FDWLRQ                                          3ODQ 5HFHLYHG
                                    City of Muskegon
   Economic Vitality Incentive Program - Consolidation of Services Plan


Introduction
The state’s Economic Vitality Incentive Program (EVIP) adopted earlier this year set
three criteria for cities to maintain statutory revenue sharing:

   1. Certify to the Michigan Department of Treasury that by October 1, 2011 they have produced and
      made readily available to the public, a citizen’s guide and a performance dashboard of their local
      finances, including recognition of their unfunded liabilities. The City has met this criterion.
   2. Certify to the Michigan Department of Treasury that by January 1, 2012 they have produced and
      made readily available to the public, a plan with one or more proposals to increase its existing
      level of cooperation, collaboration, and consolidation, either within the jurisdiction or with other
      jurisdictions. A plan shall include a listing of any previous services consolidated with the cost
      savings realized from each consolidation and an estimate of the potential savings for any new
      service consolidations being planned.
   3. Certify to the Michigan Department of Treasury that by May 1, 2012 they have developed an
      employee compensation plan, which they intend to implement, with any new, modified, or
      extended contract or employment agreement, for employees not covered under contract or
      employment agreement; and that the plan has been made available for public viewing in the
      clerk’s office or posted on a publicly accessible Internet site.

This document represents the City’s Consolidation of Service Plan due by January 1,
2012 under the EVIP requirements.


Examples of Prior Consolidation of Services Initiatives
The City of Muskegon is the largest community in the Muskegon-Norton Shores-
Muskegon Heights, MI SMSA and has long been a leader in initiating and implementing
consolidation of municipal service efforts. The City can point to numerous and
successful service consolidation examples both as a service provider to others and as a
recipient of services where it has been determined another local unit can perform a
service more efficiently:
                  Existing Service Consolidation Examples
               (Muskegon Provides Services to Other Units)
          Service             Communities Involved      Annual Savings
                             Roosevelt Park, North Muskegon,
Water production                                                    $1,000,000
                             Northside System, Muskegon
                             Township

                             Muskegon Township, Northside
Water distribution system
                             System, Laketon Township, Dalton       $250,000
maintenance
                             Township and stand-by emergency
                             for Roosevelt Park

 Vehicle maintenance         Muskegon Township, Roosevelt           $100,000
                             Park, Muskegon Heights

                             Design and survey work to Norton
 Engineering and survey                                              $50,000
                             Shores, Roosevelt Park, North
 services
                             Muskegon

                 Existing Service Consolidation Examples
            (Muskegon Receives Services From Other Units)
         Service            Communities Involved       Annual Savings
Prosecution of local         The City has contracted with the
                                                                     $70,000
ordinance violations         Muskegon County Prosecutor’s
                             Office for this service

                             The City has contracted with the
Property Assessment                                                  $75,000
                             Muskegon County Equalization
                             Office for this service


 Mail service                The City has contracted with
                                                                     $25,000
                             Muskegon County Central Services
                             for this service
                            There is a countywide Central
 Public Safety dispatch     Dispatch Authority that provides this
 services                   service to the City                     $300,000
New Planned Consolidation of Services Initiatives
Recently, the City (together with Muskegon County and six other area communities)
was an active participant in a shared services study sponsored by the Muskegon
Lakeshore Chamber of Commerce. This study was funded and conducted under a
public-private partnership and sought to provide an “assessment of opportunities to
provide traditional municipal services on a broader scale, with two or more
municipalities working cooperatively to achieve cost savings through the use of
alternative service models.”

The final report from this effort was published in July 2011. We have incorporated a
copy of the full report as an appendix to this EVIP Consolidation of Services Plan as we
believe the study’s nineteen specific recommendations will be the roadmap guiding
further consolidation efforts in the Muskegon area.

Of the nineteen specific recommendations, fifteen directly involve the City of Muskegon.
Because of this large number, we have found it necessary to internally prioritize each
recommendation (High, Medium, or Low) based on our assessment of costs vs. benefits
and political/technical feasibility.

                                                                               City of
Study                                                      Involves City of   Muskegon
           Potential Shared-         Municipalities or
 Rec                                                         Muskegon?         Priority
         Service - Opportunity     Departments Affected
  #                                                                           Ranking

                                   Muskegon Heights
                                      contracts fire
          Fire Contract-for-                                     Yes            Low
  1
                                       services to
               Services
                                   Muskegon or Norton
                                         Shores

                                   Muskegon-Area Fire
         Ladder Truck Joint           Departments                Yes          Medium
  2
        Purchase/Deployment         determine location
                                      and specifics

                                  All county-wide police
           Police and Fire           and fire agencies           Yes            Low
  3
           Training Facility      utilize - funding must
                                      be determined

                                     Roosevelt Park
                                     contracts police
         Police Contract-for-                                    No             N/A
  4
                                    services to Norton
              Services
                                          Shores
                                                                              City of
Study                                                     Involves City of   Muskegon
           Potential Shared-       Municipalities or
 Rec                                                        Muskegon?         Priority
         Service - Opportunity   Departments Affected
  #                                                                          Ranking

                                  Muskegon Heights
                                   contracts police
         Police Contract-for-                                  Yes           Medium
 5
                                     services to
              Services
                                    Muskegon or
                                  Muskegon County

                                  Muskegon Heights
           Collaborative            collaborates on            Yes           Medium
 6
         Community Policing       community policing
                                    with Muskegon

                                   Montague and
                                                                No             N/A
 7
        Police Authority           Whitehall form a
                                   police authority

                                      All or most
                                                               Yes             Low
 8
        Solid Waste Authority    communities form a
                                 solid waste authority

                                    Roosevelt Park
                                  contracts remaining
           Public Works                                        Yes           Medium
 9
                                     public works
        Contract-for-Services
                                     operations to
                                      Muskegon

                                    Montague and
                                       Whitehall
          Combined Public                                       No             N/A
 10
                                    incrementally
          Works Operations
                                 combine public works
                                      operations

                                   North Muskegon
         Contract for Meter      contracts water meter         Yes           Medium
 11
         Reading and Billing     reading and billing to
                                      Muskegon

                                  Muskegon County
                                  Road Commission
         Contract for Survey                                   Yes             Low
 12
                                   contracts survey
              Services
                                 services to others on
                                       demand
                                                                                 City of
Study                                                        Involves City of   Muskegon
           Potential Shared-          Municipalities or
 Rec                                                           Muskegon?         Priority
         Service - Opportunity      Departments Affected
  #                                                                             Ranking

                                    Muskegon contracts
             Contract for                                         Yes           Medium
 13
                                    engineering services
         Engineering Services
                                    to others on demand

                                      Norton Shores
          Contract for Rental         contracts with              Yes           Medium
 14
             Inspections            Muskegon for rental
                                       inspections

                                      Muskegon area
            Consolidated               communities                Yes             High
 15
         Telecommunications           combine phone
                                         systems

                                    Muskegon County
                                    institutes Reverse
              Centralized                                         Yes             Low
 16
                                    Auction purchasing
              Purchasing
                                      process for all
                                       communities

                                   Ten non-participating     No (Muskegon
              Centralized
                                     communities join          is current         N/A
 17
              Geographic
                                       County's GIS           participant)
          Information System
                                         initiative

                                    Muskegon Heights
         Contract for Income          contracts with              Yes             High
 18
         Tax Administration        Muskegon for income
                                    tax administration

                                    All Muskegon area
             One Water             communities joined in          Yes             High
 19
          Production System         one common water
                                    production system


Three consolidated service recommendations are ranked as highest priority by the City
of Muskegon: 1) One Water Production System, 2) Contract for Income Tax
Administration and, 3) Consolidated Telecommunications.

The City’s plan for realizing each of these is reviewed below:
One Water Production System

The Muskegon region is currently serviced by two municipal water treatment facilities:
the City of Muskegon and the City of Muskegon Heights. Each system provides water
to neighboring municipalities at varying rates.

There has been much discussion for years about standardizing rates and achieving
greater economies of scale through consolidation of the two water supply systems –
either by creating an authority, contractual relationship, or having the Muskegon County
take over ownership and operation.

The City of Muskegon is an active leader in these discussions. In July 2011, the City
issued a proposal in line with the recommendations of the Chamber’s shared services
study to energize the discussion of consolidated water supply.

More recently, the City has agreed to standardize its current water service agreements
with four separate municipal customers under a new single agreement. This agreement
is currently under legal review and should be finalized within three months.

These City initiatives have helped generate an active, positive, and ongoing discussion
on the feasibility of consolidated metropolitan water supply system. As a large-scale
project with many legal and financial implications, it will likely take some time to achieve.
However, there are substantial benefits and savings that could accrue to the entire
region and the City will continue to aggressively pursue this recommendation.

Anticipated annual operating savings (for all affected communities): $1,000,000



Contract for Income Tax Administration

The City of Muskegon and the City of Muskegon Heights are currently the only
communities in Muskegon County that have enacted a municipal income tax. The
municipal income tax is authorized by PA 284 of 1964 and most aspects of
administering the tax are uniform across all adopting cities. While there can be
variations in terms of tax rates or exemption levels, the Muskegon and Muskegon
Heights taxes are identical in this regard.

Discussions have started between the two cities on feasibility of having Muskegon
administer Muskegon Heights income tax under a contractual relationship. Such a
relationship would have the potential benefits of: 1) lowering both communities overall
tax administration costs, enhance collections through more uniform enforcement, and
lessen business and taxpayer confusion.
Anticipated annual operating          savings/improved     collections    (for   both
communities): $100,000



Consolidated Telecommunications

This consolidated services initiative is nearest to completion. Several communities in
the area have dated telecommunications systems and are considering upgrading to
more modern and cost-effective VOIP (voice over IP) internet-based systems.
Muskegon Central Dispatch Authority has led the effort in analyzing and selecting the
best product lines. A contractor and equipment provider has been selected and the City
of Muskegon anticipates approving its participation in this contract.

Anticipated annual operating savings of $80,000
APPENDIX
 MUSKEGON LAKESHORE
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE




FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR MUNICIPAL
        SHARED-SERVICES




Municipal Consulting Services LLC
        Municipal Consulting Services LLC
                                                    July 11, 2011

Ms. Janessa Smit
Vice President, Government Affairs
Muskegon Lakeshore Chamber of Commerce
380 W. Western Avenue, Suite 202
Muskegon, MI 49440

Dear Ms. Smit,

We have completed the Feasibility Study for Municipal Shared-Services for which we were
engaged by the Muskegon Chamber of Commerce. The results of the study are presented in this
final report document.

The study has included an assessment of opportunities to provide traditional municipal services
on a broader scale, with two or more municipalities working cooperatively to achieve cost
savings through the use of alternative service models. These include partnerships, contracts with
other governments, or districts and authorities charged with the responsibility of providing inter-
jurisdictional services.

To identify these opportunities, we have worked closely with the seven participating entities as
well as the committee and discussion groups that you have organized for the project. We have
appreciated the cooperation extended to us by the elected officials, city administrators and
private sector sponsors that we have worked with throughout the course of the study. The
contributions of these individuals were indispensable to assuring focus and substance in the
report findings.

We have sincerely enjoyed this opportunity to work with the Muskegon Chamber of Commerce
and the seven participating municipalities. Should you have questions concerning this report,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 734.904.4632.

                                                           Very truly yours,




                                                           Mark W. Nottley, Principal
                                                           Municipal Consulting Services LLC




        3999 Albert Drive       Ann Arbor, MI 48105 „ Phone: 734-904-4632       Facsimile: 206-350-0305
                            „                                               „
                                      www.MunicipalConsultingServices.com
       MUSKEGON LAKESHORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

                   FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR MUNICIPAL
                           SHARED-SERVICES

                                       Table of Contents



Section                                                    Page


I.     Executive Summary                                   I-1


II.    Current Status and Conditions                       II-1


III.      Targeted Areas for Shared-Services

       A.   Fire and Emergency Services                    III-1
       B.   Police Services                                III-13
       C.   Public Works and Inspection Services           III-26
       D.   Central Services                               III-36
       E.   Water Production                               III-40

IV.    Summary of Shared-Service Targets                   IV-1

Appendices

       A. Existing Shared-Services (as identified)         A-1
       B. Fire Service Maps                                B-1
       C. Police Schedules for Whitehall/Montague          C-1
    SECTION I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
                                       SECTION I
                                  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


In this section of the report we provide an overview of the study’s purpose and objectives, our
approach to the project and a summation of our findings and conclusions.

OVERVIEW

In 2010, Municipal Consulting Services LLC was retained by the Muskegon Lakeshore Chamber
of Commerce to conduct a study of the potential for shared-services among nine communities in
Muskegon County.

The study has been funded by a group of business and corporate leaders as well as the
participating municipalities. Of the nine communities initially envisioned for the study, seven
opted to participate including the Cities of Muskegon, North Muskegon, Norton Shores,
Roosevelt Park, Montague, Whitehall and Fruitport Charter Township. Two other communities
declined to participate including the City of Muskegon Heights and Muskegon Charter
Township.

Shared-services have become a topic of interest across the state as a means of potentially
providing public services at lower cost. Under a shared-services scenario, municipalities place
less emphasis on traditional municipal borders and look at broader options for providing utility,
public safety, public works or other services. These options might include merging services with
another public service provider, contracting for services or forming an authority to provide
services to multiple cities and/or townships. However accomplished, the end objective is to
provide taxpayers with better service and/or lower cost. This study has been designed to identify
these opportunities.

DRIVING FORCE

The study has been prompted in large part by the economic downturn. Similar to other regions of
the state, the Muskegon area has been negatively affected by the economic recession. This
impact can be seen in the number of job losses, reduced economic activity and the ongoing
decline in property values.

As the economic fall-out has intensified, the local governments in Muskegon County have seen
large reductions in operating revenues. These have resulted from a myriad of sources including
declining property values and associated tax revenue, reductions in state revenue-sharing
previously earmarked for local governments, significant decreases in investment income and loss
of income from building permits and other secondary revenue sources that are dependent on new
development. These trends can be expected to continue as the housing market, state government,
and the economy more generally continue to struggle. In turn, this trend can be expected to
reshape both the business and public service environments.




                                               I-1
In essence, the municipal governments are faced with a challenge that will not easily be solved.
Cutbacks have been initiated and services have been modified to operate at both lesser and more
cost-effective levels. However, more cost saving will be required. Essentially, what are needed
are new ideas for providing the core services of government in more efficient ways. Shared-
services, selectively applied, may be one solution to achieving this objective.

OUR APPROACH TO THE PROJECT

Our approach to the project has been designed to investigate and identify a full-range of shared-
services opportunities. To accomplish this, we have spent a significant amount of time in data
collection and analysis. This has included ongoing data requests from each of the seven
participating municipalities as well as a wide assortment of interviews and on-site visitations.
Data collection tasks have included:

       Multiple interviews with city administrators.
       Interviews at the department head level for most operating departments in all seven
       entities.
       Interviews and data collection from Muskegon County departments such as County
       Administration, the Sheriff’s Office, Public Works, Road Commission, Information
       Technology, Geographic Information Systems and others.
       Interviews with other area organizations and governments such as E-911, ProMed
       Ambulance and representatives of several municipal authorities in Muskegon County.
       Freedom of Information (FOIA) data gathering from Muskegon Heights and Muskegon
       Charter Township.
       Collection of data from other counties, cities, authorities and expert sources pertaining to
       existing or planned shared-services initiatives.

Essentially, our approach has entailed a “broad sweep” of all service areas to identify targets that
have potential for a shared-services arrangement. These targets have then been subjected to
further analysis and detailed in the report. Related to this, the report should not be seen as an
“end all” but rather the beginning of a process of determining which shared-services
opportunities should receive immediate or future attention – and which should be discarded as
unworkable or inefficient. In this sense, the report is a first step in the coordination of shared-
services collaboration.

OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The following sections of the report are organized to provide a step-by-step assessment of
shared-services opportunities: They include:

       Section II: The current status of shared-services in Muskegon County and overview of
       conditions that must be met to achieve further successes.

       Section III: The evaluation of, and conclusions concerning shared services opportunities
       organized as follows:



                                                I-2
       -   Fire and Emergency Services
       -   Police Services
       -   Public Works and Inspection Services
       -   Central Services
       -   Water Production.

       Each section is organized to evaluate related shared-services opportunities that have the
       greatest potential for cost savings and/or service improvement. Conclusions are then
       drawn and presented in the report – punctuated by cost saving estimates where applicable
       and possible. In total, nineteen opportunities are identified and described. These include
       opportunities of all sizes and dollar impact – some involving two communities and others
       extending county-wide.

       Section IV: The identified shared-services opportunities are summarized in matrix form,
       allowing convenient reference points for each community.

UTILIZATION OF THE REPORT’S FINDINGS

As noted, the sponsorship of the study has been a cooperative endeavor between the business
sponsors and the local governments. There is a common understanding that the efforts of the
business community and governments must be coordinated if the Muskegon area is to realize its
full potential for economic and community development. Simply put, the services provided by
the various governments must be affordable and support a high quality of life that retains and
attracts business and personal investment. The identification and implementation of shared-
services initiatives can be a key step in supporting this process.

Toward this end, the results of this study will provide a foundation for the Muskegon area’s
Community Service Improvement Plan and a basis to focus discussion, gain consensus on
priority items, further evaluate potential outcomes and monitor success in effecting meaningful
change.

To our knowledge, this is among the more coordinated and committed shared-services/service
improvement efforts in Michigan. In every sense it is consistent with the Governor’s shared-
service message and municipal revenue-sharing strategies. If municipal revenue-sharing and
other state aid is to be dependent on a community’s willingness to embrace new service
concepts, this report, and subsequent movement to new shared-service arrangements should
position the Muskegon area well in the competition for scarce state funding.

               *              *              *               *              *

In the following Section II, we present a summation of the current status of service sharing in the
 participating municipalities as well as conditions and challenges that influence future shared-
                                      service arrangements.




                                                 I-3
          SECTION II

CURRENT STATUS AND CONDITIONS
                                       SECTION II
                             CURRENT STATUS AND CONDITIONS


Our study of shared-services in Muskegon County has involved the evaluation of nine local
governments, seven of which have been active participants in the study. Two other communities
have opted not to actively participate but have been included in the study due to their geographic
proximity and importance to the future of the greater Muskegon area.

The nine communities represent a cross sample of Michigan municipalities including a
traditional center city, several small, mature urban communities, several communities in which
growth is still, or will be occurring and several small “out-county” municipalities. Summarily,
the group includes both cities and townships of varying size, population, demographic features
and financial condition. Exhibit 1 summarizes the nine communities from an overview
perspective.

                                        Exhibit 1
                     Communities Targeted for the Shared-Services Study
                                    General Overview

                                                                           FY 2011
                                                                         General Fund           Square
                    Municipality                 2010 Population           Budget*               Miles
                Muskegon                             38,401               $23,473,354            19.0
                Muskegon Heights**                     10,856               $5,836,990             4.0
                Muskegon Township**                    17,840               $6,503,208            23.9
                North Muskegon                         3,786                $2,185,353             1.5
                Norton Shores                          23,994               $8,325,970            24.5
                Roosevelt Park                         3,831                $2,185,800             1.0
                Fruitport Township                     13,598               $3,881,112            30.1
                Whitehall                              2,706                $1,843,866             2.7
                Montague                               2,361                $1,782,605             3.5
                AVERAGE                                13,129               $6,224,251            12.2
               *Includes Police and Fire Funds for Fruitport and Muskegon Townships, North Muskegon: FY 2010
               ** Indicates non-participating community
                  Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, FY 2011 operating budgets, MML 2010 Directory, Wikipedia


Shared-service provision is not a new concept among government entities but it has taken on a
new sense of urgency as governments seek new methods for “doing more with less.” In this
section of the report, we frame the issue of shared-services as it pertains to Muskegon County’s
municipalities. More specifically:

   A. Current Trends That Support a Shared-Services Concept

   B. Current Status of Shared Services in Muskegon County

   C. The Challenges Associated With New Shared-Services Opportunities


                                                         II - 1
   D. The Importance of Moving Forward.

Each of these issues is discussed separately below.


   A. CURRENT TRENDS THAT SUPPORT A SHARED-SERVICES CONCEPT

As previously mentioned, the economy has been a motivating factor in the exploration of shared-
services opportunities. In better times, municipalities have been more inclined to maintain
services within municipal boundaries. In this situation, services can be tailored to the particular
community’s needs and service expectations are monitored and adjusted based on community
input. Seen from this perspective, shared-services concepts can be viewed as a loss of local
autonomy and community identity.

As in other areas of the State, the local decision-making model has worked well in differentiating
service levels and needs throughout the Muskegon area. Smaller communities, such as North
Muskegon or Roosevelt Park, have structured their service menus to respond to higher service
expectations in areas such as public works or public safety. Similarly, larger communities, like
the City of Muskegon, have targeted concerns such as community policing and rental inspections
as methods for stabilized vulnerable neighborhoods and sections of the city. Related to the
above, a strong case can be made for the argument that some of the best decisions of government
are made at the local level.

However, taken to its extreme, the local decision-making model can have profound cost
implements. Economies-of-scale can be lost if a defining point is not established between
services at the local level and those that can be more efficiently provided on a broader scale. An
argument can always be made for local autonomy. Simply put, there is always some service
advantage in providing services locally. The key is to determine the point of diminishing returns
when the cost of this service advantage becomes prohibitive. An example would be public safety
dispatch. Muskegon County was the frontrunner in Michigan in consolidating dispatch services
on a county-wide basis. The result is a system in which fewer, centralized personnel can serve
the needs of multiple communities. The cost savings are significant since the municipalities are
not required to staff separate dispatch systems or purchase associated equipment. However,
some service advantage is lost. Local dispatchers know their particular locales better than a
centralized dispatcher servicing a large area. Local dispatchers also tend to coordinate more
effectively with their own law enforcement agency and citizens. However, a decision has been
made in Muskegon County (and many other geographic areas) that the cost advantage of
centralized dispatch far outweighs the marginal service advantage of local dispatchers.
Essentially, the point of diminishing returns has been established and a prudent financial service
decision has been made.

The point at which cost considerations outweigh service consideration is key to the discussion of
shared-services. As an example, the Cities of Grosse Pointe Shores and Grosse Pointe Woods,
two affluent Detroit area communities, have now decided to merge dispatch services. While
shared-services may have been an issue of discussion prior to the recession, the financial
challenges now facing the two communities intensified and shifted the debate from dispatch



                                               II - 2
service to dispatch cost. For these two communities, the “tipping point” at which cost
considerations outweigh the benefits of the previous service model has been redefined.

The issue of cost is also central to the discussion of shared-services in Muskegon County. As
seen in the following Exhibit 2, Taxable Valuation, the basis for property tax revenue, declined
markedly in 2010 in eight of the nine studied municipalities. These declines are part of a
continuing and more universal trend in housing values that is not expected to abate in the near
future. As a result, the Muskegon area communities will be in a situation in which retrenchment
and cost cutting is the continuing norm.

                                             Exhibit 2
                                    Trends in Taxable Valuation
                              for the Nine Target Municipalities (000)
                                                              - 4.3%
      1,000,000
                    - 4.3%
        800,000

        600,000                                                                     - 2.5%
                                       - 3.6%
        400,000
                                                 - 3.1%
                              - 3.4%                                    - 5.3%               - 2.9%
        200,000                                                                                        + 1.8%


             0
                              Muskegon Muskegon North     Norton       Roosevelt   Fruitport
                    Muskegon Heights Township Muskegon Shores            Park      Township Whitehall Montague
              2009 756,015     138,360    380,498 146,489 930,478       126,742     467,962  126,615 76,084
              2010 723,209     133,618    366,724 141,910 890,443       120,045     456,150  122,932 77,436
             Source: Michigan Department of Treasury


In addition to the losses in tax revenue, many communities in Muskegon County are also
experiencing outflows in population. As seen in Exhibit 3, this trend is most pronounced in the
more established communities where suburban migration and population aging have impacted
existing population levels as well as prospects for future growth.




                                                     II - 3
                                            Exhibit 3
                       Population Trends for the Nine Target Municipalities
                                           2000-2010
         50,000       - 4.2%

         40,000
                                                              + 6.5%
         30,000
                                           + 0.6%
                                                                                   + 8.5%
         20,000                   - 9.9%

                                                    - 6.1%                - 1.5%              -6.2%    - 1.9%
         10,000

              0
                               Muskegon Muskegon North       Norton    Roosevelt Fruitport
                Muskegon        Heights Township Muskegon    Shores      Park    Township* Whitehall Montague
            2000 40,105         12,049   17,737   4,031      22,527     3,890      12,533   2,884     2,407
            2010 38,401         10,856   17,840   3,786      23,994     3,831      13,598   2,706     2,361

             *Includes Fruitport Village
             Source: U.S. Census Bureau


Summarily, many Muskegon area communities are faced with a future in which growth trends
may be negative and operating revenues are limited. Ideally, new service planning will seek to
address both conditions through the development of strategies for assuring solvency, maintaining
key services and generally providing an attractive environment for personal and business
retention and investment. In some cases, service-sharing agreements may facilitate the
accomplishment of this objective.

As in the Grosse Pointe example discussed above, this will likely involve some modifications to
the existing service scope or method of delivery. Related to this, a shared-services approach will
definitely alter the current service models. However, with service costs taking on increasing
importance, it may also (in some cases) provide a workable solution to assuring that core
services are continued at a high quality level within a more cost-efficient service approach.

While the economic downturn has had many negative impacts it has also opened the door for
changes that may have been politically impossible a decade ago. Significant changes to police
and fire service delivery systems were extremely rare in Michigan in 2000. It has now become a
common topic – both in Muskegon County and at the state and national levels. The willingness
of Muskegon County’s elected officials to open dialogue on these and many other shared-service
issues bode well for the future.


      B. CURRENT STATUS OF SHARED-SERVICES IN MUSKEGON COUNTY

In conducting the study, we have had the opportunity to review financial and service data from
all seven participating municipalities, Muskegon County and, to a lesser extent, the two non-
participating municipalities. In doing so, it became immediately apparent that significant
amounts of cost cutting and shared-services initiatives have already been implemented.
Indicative of this, Exhibit 4 compares full-time staffing levels in the seven participating
municipalities in 2005 and 2011.


                                                        II - 4
                                          Exhibit 4
                Comparison of Full-Time Staffing in the Municipalities Actively
                         Participating in the Study: 2005 and 2011
          300     281
          280
          260           244
          240
          220
          200
          180
          160
          140
          120                                    99
                                                      87
          100
           80
           60
                                                                                                     35   34
           40                                                                 23 24       16
                                                                16
                                  17                                  10
                                       15                                                      15
           20
            0
                 Muskegon        North           Norton        Roosevelt     Whitehall   Montague   Fruitport
                                Muskegon         Shores*         Park                               Township
                                                            2005      2011
             * Six new positions will be added with millage passage
             Source: Survey of listed entities


As seen in the exhibit, full-time staffing has decreased by approximately 12% in aggregate,
spread among six of the seven communities. Measured by sheer count, the City of Muskegon
has been particularly aggressive in its downsizing efforts, losing 37 positions, or approximately
13% of the City’s total full-time workforce during this time period. Among the smaller
communities, Roosevelt Park has reduced full-time staffing by an impressive 37%.

To accomplish these reductions and still maintain service levels, the communities have been
challenged to “think outside the box.” Duties and responsibilities have been merged or
reassigned, services have been contracted to the private sector and technology has been
emphasized. Additionally, a number of shared-services arrangements have been added to an
already impressive list.

Related to this, as part of the study we have developed an inventory of shared-services
arrangements that currently exist. The list is likely not exhaustive, but is our best attempt to
capture the breadth of shared-services among the study participants. This inventory, listed in
Appendix A, includes shared-services arrangements of the following types:

       County-wide or area-wide authorities, districts and other broad-reaching agreements.

       Contracts-for-service in which one community provides service to another.

       County-centered services that are open to all communities that wish to contract or join the
       service group.

       Mass-purchase opportunities, training, equipment sharing and other less formal
       cooperative arrangements.



                                                             II - 5
In assembling and reviewing the shared-services list included in Appendix A, we have observed
and concluded that the Muskegon County communities have progressed much further than cities
and townships in many other Michigan counties in regard to service consolidation. Examples
include:

       E-911 Dispatch: The Muskegon County communities participate in, and receive services
       from, a common emergency dispatch system. Other counties, including major counties
       such as Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne, have not yet achieved this level of central service
       provision. As previously discussed, this represents a major cost savings to taxpayers as
       fewer dispatchers are used more efficiently to handle the county-wide emergency call
       volume.

       Similarly, the County wastewater system represents a major regional success in the
       funding and coordination of wastewater services. A new contract has recently been
       agreed-upon by the municipal users for wastewater collection and treatment in a County-
       operated system featuring a negotiated long-term rate structure supporting a central land
       treatment process encompassing 11,000 acres of aeration and settling basins, storage
       lagoons, and irrigated cropland. As a result of this cooperative effort, the Muskegon
       communities avoid much of the acrimony and rate uncertainty that plagues some other
       regional wastewater systems in Michigan.

       Contracts for service between the communities are prevalent, ranging from the City of
       Norton Shores’ provision of fire and emergency medical services to the City of Roosevelt
       Park on one extreme to the City of Muskegon’s contracts to provide various public works
       and other services to the City of North Muskegon, Muskegon Charter Township, the City
       of Norton Shores and others. As seen in Appendix A, similar arrangements are common
       in virtually all service areas throughout the nine communities.

       Muskegon County provides a range of contract services from a central focus including
       assessment services, geographic information services, police services and less formal
       joint purchasing opportunities.

       Asset sharing is common in equipment use and even work-crew sharing among the
       municipalities. Some is formally contracted while other initiatives have been undertaken
       through informal cooperation. Many of the informal arrangements are not listed in
       Appendix A, but are important in their own right as a recognition point of the need to
       think and act on a broader-scale for the larger community.

       Fire service automatic aid agreements are common. This type of aid is more predictable
       and rapid than the mutual aid pacts than are commonly seen between communities or on
       a county-wide level. Similarly fire training, purchasing and emergency response are all
       well coordinated between the communities.

Essentially, the Muskegon County communities are already engaged in many of the operational
practices and collaborative efforts that are being actively promoted by the Governor’s Office. To
use a common metaphor, much of the “low hanging fruit” has already been picked. Further,


                                              II - 6
some very complex solutions (such as E-911 or centralized wastewater) have been implemented
and further refined over the course of time.

In this situation, additional shared-services solutions will find fertile ground but will be less
plentiful than those available to communities/counties that have not achieved the same level of
success. Hopefully this will not place the Muskegon area in a competitively unfavorable position
in the quest for state-shared revenues that are targeted to encourage and reward municipal
service-sharing.


         C. THE CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH NEW SHARED-SERVICES
                             OPPORTUNITIES

As could be expected, there are various constraints associated with implementing service
consolidation and sharing. Not surprisingly, these constraints increase in proportion to the
significance and scope of the undertaking. Conceptually, this is illustrated in Exhibit 5.

                                             Exhibit 5
                                         Shared-Services:
                                   Conceptual Degree of Difficulty

                                                         Authorities and      Total
                         Formal
          Readily                     Contracts for
                                                         Other Service                     Difficult
                                                                            Municipal
                        Resource
                                        Service
         Achievable                                         Mergers        Consolidation
                        Sharing




As seen in Exhibit 5, less complex service sharing agreements, such as resource and equipment
sharing or a straightforward contract for service provision may be easier to achieve. As
discussed, many such agreements now exist between the nine studied communities. However,
more complex cases of service assumption may require compliance with labor contracts or
restrictive state laws, introduce issues such as asset division, or require an unusually high level of
community acceptance or acquiescence. Total municipal consolidation would be the most acute
example of this, and in turn, would be subject to each of these constraints at extreme levels. For
this reason, total municipal consolidation (i.e. two or more cities or city/township) has been a
rare event in the State of Michigan.

In regard to new shared-services for Muskegon’s municipalities, these and other constraints need
to be thoroughly considered. In some cases, there will be significant cost burdens associated
with an idea that on the surface appears totally logical; or other constraints may exist that limit
opportunity. In evaluating shared-services opportunities in this report, we cite particular
constraints that must be considered within the context of a particular idea. These will need to be
considered and addressed in implementing any shared-services ideas discussed and detailed in
the report. From an overview perspective they include the following:




                                                      II - 7
Labor Constraints: Many municipal workers are unionized. In addition to contractual
protections, state law provides explicit protections against unilateral changes in working
conditions. Examples include:

       − PA 312 of 1969: PA 312 provides public safety workers (i.e. police and fire)
         with the option of compulsory arbitration before an independent arbitrator in
         the event of labor disputes. PA 312 was legislated on the premise that public
         safety workers should not be allowed to strike and should be granted a viable
         alternative. In practice, it has been criticized as an undue limitation on
         management’s ability to control compensation or other working conditions.
         The merits of PA 312 are being debated by the current legislative body. For
         purposes of shared-services it restricts what can be readily accomplished.

       − PA 7 of 1967: The Urban Cooperation Act contains the following language.
         “No employee who is transferred to a position with the political subdivision
         shall by reason of such transfer be placed in any worse position with respect to
         workmen’s compensation, pension, seniority, wages, sick leave, vacation,
         health and welfare insurance or any other benefits that he enjoyed as an
         employee of such acquired system.” Simply put, in the event of a
         consolidation of services between two entities (e.g. police, fire, public works,
         etc.) wages and benefits cannot be adjusted to a lower level. The current
         legislative body is also reportedly reviewing PA 7 of 1967.

Other legislation also exists providing explicit employee protections. Individually or in
total, the current legal framework provides significant disincentive for more
comprehensive types of shared-services arrangements.

Differences in Operating Models: Public safety systems schedule employees on an
around-the-clock basis. Within this context, shift scheduling practices vary. Among the
studied communities, police officers may work 12, 10, or 8 hours shifts. Full-time
firefighters may work different 24-hour scheduling patterns to comply with the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In many cases, the shift system has become contractually
specified. If not, it is subject to the legal argument of past practice. As discussed above,
proposed changes for a new shared-service model may be subject to PA 312 arbitration.

Differences in Operating Efficiency: Governments, like businesses, differ in the level of
operating acumen. Some simply run more efficiently, or provide a higher quality of
service. In the case of shared-services, a more efficient government will be less inclined
to enter into a cooperative arrangement. What may appear to be a logical shared-services
situation could actually be a bad business model for a stronger, more efficient
government.

Prior Cutbacks: As previously illustrated in Exhibit 4, some communities, including the
City of Muskegon, have experienced significant cutbacks in personnel. The City of
Muskegon is mentioned because it has the largest staffing level of the nine communities,
and in turn the most diverse and complete menu of services that could be contracted to


                                        II - 8
       others. Whether it is the City of Muskegon or the other communities, prior cutbacks in
       personnel now limit the opportunity to provide services to others. Again, using the City
       of Muskegon as an example, in the past the Community Development Department could
       have potentially provided urban planning services to other communities for a fee.
       However, following cutbacks, professional staffing has been reduced to two. In the
       current situation, there is not sufficient staff to extend service to others. This scenario is
       common to the studied communities.

       Similarly, in smaller communities such as the City of Montague (or others), employees
       may “wear multiple hats”. While some tasks (such as tax collections) could potentially be
       provided by a larger community, the function is one portion of a much more diverse job.
       In this event, contracting the service may simply lessen the productivity level of an
       existing job that is highly productive and would still exist following the removal of the
       responsibility. In other cases, duties (such as some associated with a city clerk) may be
       statutorily or charter mandated.

       The Private Sector May Be Less Costly: In some cases we have considered opportunities
       in which one government could contract with another. However, feedback would then
       indicate that this option has been considered and discarded because of cost. This point
       was raised on a number of occasions pertaining to public works services such as street
       sweeping, surveying and others. The issue appears to focus on employee benefit costs.
       These are much higher in the public sector and are “baked into” the estimated contract
       cost. The private sector, frequently paying less generous benefits, can propose a more
       competitive price for service.

       Strong Community Preferences for the Status Quo: Some communities are more willing,
       or able to pay for more personalized services. Police services would be a prime example.
       Public safety is an important indicator of quality-of-life and is often equated with a local,
       responsive police agency. In many cases, residents are willing to pay the extra cost to
       assure local responsiveness and police presence. This attitude may also extend to other
       services such as public works where road quality, special services such as leaf pick-up or
       snow removal, or other services may be highly valued. In truth, this may be an intelligent
       economic decision as some studies have concluded a correlation between service quality
       and scope and property values. One might point to the City of North Muskegon as an
       ongoing example of this correlation within the greater Muskegon area.

In summary, a number of factors exist which may impact the cost-benefit or viability of shared-
services opportunities. These affect both the substance of this study as well as the potential
options available to government officials going forward. Exhibit 6 provides a visual summary of
the above discussion.




                                                II - 9
                                              Exhibit 6
                                 Summary of Shared-Services Constraints


                                      Labor Constraints

                          Different Operating Models
                                                                                  Impediments to
                              Differences in Efficiency                           Shared-Services
                                          Prior Cutbacks

                        Preference for the Status Quo



                           D. THE IMPORTANCE OF MOVING FORWARD

The fiscal challenges facing the Muskegon area’s local governments have been well
documented. As discussed in the previous pages, many positive actions have been taken to
improve the cost and quality of municipal services. However, the financial issues facing
government will not soon abate and more entrepreneurial methods of service provision must be
identified.

Exhibit 7 provides an illustration of General Fund fund balance from the most recent audited
financial statements provided to our consulting team. Fund balance can generally be described
as a discretionary reserve of money that is available to fund operations. Auditors typically cite
and recommend a minimum fund balance of 10% of expenditures to assure necessary cash flow
and funds for “rainy day” needs. In practice, 10% is probably the appropriate amount for a
larger city (i.e. 100,000) – smaller communities (with smaller General Fund total budgets) may
appropriately maintain much higher percentages.

                                              Exhibit 7
                            FY 2009 or 2010 Audited Ending General Fund
                            Fund Balance as a Percentage of Expenditures
         55.0%
                                                                                                             44.4%
         45.0%                                                                                       39.9%
                                                                                36.2%
         35.0%                                          28.8%
                                                                                             21.3%
         25.0%
                    14.8%                                           13.5%
                                            10.2%
         15.0%

          5.0%

         -5.0%

                                -9.8%
        -15.0%
                  Muskegon Muskegon Muskegon  North                  Norton    Roosevelt Fruitport Whitehall Montague
                            Heights Township Muskegon                Shores      Park    Township

           Source: Most recent audited financial statement provided to our consulting team



                                                             II - 10
As seen in Exhibit 7, all of the communities except the City of Muskegon Heights exceed the
10% threshold – some by a significant amount. In the case of Muskegon Heights, the City is
operating under a state-mandated budget deficit elimination plan.

The adequacy of fund balances in the other eight communities should be viewed positively and
as an indicator of prudent financial planning, but not without qualifiers. If, as expected, property
taxes and other revenue sources remain flat or decline, fund balance depletion will result. Many
traditional cost saving measures have already been enacted in these cities and townships. Short
of reducing service levels, it will be extremely difficult to balance budgets. New ideas and
initiatives are needed and must be embraced.

In this scenario, shared-services could play an important role in assuring future fiscal solvency.
As discussed, this will not be an easy path and will require political resolve. The evaluation and
ideas presented in the following section are intended to support this process.


               *              *               *              *               *

In the following section, we present the evaluation of particular shared-services opportunities.




                                               II - 11
            SECTION III

TARGETED AREAS FOR SHARED-SERVICES
                                        SECTION III
                                      TARGETED AREAS


As mentioned in the Executive Summary our approach has involved a broad sweep of all service
areas in the seven participating communities and a lesser data-gathering exercise for the two non-
participants. Based on interviews and data review, we have identified areas where shared-
services are most feasible.

In this section of the report, we explore and summarize the shared-services opportunities that we
have identified for the nine studied municipalities. For purposes of discussion, the findings are
presented in the following subsections:

   A.   Fire and Emergency Services
   B.   Police Services
   C.   Public Works and Inspection Services
   D.   Central Services
   E.   Water Production.

Each area is discussed separately below.


                         A. FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
The studied communities utilize different operational models to provide fire suppression and
prevention services. These include:

        Career departments that feature all full-time firefighting personnel.

        Departments that utilize a combination of full-time and part-time personnel – with some
        part-time personnel assigned to shift duty.

        Departments that utilize a combination of full-time and part-time personnel – with part-
        time personnel used only on a call-out basis.

        One department that is wholly part-time.

From an organizational standpoint, four of the nine municipalities have their own fire
departments, two have dedicated fire services within larger public safety departments, two are
members of multi-community fire authorities and one (i.e. the City of Roosevelt Park) contracts
for fire service from the City of Norton Shores. The operating models for each of the nine
communities are illustrated in Exhibit 8.




                                               III - 1
                                                          Exhibit 8
                                               Fire Service Operating Models

 Municipality                   Organizational Context for Fire Services   Firefighting Model/Firefighter Usage
 Muskegon                             Part of Public Safety Department         Full-time Career Firefighters*
 Muskegon Heights                               City Department                Full-time Career Firefighters
 Muskegon Township                           Township Department             Combination Career and Part-paid
 North Muskegon                                 City Department              Combination Career and Part-paid
 Norton Shores                                  City Department              Combination Career and Part-paid
 Roosevelt Park                          Contract with Norton Shores                         -
 Fruitport Township                   Part of Public Safety Department       Combination Career and Part-paid
 Montague                            Served by Montague Fire Authority                 Paid-on-call
 Whitehall                          Served by White Lake Fire Authority      Combination Career and Part-paid
* Muskegon will begin using part-time firefighters in FY 2012
Source: Applicable fire departments


In regard to emergency medical services, all agencies provide Medical First Response; though
some at different priority levels. Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS)
treatment and transport are provided by PROMED in the south and the White Lake Ambulance
Authority in the north. Related to this, the scope of fire department services are fairly uniform
across the nine communities, albeit with differing levels of fire prevention activities and
professional ability. This condition simplifies the study of, and potential for shared-services.

Also, as discussed, fire service automatic aid agreements are common between the agencies. This
type of aid is more predictable and rapid than the mutual aid pacts than are commonly seen
between communities or on a county-wide level. Similarly, fire training, purchasing and
emergency response are all well coordinated between the communities. In this sense, the
agencies are already embracing a number of shared-service concepts and recognize the value of a
coordinated emergency response system.

In regard to shared-services, we have evaluated several options for fire service, including:

          The potential for fire service consolidation

          Assumption of fire service by a neighboring community via contract

          Additional shared-services opportunities.

Each is discussed separately below.


                              The Potential for Fire Service Consolidation
The study of fire service consolidation must recognize two important factors:




                                                                III - 2
       Consolidation should not be considered simply for the sake of change. Unless adequate
       cost savings can be demonstrated (for all involved), the local decision-making model is
       probably preferable.

       Cost considerations cannot be considered in a vacuum. Services should not be unduly
       compromised in such an important area of emergency service and should be clearly
       understood for the purpose of evaluation. Alternative operating scenarios should be
       mindful of this prerequisite.

Our evaluation proceeds from these two important assumptions.

CURRENT FIRE SERVICE COSTS – AN OVERVIEW

In regard to shared-services, cost-saving is the overriding objective. Related to this, Exhibit 9
compares fire budgets among the seven studied communities that are located in the greater
Muskegon area. The Cities of Whitehall and Montague are not included due to their
participation in authorities that are separate taxing entities with multiple members.

                                                    Exhibit 9
                                              Fire Cost Per Capita

                                                   2010              FY 2010-11              Cost Per
                  Municipality                   Population          Fire Budget              Capita
                  Muskegon                          38,401            $3,467,928              $90.31
                  Muskegon Heights                  10,856             $926,403               $85.34
                  Muskegon Township                 17,840            $1,310,942              $73.48
                  North Muskegon                     3,786             $135,404               $35.76
                  Norton Shores                     23,994            $2,044,000              $85.19
                  Roosevelt Park                     3,831             $207,800               $54.24
                  Fruitport Township                13,598             $827,153               $60.83
                  AVERAGE                           16,005            $1,274,233              $69.62
                 Whitehall and Montague are part of fire authorities and not included in the above
                 Muskegon total does not include Inspection Services
                 North Muskegon budget total is FY 2010 and includes estimated employee benefits at 32% of Fire Chief's wage
                 Source: Municipal budgets and U.S. Census Bureau


As seen in Exhibit 9, fire service costs considered on a per capita basis are highest in the City of
Muskegon, closely followed by Muskegon Heights. On the other end of the spectrum, the City
of North Muskegon has the lowest estimated per capita cost of $35.76.

As a second measure of relative cost, Exhibit 10 compares cost per call-for-service. As seen in
Exhibit 10, the City of Norton Shores has the highest agency cost by a significant amount when
considered by this measure. The City of North Muskegon is again the lowest but the majority of
the others are more closely grouped. It must be noted that calls for service differ among the
agencies in regard to the type and severity of the incident. Consequently, the results of Exhibit 9
should be viewed with that qualifier in mind.



                                                          III - 3
                                                     Exhibit 10
                                                 Fire Cost per Call

                                               FY 2010-11 Fire         Number of 2010           Cost Per
                 Municipality                      Budget               Service Calls           Fire Call
                 Muskegon                         $3,467,928                  4,402              $787.81
                 Muskegon Heights                  $926,403                   1,740              $532.42
                 Muskegon Township                $1,310,942                  1,814              $722.68
                 North Muskegon                    $135,404                    308               $439.62
                 Norton Shores                    $2,044,000                  1,974             $1,035.46
                 Roosevelt Park                    $207,800                    281               $739.50
                 Fruitport Township                $827,153                   1,049              $788.52
                 AVERAGE                          $1,274,233                  1,653              $720.86
                Whitehall and Montague are part of fire authorities/districts and not included in the above
                Muskegon total does not include Inspection Services
                North Muskegon budget total is FY 2010 and includes estimated employee benefits at 32% of Fire Chief's wage
                Source: Fire department reports and U.S. Census Bureau


If only Exhibits 9 and 10 were considered it would appear that the City of Norton Shores (as an
example) would benefit greatly from some type of service consolidation with cost reduction
being a primary objective. However, there are other factors to consider – most notably service
quality and the scope of fire protection.

As an example, the Insurance Service Organization (ISO) conducts field surveys and rates
communities in regard to the quality of the fire protection system. ISO evaluates and rates three
areas of the fire protection system in the following percentages of total:

       Fire alarm and communication system (10%)
       Fire department (50%)
       Water supply (40%).

After completing the field survey, ISO develops a numerical total for the community and issues a
Public Protection Classification (PPC) number ranging between 1-10, with ten indicating the
highest exposure and least developed fire suppression system. Exhibit 11 illustrates the PPC
ratings for each of the fire services include in the study.

As seen in the exhibit, the City of Norton Shores and the City of Muskegon both have ISO
ratings of 4. The City of Roosevelt Park has a very impressive ISO rating of 3. Though ISO
ratings do not correlate perfectly with homeowner and business premium costs, there is an
undisputable impact. An ISO rating of 3 or 4 provides most policyholders with lower rates than
communities with higher ratings. No Michigan community is currently rated at PPC 1 and only a
handful at PPC 2. The PPC 3 rating in Roosevelt Park (utilizing the Norton Shores Fire
Department) is a quantifiable indicator of the quality of the fire protection system and a
consideration beyond cost that must be noted in the evaluation of fire service consolidation.




                                                          III - 4
                                              Exhibit 11
                              Comparison of Insurance Service Office (ISO)
                                Public Protection Classification Rating

                                    Municipality                     Highest ISO Rating
                                    Muskegon                                  4
                                    Muskegon Heights                          5
                                    Muskegon Township                         5
                                    North Muskegon                            7
                                    Norton Shores                             4
                                    Roosevelt Park                            3
                                    Fruitport Township                        5
                                    White Lake Fire Auth.                     5
                                    Montague                                  5
                                    AVERAGE                                  4.8
                                   Source: Various fire chiefs and inquiries

On a similar note, Exhibit 12 compares fire service cost per $1,000 in State Equalized Value
(SEV) of property within the respective communities. The case for this measure is simply that a
fire department’s costs can be correlated to the amount of property being protected – since this is
the primary mission of the fire service. While this argument could be taken to absurd lengths, it
does have validity since staffing levels, equipment and other resources must all be geared to the
quantity and value of property protected.

                                                Exhibit 12
                              Fire Cost per $1,000 in State Equalized Value

                                             2010 State                 FY 2010-11        Cost per $1,000 in State
          Municipality                   Equalized Valuation            Fire Budget          Equalized Value
          Muskegon                           $783,089,250                $3,467,928                   $4.43
          Muskegon Heights                   $148,033,800                 $926,403                    $6.26
          Muskegon Township                  $404,803,300                $1,310,942                   $3.24
          North Muskegon                     $154,318,600                 $135,404                    $0.88
          Norton Shores                      $976,571,400                $2,044,000                   $2.09
          Roosevelt Park                     $122,672,600                 $207,800                    $1.69
          Fruitport Township                 $532,904,500                 $827,153                    $1.55
          AVERAGE                            $446,056,207                $1,274,233                   $2.88
         Whitehall and Montague are part of fire authorities/districts and not included in the above
         Muskegon total does not include Inspection Services
         North Muskegon budget total is FY 2010 and includes estimated employee benefits at 32% of Fire Chief's wage
         Source: Municipal budgets and U.S. Census Bureau


As seen in Exhibit 12, the measure of fire service cost in comparison to SEV yields an entirely
different result than per capita or per call cost comparisons. If measured by the dollar amount of
property protected, the City of Norton Shores is well below the average of the group – while the
City of Muskegon Heights appears to be the most costly.

In summary, there are different means of measuring fire service costs. While a small department
like the North Muskegon Fire Department will score low on all measures, a larger community


                                                             III - 5
and department, such as Norton Shores, must consider more than one measure in evaluating the
relative impacts of shared-services. Some departments may be more or less cost efficient and
Exhibits 9-12 can be helpful in establishing this.

However, service impacts must be considered in concert with cost to truly establish cost benefit.
This issue is discussed below.

FACTORS AND IMPACTS RELATED TO FIRE CONSOLIDATION

With a total cost of nearly $9 million per annum, the seven Muskegon area fire departments
represent a significant financial outlay for the larger Muskegon community. For this reason, the
idea of consolidated fire services has gained footing as a possible means of lessening this cost
burden. To do so, it would be necessary to achieve cost savings through station house closure,
staff reductions or significant equipment savings. We are not performing an in-depth review of
each fire department as part of this study – however, we have collected information pertaining to
staffing, response and other factors that can be used to help focus and conclude on the viability
of this option.

Related to the above, a primary factor to be considered in the study of consolidation is the
location of fire houses. If fire houses could be eliminated, cost savings could be achieved.
However, if fire stations are properly placed in regard to distances and related response times,
consolidation could not be expected to yield significant savings.

Appendix B-1 illustrates the location of all fire houses in Muskegon County. As seen in
Appendix B-1 most are clustered in the greater Muskegon area, consistent with property density.

In regard to the number of station houses and proper location, there are service indicators
established by ISO that can be used to evaluate the appropriateness of station house location.
Specifically:

       Built-up areas should have a ladder company within 2.5 miles

       Built-up areas should have an engine company within 1.5 miles.

The latter of these two metrics is more universally accepted and applied in the fire service.

Appendix B-2 provides a visual representation of estimated travel distance from each of the fire
houses located in Muskegon County. As seen in Appendix B-2, the nine studied communities
have the following characteristics.

       The “outer” fire departments, including Muskegon Township, Fruitport Township, the
       City of Norton Shores (and City of Roosevelt Park by extension) are all well positioned
       within the ISO mileage parameters for an engine company. Muskegon Township lacks
       the ladder company but can call neighboring communities for aid.




                                               III - 6
       The City of Muskegon has the greatest overlap – partly as a result of geography as well
       as a traditionally denser urban core.

       The City of Muskegon Heights station is well situated but a portion of the service area is
       redundant if layered over the Cities of Norton Shores’ and Muskegon’s 1.5 radius.

       The City of North Muskegon forms only a half-circle due to geography. In practice, an
       automatic aid agreement with Muskegon Township alleviates this problem.

Our conclusions concerning station house placement are as follows:

       Muskegon Township and Fruitport Township are well positioned for service. Station
       houses are located consistent with the ISO standard. Both utilize a combination of full-
       time and part-time firefighters. Additionally, Fruitport Township has a public safety
       director managing both police and fire. It does not appear that consolidation would
       provide either department with a significant cost or service advantage.

       Similarly, the City of North Muskegon has developed a very cost-effective system (i.e.
       full-time fire chief and paid-on-call) that assures rapid response to a city that is separated
       from most communities by the Muskegon River. Automatic aid agreements are in place
       with Muskegon Township to bolster coverage for both communities. The City of North
       Muskegon would also not benefit significantly from consolidation.

       The City of Norton Shores is well covered by the three Norton Shores stations. There is
       some area of Norton Shores to the west that is more distant and in turn receives a slower
       response. However, consolidation would not remedy this situation. Norton Shores
       currently services the City of Roosevelt Park and could potentially expand further or join
       in a fire authority.

       As mentioned, the City of Roosevelt Park is within the City of Norton Shores ISO radius
       and receives contract service from Norton Shores. The City of Muskegon is also
       positioned to potentially provide this service to the City of Roosevelt Park or participate
       in a larger authority.

       A service cluster exists at the center of the metro area. The cities of Roosevelt Park,
       Muskegon Heights, Muskegon, and to some degree Norton Shores are the most viable
       candidates for service consolidation – if considered strictly on the location of current
       station houses.

In summary, we do not see the practicality of a fire authority that extends to the seven
communities. There is the potential for a smaller authority encompassing the cities of
Muskegon, Roosevelt Park, Muskegon Heights and Norton Shores. However, there are
constraints that might make such an arrangement untenable for some potential members.

Related to this, Exhibit 13 illustrates full-time fire department staffing levels in each of the nine
studied communities.


                                                III - 7
                                                  Exhibit 13
                                       2010-11 Fire Department Staffing

                                          FY 2010-11 Full-time
           Municipality                   Firefighter Positions                 Part-time Firefighter Usage ?
           Muskegon                                   38                  Not currently: beginning in FY 2012
           Muskegon Heights                           12                                     No
           Muskegon Township                          12                      Both paid-on-duty and paid-on-call
           North Muskegon                              1                                 Paid-on-call
           Norton Shores                              13                      Both paid-on-duty and paid-on-call
           Roosevelt Park                              -                                      -
           Fruitport Township                          8                      Some paid-on-duty and paid-on-call
           White Lake Fire Auth.                       5                                 Paid-on-call
           Montague                                   0                                  Paid-on-call
           AVERAGE                                    11                                      -
          Note: Norton Shores will be adding positions from millage passage
          Source: Applicable fire departments


As seen in the exhibit, the cities of Muskegon and Muskegon Heights are both career fire
departments, while Norton Shores (and all others) utilizes part-time personnel. In a consolidated
system, the difference in operating models would shift the cost burden onto the City of Norton
Shores, likely making the new model unacceptable.

As noted in the exhibit, the City of Muskegon will begin converting to a “combination”
department featuring part-time firefighters beginning in FY 2012. It will take a number of years
to achieve the optimal level of full-time and part-time employees. When this is accomplished, a
fire authority with Norton Shores (or others) could have greater acceptance and mutual
advantage.

A related consideration would be the distribution of costs to communities participating in a fire
authority. In regard to funding a fire authority, PA 57 of 1988 is the only legislation and
approach for funding a multi-jurisdictional public safety authority through general levy. Put
simply, under PA 57, each participating political jurisdiction agrees to incorporate in the
authority, and then, by Council or Board resolution, orders a general referendum regarding a
millage for funding. A simple majority vote is sufficient for passage. The tax is levied on all
taxable property within the authority. In a fire authority, this may seem equitable, since the tax is
spread consistent with the value of the property being protected.

Exhibit 14 compares the percentages of total current fire department costs for the four
abovementioned communities and how these percentages would change in an authority funded
by PA 57. Certainly, other funding arrangements could be arranged, but PA 57 is the generally
accepted standard, and would be an active consideration.

As seen in the exhibit, all other things being equal, a greater cost burden would be borne by the
cities of Norton Shores and Roosevelt Park in a PA 57 funded fire authority. The exhibit further
demonstrates the importance of converting the City of Muskegon’s fire force (and ideally


                                                             III - 8
firefighters in the City of Muskegon Heights) to a combination department that utilizes a sizable
number of part-time staff.

                                           Exhibit 14
                 Example Distribution of Fire Service Costs Under PA 57 of 1988
                               For Four Community Authorities

                                                     FY 2010-11                           % of Total Fire Costs
                               FY 2010-11           Percentage of        2010 Taxable      Borne by Property
  Municipality                 Fire Budget         Total Fire Costs       Valuation       Owners Under PA 57
  Muskegon                     $3,467,928                 52%            $723,209,538             39%
  Muskegon Heights               $926,403                 14%            $133,618,412             7%
  Norton Shores                 $2,044,000                31%            $890,443,307             48%
  Roosevelt Park                $207,800                  3%              $120,045,838            6%
  SUMMARY                      $6,646,131                100%            $1,867,317,095          100%
  Muskegon total does not include Inspection Services
  Source: Muskegon County Equalization and municipal budgets


In addition to the seven Muskegon-area communities, we have also reviewed fire services
provided to the Cities of Montague and Whitehall. Both receive services from separate
authorities that service multiple communities. Specifically:

        White Lake Fire Authority: City of Whitehall, Whitehall Township and Fruitland
        Township

        Montague Fire Authority: City of Montague, Montague Township and White River
        Township.

In the ideal circumstance, these communities would be served by a common fire authority –
similar to the White Lake Ambulance Authority. However, each has evolved as separate and
distinct operations. As an example, the White Lake Fire Authority employs a combination of
full-time and part-time firefighters while the Montague Fire Authority relies totally on paid-on-
call response. In addition to this cost differential in operations, property owners in the Montague
Fire Authority recently approved a 20-year millage for operations and debt associated with the
construction of a new facility. With this action, the separateness of the two agencies was further
established on a financial basis.

As seen in Appendix B-2, the response areas of the two fire departments overlap considerable.
However, there is currently limited interaction between the fire departments. An automatic aid
agreement for fire calls within the Cities of Montague and Whitehall would be a logical step
toward service-sharing and potentially a great benefit to the two communities.

CONCLUSIONS REGARDING FIRE CONSOLIDATION

In summary, we do not see great potential for a fire authority in the greater Muskegon-area.
Most station houses are currently well-placed and most departments employ relatively cost
efficient service models featuring large numbers of part-time or paid-on-call employees.


                                                               III - 9
One might argue that cost savings could be achieved through administrative consolidation,
however, this is unlikely. Specifically, two departments already employ relatively efficient
public safety director models with no fire chief. In other cases, fire chiefs would need to be
replaced by deputy chiefs or battalion chiefs to provide management of the separate facilities or
fire districts. In this case, the cost of conversion would be nominal.

This is not to say that efficiencies cannot be achieved in the larger system. What is suggested is
that a large-scale fire consolidation would not yield large savings unless services were somehow
diminished. More select consolidations have promise in the urban core, but are unlikely until the
City of Muskegon and the City of Muskegon Heights convert to more cost efficient
“combination” departments featuring both full-time and part-time employees. When this
achieved, the issue should be revisited.


    Assumption of Fire Service by a Neighboring Community via Contract
While we do not consider fire consolidation to be a viable option, the concentration of fire
stations in the urban core provides an opportunity to eliminate a fire service and initiate a
contract or shared-services agreement. The most logical target for this type of arrangement
would be the City of Muskegon Heights. As mentioned, the City is currently operating under a
state-mandated budget deficit elimination plan and has a negative General Fund fund balance of
$571,211 as of the most recent audited financial statement (i.e. December 31, 2009). In this
sense, cost savings are critical to future solvency.

In regard to fire services, Muskegon Heights’ budgeted amount for fire services in FY 2011 is
$926,403 for protection of a service area that is four square miles with a declining population
base. As illustrated in Exhibit 15, the Fire Department has no fire chief and operates through
shift lieutenants overseeing three platoons.

                                       Exhibit 15
                      Muskegon Heights Fire Department Organization

                                                     City
                                                    Manager



                           Fire                      Fire                       Fire
                        Lieutenant                Lieutenant                 Lieutenant



                       Firefighters               Firefighters               Firefighters
                            (3)                        (3)                        (3)

                      Source: Muskegon Heights Fire Department, 2011 Annual Report


The City of Muskegon Heights has not been a participant in this study; consequently our
knowledge of fire and operations is minimal. We are aware that the City received a Staffing for


                                                     III - 10
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response grant (SAFER) for staffing and a second grant for a
new engine from the Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately, SAFER grants provide
only two years of personnel funding and thus provide only a temporary solution.

The long-term solution would be to enter into contact for fire services from either the City of
Norton Shores or City of Muskegon. This could take on several forms, including:

       An outright contract including assumption of all fire and emergency medical
       responsibility. In this event, Muskegon or Norton Shores would need to add personnel –
       however, with a fire budget approaching $1 million it is likely that this could be achieved
       with both a profit margin for the contractor and significant cost savings for the City of
       Muskegon Heights. The future status of current employees would be a question for legal
       counsel.

       Or, sufficient in-house staff (i.e. six or seven) could be retained to staff a two-man team
       for medical response (roughly 75% of current call volume) and initial fire response, as
       available. Engines would be retained and the ladder truck sold. Norton Shores or
       Muskegon would supervise the two-man crew and also provide fire response through
       their larger department. Norton Shores currently provides mutual aid to all of Muskegon
       Heights and could likely fashion an acceptable contract beneficial to both communities.
       The City of Muskegon may be able to do likewise.

In addition to the benefits derived by the City of Muskegon Heights and the selected service
provider, a contract arrangement along these or similar lines would be an incremental step in
achieving additional economy of scale in fire services. As mentioned, the potential exists for a
consolidation of possibly four communities with resulting cost-benefit. Dissolution of the
Muskegon Heights Fire Department could be a first step in this process.


                       Additional Shared-Services Opportunities
A more targeted possibility for shared-services focuses on ladder trucks. By way of explanation,
the ladder truck is the most expensive piece of fire apparatus with cost readily exceeding $1
million for a vehicle with 100’ ladder extension. Depreciable period is typically 25 years, but
may be shorter depending on the agency. Ladder trucks are utilized for a number of fire
conditions but are particularly useful for large structures in which firefighters need additional
reach. An example might be an industrial site that has collapsed inward.

As seen in Exhibit 16, Muskegon County currently has six ladder trucks. There is an additional
truck stationed at the Grand Haven Public Safety Department that can be requested in the event
of a major fire.




                                              III - 11
                                        Exhibit 16
                             Ladder Trucks in Muskegon County

                           Agency                                 Ladder Truck Size
                           White Lake Fire Authority                     100'
                           Muskegon Heights                              100'
                           Muskegon Township                             75'
                           Muskegon                                      75'
                           Norton Shores                                 100'
                           Fruitport Township                            65'
                            Source: Applicable fire departments




With the significant cost associated with a ladder truck, cooperative, joint purchasing could be a
logical course for the Muskegon-area. With fewer trucks, some communities would lose ISO
points but this might not be a dramatic enough change to worsen a PPC rating. Moreover, these
are not trucks that are needed frequently (Note: Exceptions exist in the current system. As an
example, the City of Muskegon reportedly uses their truck as an engine for routine response).
The larger 100’ ladder is in fact considered to be most useful when a building has already been
lost and/or for containment purposes. In this situation, set up and use would follow the set up of
engine/pumpers – a limited response delay could be tolerated.

Certainly, some value would be lost by limiting the number of fire trucks – but again, the
concept of diminishing returns should come into play. While the fire chiefs would be the best
judge of minimal need, it is not unreasonable to assume that the County could manage with two
100’ ladder trucks – one in the north for Whitehall/Montague and one in the south. A joint
purchase arrangement could allow each agency to pay a share and the truck could be housed at a
central location – possibly in the City of Muskegon or City of Norton Shores. The host agency
would have responsibility for manning the truck in response to service requests by the
participating agencies.

The funding and construction for a training facility for the fire and law enforcement services is
another cooperative endeavor that could yield significant benefit to Muskegon County. This idea
has been actively supported by the fire and police professionals in Muskegon County, but lacks
dedicated funding. Unlike the initiatives discussed above, the training facility would not create
cost savings. Instead the focus would be the further professionalization of police and fire
services and response.

In regard to instruction and training, the proposed training facility would provide:

       Live fire training
       Police shooting range
       Hazardous materials training
       Training for transportation incidents
       Simulated fire response



                                                    III - 12
       Classroom instruction
       EMS training
       Emergency driving
       Search and rescue
       And other emergency training.

The fire portion of the training curriculum would dovetail with the Muskegon Community
College (MCC) Fire Service program. A 30 acre site is also apparently available via a land
donation for the facility that would be coordinated through MCC.

The cost of the facility is significant, with similar facilities requiring funding of $2 million or
more. Kalamazoo has such a facility and reportedly raised $2 million in donations for the first
phase of the project, including a training tower. Unless grant funding can be identified,
Muskegon County would need a similar effort. From a service perspective this would be an
excellent vehicle for coordinating and standardizing response protocols, developing new fire and
police professionals, furthering the MCC fire training program, and centralizing training
activities in an accessible, close location. In this sense, it could be an important initiative for
defining Muskegon County as a progressive and forward-thinking geographic region.


                                    B. POLICE SERVICES
Our study of police services has been limited by two factors. Specifically:

       As noted, two metro-area communities (the City of Muskegon Heights and Muskegon
       Township) have declined to participate in the study. Information related to police
       services for these two communities has been limited to overview information collected
       through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA requests for data must be
       explicit; consequently many “data holes” have resulted.

       Central dispatch (E-911) has refused our request for data pertaining to police activity in
       the nine communities (i.e. Priority 1 and Priority 2 call summaries and similar summary
       data) citing confidentiality. E-911 noted that any FOIA request would need to be handled
       by the individual agency.

The lack of personalized input from two communities limits the analysis to information obtained
from FOIA data and overview information obtained from the participating agencies regarding the
public safety system. This is particularly true if considering the potential for an area-wide police
authority.

Despite this limitation, we have been able to develop fairly solid conclusions regarding shared –
services for police operations. As with other findings, more evaluation will be needed to gauge
the impact of shared-services opportunities – particularly as applied to the two non-participating
communities. However, our analysis should provide a strong starting point.




                                              III - 13
    Exhibit 17 provides an overview of the nine studied police departments, in regard to operating
    models.

                                                           Exhibit 17
                                                Police Service Operating Models

                                Organizational Context for                                                  Work Schedule
Municipality                         Police Services              Employee Type (Certified Officers)        - Shift Duration
Muskegon                     Part of Public Safety Department           Full-time Police Officers Only            8.5
Muskegon Heights                       City Department            Full-time and Part-time Police Officers         12
Muskegon Township                   Township Department                 Full-time Police Officers Only             8
North Muskegon                         City Department            Full-time and Part-time Police Officers         10
Norton Shores                          City Department                  Full-time Police Officers Only            12
Roosevelt Park                         City Department            Full-time and Part-time Police Officers          8
Fruitport Township           Part of Public Safety Department     Full-time and Part-time Police Officers         12
Montague                               City Department            Full-time and Part-time Police Officers         12
Whitehall                              City Department            Full-time and Part-time Police Officers         12
Source: Applicable police departments and labor agreements


    As seen in Exhibit 17, each of the nine communities has a police agency. Seven operate as
    distinct city or township departments, while two others function under a public safety director
    overseeing both police and fire services. Six of the nine agencies employ both full-time and
    part-time certified police officers. The use of part-time officers is a cost effective approach for
    bolstering shift strength, reducing overtime and generally increasing the flexibility of the police
    scheduling system. The widespread use of this resource indicates a willingness to embrace less
    traditional and expensive service models.

    Police officers in the nine communities work under an assortment of shift schedules including
    twelve, ten and eight hour shifts. Each shift type has its own unique advantages and
    disadvantages for the deployment of personnel. Generally speaking, eight hour shifts require
    more personnel, but provide greater scheduling in flexibility. Twelve-hour shifts create a
    situation in which fewer officers are required, but require police officers to work a 12-hour day.
    Some debate exists regarding the impact on productivity resulting from the longer shift. Ten-
    hour shifts are typically used by smaller communities to provide some overlap schedules to
    address time periods of greatest need. The North Muskegon Police Department is the only
    studied agency using a ten-hour shift.

    Police officers in all but one agency (Whitehall Police Department) are unionized. Police
    personnel are provided the opportunity for compulsory arbitration under PA 312. In the event of
    a labor dispute, PA 312 has historically proven to be a major constraint on management’s ability
    to modify working requirements or compensation and benefit levels for police and fire
    employees. It must be seen as a potential impediment to any shared-services scenario relative to
    Muskegon County.

    At present each studied police department services only its specific geographic area with no
    contracts-for-service extended to other political entities. (As an exception, Fruitport Township


                                                             III - 14
does service Fruitport Village.) The Sheriff’s Office provides contract services to three
jurisdictions (Laketon, Fruitland and White River Townships) and the County Wastewater
Treatment Facility. However, these are modest arrangements barely tapping the potential for
comprehensive police coverage. Essentially a tradition of autonomous police coverage exists in
each city and major township.

In regard to shared-services, we have evaluated several options for police service, including:

       The potential for major police service consolidation
       Assumption of police service by a neighboring community via contract
       The potential for a police authority in the northern county.

Each is discussed separately below.


                The Potential for Major Police Service Consolidation
The study of police service consolidation must recognize several important factors, including:

       Large police districts or authorities are almost non-existent in Michigan.

       One reason for the above is that police services vary significantly between communities
       depending on demographics, crime rates and community service preference. This fact
       has deterred large scale police service consolidation as communities tailor services to
       their particular service needs and quality-of-life objectives.

       An exception to this can be seen in the contracting of Sheriff’s Office police services to
       particular municipalities. This type of arrangement is prevalent in counties such as
       Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw and others. Municipalities are afforded the opportunity
       to purchase the level of protection desired and tailor the contract and coverage
       accordingly. Arguments over the deployment of resources are thus avoided and
       administrative and special services costs are spread in a cost-efficient manner.

The potential for expanding Sheriff’s Office services to specific cities and townships in
Muskegon County is certainly a viable proposition. However, this would require an incremental
process – allowing the Sheriff to gradually grow and expand the operation. This option is
discussed in the following subsections, with particular thoughts on where this expansion might
begin.

In regard to a large scale police authority for the Muskegon area, this would be a difficult task to
achieve. The following discussion addresses this point.


POLICE SERVICE COST AND SERVICE VARIABLES – AN OVERVIEW

Exhibit 18 compares police cost per capita among the nine studied communities.


                                              III - 15
                                                          Exhibit 18
                                                    Police Cost Per Capita

                                                           2010                FY 2010-11                   Cost Per
                Municipality                             Population           Police Budget                  Capita
                Muskegon                                    38,401                $9,013,330                $234.72
                Muskegon Heights                            10,856                $1,841,518                $169.63
                Muskegon Township                           17,840                $1,608,322                 $90.15
                North Muskegon                               3,786                 $648,848                 $171.38
                Norton Shores                               23,994                $3,315,540                $138.18
                Roosevelt Park                               3,831                 $631,800                 $164.92
                Fruitport Township                          13,598                $1,082,372                 $79.60
                Whitehall                                    2,706                 $798,835                 $295.21
                Montague                                    2,361                  $616,179                 $260.98
                AVERAGE                                     13,041                $2,172,972                $178.31
                North Muskegon budget is FY 2010 and includes 35% added to all wage categories for benefits
                Source: Municipal budgets and U.S. Census Bureau


As seen in the exhibit, cost per capita is much higher in the City of Muskegon and the
neighboring communities of Montague and Whitehall. For Muskegon, this is partly a result of
its “center city” status. If day-time population is considered, the per capita number would drop.
Additionally, the all full-time nature of the department adds to cost. For Montague and
Whitehall, higher cost is an inevitable result of poor economy-of-scale; a situation that plagues
all city police departments in communities of 3,000 populations or less. Simply put, round-the-
clock policing requires a minimum number of patrol officers regardless of population and
community size.

Exhibit 19 continues the comparison by contrasting police staffing levels in the communities.

                                                        Exhibit 19
                                         Police Officers per 1,000 Population

                                               2010              Full-time equivalent               Police Officers Per 1000
    Municipality                             Population            Police Officers*                        Population
    Muskegon                                    38,401                       79                                  2.06
    Muskegon Heights                            10,856                       19                                  1.75
    Muskegon Township                           17,840                       15                                  0.84
    North Muskegon                              3,786                                                            1.85
                                                                             7
    Norton Shores                               23,994                       28                                  1.17
    Roosevelt Park                              3,831                                                            1.83
                                                                             7
    Fruitport Township                          13,598                       11                                  0.81
    Whitehall                                   2,706                        9                                   3.33
    Montague                                     2,361                       6                                   2.54
    AVERAGE                                     13,041                      20.1                                 1.80
    Bold indicates that full-time number includes part-time police officers as required by PA 302 State report
    Sources: U.S. Census Bureau and 2010 PA 302 report. 2011 staffing may differ.




                                                                 III - 16
As seen in the exhibit, the cities of Whitehall and Montague are much higher in regard to police
staffing levels, as would be expected. Other small communities also have relatively high staffing
levels in comparison to more heavily populated communities.

In regard to crime, the statistical data that we have collected is subject to interpretation, and as
such, limits the comparative conclusions that can be drawn. Most significantly, police
departments tend to report calls-for-service in different ways. Some might include a casual
citizen encounter as a service call while others report only dispatched calls. In this situation, we
are reluctant to attempt any definitive comparisons. Second, as noted, several entities have not
cooperated with our data gathering process; further limiting the conclusions that can be drawn.

Of the data assembled, we have created several exhibits to illustrate crime rates in the studied
communities. Exhibit 20, collected from on-line police statistics, compares major crimes in eight
of the nine studied communities (Muskegon Township excluded).

                                                   Exhibit 20
                                         Comparison of 2009 Major Crime*
        3,000
                    2,628
        2,500

        2,000

                                   1,310
        1,500

                                                                 890
        1,000
                                                                                             593
          500                                                                    226
                                                   131                                                    88         50
            0
                  Muskegon       Muskegon       North           Norton         Roosevelt   Fruitport   Whitehall   Montague
                                  Heights      Muskegon         Shores           Park      Township

         *Murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, theft, auto theft, arson
         Note: Data not available for Muskegon Township
         Source: City-data.com


As seen in Exhibit 20, historic crime rates have been much higher in the center city and very low
in the north county. The City of North Muskegon, a community that is geographically separate
from the Metro area (and has an active program of police patrol) is also comparatively low.

As illustrated in Exhibit 21, a comparison of arrests in eight of the nine studied communities
(Muskegon Heights excluded) shows a similar outcome – with arrest counts declining in
agencies further from the center city.




                                                                III - 17
                                                       Exhibit 21
                                                   2010 Police Arrests
         5,000     4,624
         4,500
         4,000
         3,500
         3,000
         2,500
         2,000
                                                            1,253
         1,500
         1,000
                                  377                                     325           277
                                               232
          500                                                                                      131         70
            0
                  Muskegon     Muskegon       North         Norton      Roosevelt    Fruitport   Whitehall   Montague
                               Township      Muskegon       Shores        Park       Township

         Note: Arrest total for Muskegon Heights is not known and subsequently not included
         Source: listed police agencies


Summarily, the police departments differ in regard to cost-efficiency, the use of part-time
resources, the nature and demands of the service area and the focus and intensity of police work
and criminal response. All of these factors would need to be reconciled in planning for, and
implementing a police authority for a large geographic area such as the Muskegon metro area.

As previously discussed in the fire service section, a related consideration would be the
distribution of costs to communities participating in a police authority. In regard to funding a
police authority, PA 57 of 1988 is the only legislation and approach for funding a multi-
jurisdictional public safety authority through general levy. Put simply, under PA 57, each
participating political jurisdiction agrees to incorporate in the authority, and then, by Council or
Board resolution, orders a general referendum regarding a millage for funding. A simple
majority vote is sufficient for passage. The tax is levied on all taxable property within the
authority.

Exhibit 22 compares the percentages of total current police department costs for the seven metro
communities and how these percentages would change in an authority funded by PA 57.
Certainly, other funding arrangements could be arranged, but PA 57 is the generally accepted
standard, and would be an active consideration.




                                                            III - 18
                                          Exhibit 22
               Example Distribution of Police Service Costs Under PA 57 of 1988

                                                           FY 2010-11                               % of Total Police
                                      FY 2010-11          Percentage of                              Costs Borne by
                                        Police             Total Police         2010 Taxable        Property Owners
      Municipality                     Budget                 Costs              Valuation            Under PA 57
      Muskegon                        $9,013,330               49.7%             $723,209,538            25.5%
      Muskegon Heights                $1,841,518               10.2%             $133,618,412             4.7%
      Muskegon Township               $1,608,322               8.9%              $366,724,836            12.9%
      North Muskegon                    $648,848               3.6%              $141,910,534             5.0%
      Norton Shores                   $3,315,540               18.3%             $890,443,307            31.4%
      Roosevelt Park                    $631,800               3.5%              $120,045,838             4.2%
      Fruitport Township              $1,082,372               6.0%              $456,150,127            16.1%
      TOTAL                           $18,141,730              100%            $2,832,102,592            100%
      North Muskegon budget is FY 2010 and includes 35% added to all wage categories for benefits
      Source: Muskegon County Equalization and municipal budgets


In addition to cost, there are distinct service differences between the communities. For example,
the City of North Muskegon attempts to maintain two police officers at all times on-duty. With a
low crime rate, the primary objective is pro-active patrol, visibility and related crime deterrence.
The City of Roosevelt Park has a similar objective and situation. Bordering some high crime
areas, police presence is deemed to be critical to public safety. In contrast, higher crime cities,
such as Muskegon or Muskegon Heights, have high numbers of dispatched crime calls and likely
face back-ups for less serious calls during peak response hours. The ability to engage in pro-
active patrol is also more limited.

Consolidating these and other service models on a large scale basis would prove problematic.
Inevitably, resources would be drawn and deployed to the geographic areas of greatest need. In
this situation other communities would not receive the level of pro-active police presence which
is expected by the citizenry.

As mentioned, a central system of police services contracted through the County Sheriff would
avoid these issues. Under a well-developed system, such as the one functioning in Oakland
County, communities could specify the level of police protection desired and pay a negotiated
fee. Administrative costs would not be duplicated and overall cost would be lower. However, a
system of this type must be gradually built. Oakland County, for example, began with several
small contracts and gradually expanded to larger municipalities. Recently, police service was
extended to the City of Pontiac. Washtenaw County has spent considerable time and effort in
fashioning a mutually acceptable cost allocation plan and related cost-for-service levels.
Similarly, for Muskegon County, this could only be seen as a long-range objective beginning on
a smaller scale, as discussed in the following subsection.




                                                             III - 19
           Assumption of Police Services by a Neighboring Community
While we do not envision comprehensive police service consolidation as a viable short-term
objective for the Muskegon area, we have concluded that several departments could be
eliminated to achieve cost advantage. Both situations would be subject to the legal constraints
discussed in Section II of the report. They include the following:

       Roosevelt Park contracts with Norton Shores

       Muskegon Heights contracts with the City of Muskegon or Muskegon County.

Each is discussed separately below.

The City of Roosevelt Park

The Roosevelt Park Police Department (RPPD) has a FY 2010-11 police budget of $631,800.
The organization of the Department (prior to any recent reductions) is illustrated in Exhibit 23.

                                         Exhibit 23
                       Roosevelt Park Police Department Organization

                                                            Police
                                                            Chief




                          Police Clerk
                                                           Sergeant
                          (part-time)


                                 Full-time
                                                                        Part-time
                               Police Officers
                                                                      Police Officers
                                     (3)
                        Source: City of Roosevelt Park


The department has experienced some recent reductions in personnel and has reportedly lost the
incumbent sergeant and one full-time police officer.

In regard to coverage, RPPD attempts to maintain two police officers on-duty at all times, except
4-6 am when staffing drops to one. The Department also has a contract-mandated swing shift
which has reportedly been the source of significant overtime. As a contractually specified shift,
it cannot be arbitrarily eliminated by management.

The total coverage area of Roosevelt Park is one square mile. The community is contiguous to
the City of Norton Shores and shares heavily commercialized Henry Street with that community.
In this sense the Norton Shores Police Department is very well positioned to provide service to



                                                         III - 20
the one square mile area of Roosevelt Park. Moreover, with the passage of the public safety
millage in Norton Shores – three full-time police officer positions will be reinstated.

Pertinent to the issue of a service contract is the level of service that would be required. If
Roosevelt Park desired a contract for occasional patrol, calls-for-service and related detective
and administrative services, the Norton Shores Police Department may be capable of handling
the expanded service area with the resources available. However, if a dedicated 24-hour
presence was required, the Norton Shores Police Department would need to add resources. A
rough calculation for staffing one full-time position round-the-clock is 4.2 personnel. If off-time
is considered, the Norton Shores Police Department would need 5-6 new dedicated officers to fill
the requirement of one-dedicated police officer. The cost of five officers (current wage and
benefits at 40% of base wage) is approximately $395,000. With the added cost of vehicle, fuel
and added administration, the cost could easily approach $450,000 – or more if six personnel
were needed. With a budget of $631,800 some cost savings could be achieved – the actual
amount would depend on the contract cost found to be agreeable to both parties.

Summarily, if the Roosevelt Park community is willing to accept a lower police presence, it is
likely that a significant cost savings can be achieved. If continued patrol is required, a lesser
savings could result. Either alternative is a viable option for contracting police services. The
current police contract in Roosevelt Park extends to 11-30-13; another factor that must be
considered.

The City of Muskegon Heights

The Muskegon Heights Police Department (MHPD) has a FY 2010-11budget of $1,841,518.
The organization of the Police Department is illustrated in Exhibit 24.

                                           Exhibit 24
                         Muskegon Heights Police Department Organization

                                                              Police
                                                              Chief


                                           Police Clerk                      Community
                                           (part-time)                      Service Officer



                                                                                                  Detectives
                  Lieutenant          Lieutenant           Lieutenant          Lieutenant
                                                                                                     (2)



                                    Police Officers       Police Officers     Police Officers   Evidence Tech
                   Sergeant
                                          (3)                   (2)                 (2)              (1)



                Police Officers
                      (2)

         Source: FOIA organization chart




                                                            III - 21
As seen in Exhibit 24, MHPD has 19 sworn staff including a three-person detective bureau and a
community service officer. Patrol officers and command work 12-hours shifts – reportedly with
the objective of maintaining two police officers on patrol duty at all times.

Muskegon Heights recorded 3,486 Parts 1 and 2 criminal calls for service in 2010, a fairly
significant number for a community with a population of only 10,856. Related to this, a patrol
strength of two officers is barely adequate, and likely inadequate during peak service periods.
Other departments reportedly provide some service call and investigative back-up. Most
notably, the Sheriff’s Office provides some weekend patrol funded by a grant. This assistance is
limited to general patrol and back-up – not primary call response.

With a police budget of over $1.8 million, a relatively heavy command structure and limited
patrol capability, the City of Muskegon Heights should explore options for police services. One
such option might involve the dissolution of MHPD, to be replaced by a police service contract
with another municipal entity.

Two viable candidates for providing police services to Muskegon Heights would be the City of
Muskegon and Muskegon County. The City of Muskegon shares a common border with
Muskegon Heights and is well-grounded in community policing and urban crime response.
Muskegon County is currently performing patrol duty and may be willing to negotiate a contract-
for-service.

In our brief discussions with these two entities, there appears to be consensus that minimum
staffing should need to be at a level of three patrol officers at all times. The Sheriff estimates
that he would need to add a minimum of twelve positions to provide sufficient patrol,
supervision and investigative services. This estimate appears to be modest. If we assume 15
positions we can very roughly estimate related costs as follows (using maximum pay rates).

               12 Sheriff’s Deputies                $677,476
               3 Sergeant Level Positions           $194,922
               Benefits at 40%                      $348,959
               Vehicles and fuel (6)                $200,000
                                                   $1,421,357

The estimated cost for service (not contract cost) is roughly $400,000 less than the current
budgeted cost. This is only a rough estimate but does provide indication that cost savings can be
achieved while increasing the number of police officers actively involved in patrol duty and
criminal response.

It bears repeating that the above is a very rough estimate of cost. We have used maximum pay
rates and overstated the Sheriff’s staffing estimate. However, benefit costs may be higher or
actual staffing needs may differ. In this sense, the above estimate is only a starting point for the
City of Muskegon Heights to begin active consideration of the services that the City of
Muskegon or Muskegon County might provide.




                                               III - 22
In regard to the City of Muskegon, The Police Department maintains a very comprehensive
community policing program staffed by 9-10 police officers. Should Muskegon Heights
ultimately contract with the City of Muskegon for police services this could be another feature of
the police program. Community policing has proven its worth as a pro-active strategy for
stabilizing vulnerable neighborhoods and could be cooperatively provided and coordinated
between these two contiguous communities.

           The Potential for a Police Authority in Whitehall/Montague
As previously discussed, it is extremely challenging for a small community to maintain a police
department at a cost-efficient level – particularly if “round-the-clock” coverage is desired.
Related to this, each position staffed on a 24-hour seven day basis requires 4.2 personnel. When
off-time is added to the equation, the number increases accordingly. Additionally, a police chief,
detective or other specialty position further adds to the number of personnel required. The result
is a large number of personnel relative to other operations in a small city. Moreover, if crime
rates are low and the service area is limited, resources tend to be underutilized. As a result, the
police budget will command a disproportionate amount of the community’s General Fund
resources and service outlay.

The Cities of Whitehall and Montague both have police departments. The organization of the
police departments is illustrated in Exhibit 25.

                                          Exhibit 25
                          Whitehall Police Department Organization
                                                       Police
                                                       Chief




                               Lieutenant
                                                     Sergeant
                                Detective


                                                    Part-time
                               Full-time                                  School
                                                  Police Officers
                             Police Officers                             Resource
                                                        (4)
                                   (4)                                    Officer


                          Montague Police Department Organization
                                                         Police
                                                         Chief

                             Secretary
                            (part-time)


                                      Full-time                     Part-time
                                    Police Officers               Police Officers
                                          (4)                           (7)

                          Source: Applicable police agency




                                                    III - 23
As seen in Exhibit 25, the two Departments combined have 13 total sworn full-time personnel
and eleven part-time police officers. Considered on a full-time equivalent (FTE) basis, the two
Departments had a combined 15 FTE in 2010, as reported for the State’s PA 302 training report.
The combined cost of the two agencies has been budgeted at $1,415,014 for FY 2010-11, to
service a combined population of 5,067 in contiguous service areas totaling a combined 6.17
square miles.

As previously illustrated in Exhibits 20 and 21, the crime and arrest rates in Montague and
Whitehall are extremely low. Also, it can be expected that most criminals in the area would not
distinguish between municipal boundaries. In this situation, the presence of two police
departments is redundant.

In regard to police levels, the City of Whitehall maintains minimum staffing at two. With a
larger administrative and command group, staffing may be as high as four during the day. The
City of Montague maintains minimum staffing at one and staffs-up for weekends and summer
season. Both departments have part-time personnel that can be used flexibly to help in achieving
staffing objectives.

With a combined police department, it may be possible to eliminate personnel and still achieve
an acceptable minimum staffing level of two on a round-the-clock basis for the two communities
combined. To illustrate this option, we have developed four potential 12-hour shift schedules.
These are included in Appendix C of the report. The schedules provide optional approaches for a
combined police department operating with 10, 9, 8 or 7 full-time employees – while
maintaining minimum staffing at two or more for almost all time periods. Part-time officers
would supplement the full-time staff at varying levels, with part-time officer use increasing as
full-time staffing is decreased.

Key features of the optional staffing/scheduling systems are as follows:

       Appendix C-1: A Police Chief, Detective and School Resource Officer are eliminated –
       the combined department would operate with 10 full-time police personnel supplemented
       by part-time officers.

       Appendix C-2: A Police Chief, School Resource Officer and two full-time Police
       Officers are eliminated – the combined department would operate with 9 full-time police
       personnel supplemented by part-time officers.

       Appendix C-3: A Police Chief, Detective, School Resource Officer and two full-time
       Police Officers are eliminated – the combined department would operate with 8 full-time
       police personnel supplemented by part-time officers.

       Appendix C-4: A Police Chief, Sergeant and four full-time Police Officers are eliminated
       – the combined department would operate with 7 full-time police personnel
       supplemented by part-time officers.




                                             III - 24
Each schedule has operational and cost advantages and disadvantages. Moreover, multiple
additional test schedules are possible. Related to this, the Police Chief (for a combined
department) would be the best judge of staffing and scheduling needs. From our perspective, the
bottom-line is that a combined department could be operated with fewer staff at lesser cost.

Rough estimated cost savings calculated from the pay grade structures or contracts could be as
follows (with benefits at 40% of wage):

               Police Chief ($60,000 and benefits):          $84,000
               Detective ($55,000 and benefits):             $77,000
               Each Police officer ($50,559 and benefits):   $70,783
               Patrol vehicles eliminated (possibly two):    $50,000

The above is a very rough analysis intended only to provide a starting point for additional
evaluation and consideration. It must also be noted that the increased use of part-time officers
would add cost in this expenditure category (approximate $16.15 maximum hourly rate with
FICA) effectively offsetting some cost savings achieved from the elimination of full-time
positions.

In regard to operating models, the Village of Spring Lake and City of Ferrysburg have a
combined police department which reportedly works very well – both operationally and
politically. The legal framework is an intergovernmental agreement in which a four person
Board (two representatives from each jurisdiction) provide policy direction. A ten-year
agreement is currently in place and the joint department has now operated for twenty-two years.
The formula for cost sharing considers the following elements:

       Calls-for-service
       Number of Part 1 and Part 2 crimes
       Population.

The cities of Whitehall and Montague could use something similar or a PA 57 authority with a
separate millage levied on the entire operating area. This is currently the situation for fire
services and in that sense, may be an amenable community approach for funding.

A combined police department would be a radical change from the status quo. As an
incremental approach, the cities could consider first combining the two police chief positions.
This would most readily be accomplished when a vacancy exists in one or the other police chief
positions. For administrative reporting, the Police Chief could report to a Board – similar to the
Spring Lake/Ferrysburg model, or report to each City Manager. Reporting could be awkward at
first, but each City would retain control over its respective police budget; and the two cities do
have a track record of cooperative relations. Most importantly, such a move could serve as a test
case and gradual move toward a later, more comprehensive merger of the two agencies.




                                              III - 25
                C. PUBLIC WORKS AND INSPECTION SERVICES
The study of public works must recognize the differences in operating models and scope of
responsibilities between departments and municipalities. In regard to scope of responsibilities,
the nine studied municipalities may, or may not, have responsibility for the following:

       Water plant operation
       Water and sewer distribution systems maintenance
       Roads maintenance
       Engineering services
       Building and grounds maintenance
       Parks maintenance
       Forestry services
       Vehicle maintenance
       Water billing and other administrative duties
       Other public works services.

Related to the above, the operating models vary significantly, including the following
distinctions:

       More or less reliance on part-time and seasonal employees
       Differing levels of reliance on the private sector for services
       Differing degrees of contracting with other municipalities to provide services
       Various levels of resource sharing between communities.

In addition to the above, from a financial perspective, public works operations may encompass
six or more operating funds, including an assortment of mandated special revenue, internal
service and enterprise funds. Summarily, a simple comparison of staffing or expenditures for
public works services is not realistic or feasible.

A notable and highly visible service area is roads. Under State law (PA 51 of 1951) each city
and county road commission receives road funding through the Michigan Transportation Fund
(MTF). MTF is largely funded by fuel taxes paid at the service station. As illustrated in Exhibit
26, this transfer payment is a relatively significant revenue source for the funding of both road
construction and ongoing maintenance for the local and major roads located in each city. (Note:
township roads are maintained by the Muskegon County Road Commission. The Road
Commission also receives MTF funding as its primary revenue source.)




                                             III - 26
                                                Exhibit 26
                                          Act 51 Roads Funding
                                      Amount Received – 2009 Audited

        $4,000,000
        $3,500,000
        $3,000,000
        $2,500,000
        $2,000,000
        $1,500,000
        $1,000,000
          $500,000
                  $0
                        Muskegon Muskegon North                  Norton    Roosevelt Whitehall Montague
                                  Heights Muskegon               Shores      Park

           Source: 2009 Audited Financial Statements


The fuel tax is statutorily established at $.19 per gallon for gasoline and lesser amounts for
blends and diesel. As gasoline prices rise, the tax remains fixed – yielding no additional
revenue. Additionally, increases in fuel economy and reductions in miles driven are both
negatively influencing fuel consumption. In this situation, without legislative relief,
municipalities will be experiencing continuing reductions in Act 51 revenue sharing. As seen in
Exhibit 27, this situation impacts more than 500 miles of roadway for the seven studied cities.

                                             Exhibit 27
                          Miles of Major and Local Road Miles Maintained

        250.00
                       207.51
        225.00
        200.00
                                                                 148.23
        175.00
        150.00
        125.00
                                      67.92
        100.00
         75.00
                                                                                        26.07       24.68
                                                       21.51
         50.00                                                              14.00
         25.00
          0.00
                  Muskegon Muskegon  North                     Norton     Roosevelt   Whitehall   Montague
                            Heights Muskegon                   Shores       Park
           Source: Michigan Department of Transportation


Faced with this prospect, many municipalities are subsidizing the major and local roads budgets
with scarce General Fund resources. Moreover, road condition is degenerating both in the



                                                           III - 27
Muskegon-area and state-wide. In this situation, opportunities for cost savings in the area of
public works take on particular importance.

In regard to shared-services for public works, much has already been accomplished in the
Muskegon-area. As seen in Appendix A:

       Contracts between communities are numerous. The City of Muskegon has been
       particularly successful in providing public works services to neighboring communities
       such as Roosevelt Park, Muskegon Heights and Muskegon Township. With a full-service
       public works operation employing approximately 60 full-time field employees (excluding
       water plant), the City of Muskegon is best positioned to offer service contracts.

       Joint purchasing is prevalent including the use of the State of Michigan bid system,
       Oakland County and joint purchases arranged by the municipalities. A number of bids
       and purchases are also coordinated through the Muskegon County Road Commission
       including traffic signal maintenance, road striping and salt purchase.

       Resource sharing is common for occasional contracts, or on an informal basis for
       functions and equipment such as water taps, Vactor/sewer cleaning and various
       equipment loans.

Our study of shared-services for public works is intended to suggest areas where additional
successes in shared-services can be achieved. Inspection services are also discussed in this
section of the report. To facilitate review, the discussion is organized in the following
subsections:

       The advantages of a solid waste authority
       The potential for contracting or consolidating public works services in select
       communities
       The potential for several smaller contracts-for-service
       Issues pertaining to inspection services.

Each is discussed separately below.

                      The Advantages of a Solid Waste Authority
At present, the nine studied communities have different approaches for solid waste pick-up and
disposal. These are illustrated in Exhibit 28. As seen in the exhibit:

       Four of the municipalities have a community-wide service contract with a private
       provider. Two have special millages for solid waste and/or related services. Michigan
       law allows a maximum three mills levy for this purpose.

       In four communities, property owners contract individually for trash collection –
       selecting a service provider of their choice. One community, Norton Shores, has a
       millage for yard waste collection and spring clean-up.


                                             III - 28
       One community not participating in the study, Muskegon Township, reportedly provides
       trash pickup using in-house resources.

                                              Exhibit 28
                                Solid Waste Methods and Funding Source

                                                                                 FY 2010-11 Special
              Community                Provider of Solid Waste Collection       Millage for Solid Waste
         Muskegon                             Private Service Contract                  2.568
         Muskegon Heights                     Private Service Contract                 2.99928
         Muskegon Township                             In-house                            -
         North Muskegon                       Private Service Contract                    1.3
         Roosevelt Park                       Private Service Contract                     -
         Norton Shores                   Homeowner Contracts Separately                   .7
         Fruitport                       Homeowner Contracts Separately                    -
         Whitehall                       Homeowner Contracts Separately                    -
         Montague                        Homeowner Contracts Separately                    -
           Source: Applicable municipalities and Muskegon County Equalization


Summarily, under the current system, solid waste disposal is completely decentralized. There is
a Solid Waste Plan for Muskegon County (as mandated by the State), but it has not been updated
since 1999. The County is currently working to revive a solid waste planning committee, and in
the process, amend the Solid Waste Plan to include recycling.

In regard to recycling, the City of Roosevelt Park, Fruitport Village and Muskegon Township
provide curbside recycling. In some other communities this is an optional service. There is no
universal plan or coverage for this important component of waste stream reduction. Similarly,
only a small hazardous materials drop-off site is operated by the County from May-October, two
days per month.

A comprehensive approach to solid waste could potentially yield both environmental and cost
saving advantages. If, for example, a county-wide authority was formed, the following benefits
could potentially result:

       Centralized bidding for a solid waste hauling and disposal contract – possibly yielding
       cost savings through improved economy-of-scale.

       Less truck traffic in some communities (and associated noise and road wear) as pickup
       schedules became uniform.

       A conduit for implementing aspects of an updated Solid Waste Plan including recycling
       and waste stream reduction. In regard to the latter, less tonnage would equal lower solid
       waste costs for the participating municipalities.

A model for this type of cooperative arrangement is the Southeastern Oakland County Resource
Recovery Authority (SOCRRA). Established under PA 179 of 1947, SOCRRA consists of 12


                                                          III - 29
member communities with a population of approximately 275,000. SOCRRA’s governing
Board includes one representative from each member municipality with voting power based on
tonnage received at the facility. SOCRRA’s services include:

       Collective bidding for solid waste household services.

       Operation of a state-of-the-art Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and related sale of
       commodities.

       Operation of a composting facility, including sale of compost, resident programs and free
       compost pickup for residents.

       A hazardous materials drop-off site with work-day access.

       Various programs with heavy volunteer participation related to waste stream reduction
       and environmental issues.

The SOCRRA experience could serve as a model for Muskegon County. An authority could
initially seek a unified bid for collection and recycling services and gradually expand into the
areas noted above. A unified bid could provide economy-of-scale and lower sold waste costs. As
mentioned, a concerted effort on waste stream reduction, through recycling, could also lower the
amount of waste requiring landfill, thus providing ongoing cost savings. SOCCRA and other
solid waste authorities have realized these benefits and Muskegon County could experience
similar outcomes.

     The Potential for Contracting or Consolidating Public Works Services
                            in Select Communities
As previously discussed, the variety of public works services provided in the studied
communities differs dramatically – particularly among the larger communities. In this situation,
it is difficult to envision total service consolidation across multiple borders – simply because
service scope (and associated finances) differs so greatly. As has happened historically, it is
more reasonable to look for individual service consolidation opportunities – some on a large
scale (e.g. water, wastewater, solid waste) that can be clearly specified and implemented to
achieve cost savings in particular, identifiable areas of public works activity.

However, with smaller communities, total service outsourcing or service consolidation could be
a feasible approach – particularly in times of financial challenge. Among the seven studied
communities, we have identified two such opportunities, as discussed below.

Roosevelt Park

The City of Roosevelt Park’s FY 2011 budget lists expenditure totals for public works related
activities as follows:




                                             III - 30
       General Fund DPW:              $390,200
       Major Roads:                   $113,000
       Local Roads:                   $143,300
       Sewer Fund:                    $723,000
       Water Fund:                    $694,000
       Equipment Fund:                $ 88,000

Summarily, it can be seen that public works is a major activity center – even in a small city of
approximately one square mile.

We do not have the financial detail to evaluate specific expenditure areas in the above areas of
public works outlay. This would require a more in-depth analysis beyond the scope of this study.
Further, the City’s budget does not clearly distinguish personnel costs for FY 2011. Related to
this, we have been unable to reconcile the specifics of the $302,800 in personnel costs listed in
the City’s FY 2011 budget with current staffing levels. Reportedly, the City has two full-time
workers and two part-time workers in the Public Works Department. Based on the labor contract
and the budget we have roughly estimated the bulk of field personnel cost at approximately
$150,000. These are the costs cited in the following paragraphs.

Service standards and levels are reportedly very high in Roosevelt Park. As examples, sidewalks
are plowed, streets are typically plowed and cleared before 7am and leaves are vacuumed
curbside in the fall. In this sense, the service crew is very responsive and resident service
expectations are higher than most other communities included in the study.

At present, Roosevelt Park outsources several services to the City of Muskegon including
equipment maintenance, water testing and 24-hour emergency back-up for utility issues. As a
full-service operation, it is likely that the City of Muskegon could assume responsibility for all
public works services in Roosevelt Park without adding significant numbers of personnel. (Note:
An exact number would need to be determined and a contract amount offered.)

Net of a contract amount, the potential cost savings to the City of Roosevelt Park would need to
come from the $150,000 in personnel costs cited above and other areas of materials expenditure.
Additionally, the City’s asset detail report (11-30-10) lists $566,715 in equipment at book cost.
The vast majority of this equipment is aged and in total, the equipment is almost totally
depreciated. In this regard, the City can anticipate a significant level of new equipment costs in
the near future. This cost could be avoided with a service contract.

As mentioned, there are not sufficient details to determine full cost impact of a contract option.
This would be a separate, more in-depth study. Moreover, City residents obviously have a high
level of pride in the City and support the higher service level. However, if finances worsen, the
total outsourcing of public works services is one area that should be given further attention.

A similar case could be made for the City of North Muskegon. Services in this community are
also at a very high level with services provided by a cadre of four full-time employees. However,
the geographic separation of North Muskegon is greater than Roosevelt Park and may present
temporal issues for duties such as snow plowing, utility emergencies and other tasks requiring


                                              III - 31
rapid response. Further, the service expectations of the community, and willingness and ability
to pay would be active considerations in outsourcing such an important service area. As seen in
Appendix A, North Muskegon has taken an incremental approach to shared-services, identifying
and contracting for a number of specific services. In this sense, the community has followed a
balanced approach; continuing to search for cost-efficiencies through service contracts, while
still retaining responsibility for core services.

Whitehall/Montague

The Cities of Whitehall and Montague cooperate in a number of areas of public works. The two
communities share crack-sealing equipment for roads and a remote water meter reading device.
Resources are pooled for special events and informal equipment loans are frequent.
In regard to operating models, the two public works departments are markedly different. As seen
in Exhibit 29, Montague operates with a much lesser staffing level. Additionally, Whitehall’s
workers are unionized, while Montague’s workers are not.

                                                Exhibit 29
                                        Public Works Organizations
                                                Whitehall DPW


                                                               Director


                                      Streets and             Parks and
                                                                                    Office
                                        Utilities             Cemetery
                                                                                  Coordinator
                                      Supervisor              Supervisor


           Maintenance
                                                          Seasonal
            Workers               Mechanic
                                                          Workers
               (5)

                                                Montague DPW


                                                         Director



                                                         Foreman



                Maintenance                                         Maintenance
                                         Cemetery                                        Seasonal
                 Workers                                              Worker
                                          Worker                                         Workers
                    (2)                                             (part-time)

         Source: City budgets and information received




                                                         III - 32
Essentially, Whitehall operates with double the full-time staffing employed in Montague. In this
regard, the City of Montague would undoubtedly question the wisdom of merging with an entity
that has higher costs and (in some areas) more expansive services. Moreover, each community
has unique service requirements. Montague has more beach activity and invests heavily in
related seasonal maintenance of toilets and facilities. Whitehall provides curbside pickup of
leaves in the fall – a service that Montague deems too expensive. Simply put, service goals and
objectives vary between the two communities.

Despite the differences, a combined public works could be a future goal. As noted, cooperation
is already high between the two departments and further, incremental joint efforts could be
added. Specifically:

       Equipment should be shared as much as possible. Whitehall in particular appears to be
       heavily invested in equipment. Large generalized equipment such as backhoes, loaders
       and snow removal dump trucks are difficult to share, since both communities typically
       need them for the same weather-related events. True consolidation would allow for some
       cost savings in these areas, but short of this, some redundancy is inevitable. However,
       the two communities should evaluate the combined equipment inventory and decide what
       can be jointly purchased or assigned.

       Purchasing should be done together whenever possible. Combining orders for items such
       as paper supplies, sand, topsoil and water maintenance and repair supplies could result in
       savings. Some joint purchasing is currently done, but additional opportunities may exist.

       The same could hold true for bidding. As an example, both cities use contractors for tree
       work so combining the bids could improve economy-of-scale. Both cities also contract
       for sweeping – a combined bid could be considered in this area.

       While it may not be feasible to physically combine the water systems, it does not mean
       that the maintenance of the systems cannot be combined at some level. Both systems
       have the same types of maintenance requirements and some preventive maintence tasks
       could be jointly scheduled and combined.

       Montague could potentially use the Mechanic at Whitehall DPW to do some routine
       maintenance work. It may prove less costly to have a vendor do mechanical repair, but
       the Whitehall option should be explored.

       Combining efforts and resources during snow events could result in a more efficient
       operation. If it is possible to combine routes so one driver continues on into the other
       jurisdiction, it could save both communities time and effort. Also, reloading at the other
       City’s yard may provide some time savings, depending on routing and location when the
       truck becomes empty.
In summary, there are many steps that can be taken on the road to service consolidation. The
cooperative nature of the Whitehall/Montague relationship can potentially be expanded to
accommodate additional, beneficial service sharing and in the process move the two
communities closer to ultimate service consolidation.


                                             III - 33
              The Potential for Several Smaller Contracts-for-Service
In addition to the above, we have identified several smaller shared-services opportunities that
could yield cost-benefit to the participating municipalities. These include the following:

The Cities of Muskegon and North Muskegon

The Cities of Muskegon and North Muskegon both have radio read systems for water meter
reading. With a radio read system, individual on-site meter reading is not necessary. Meters can
be read from a drive-by or a remote location, and the data can then be uploaded into the billing
software. In this sense, radio read has transformed meter reading from a mundane, labor-
intensive task requiring significant man-hours.

The read systems in the two cities are apparently compatible; however, the City of Muskegon’s
system is much more efficient in regard to reading ability. The North Muskegon system requires
the laborer to walk down the target street to receive the read signal. In contrast the Muskegon
system can apparently record a large number of reads from one remote location.

In this situation it would be reasonable to have Muskegon take responsibility for meter reading
and also possibly maintain the accounts for billing purposes. The City of North Muskegon
would still be required to perform re-reads and other special tasks as well as read the meters in
those portions of the City where radio read has not yet been instituted.

In regard to cost savings, the meter reading function is a shared activity among the four Public
Works employees in North Muskegon. Similarly, water billing is only one function of a one-
person Treasury Department with some desk assistance. Consequently, staff reductions could
not be anticipated from the outsourcing of meter reading and billing. However, the City of North
Muskegon is a very lean and efficient operation. In this regard, the hours saved by outsourcing
could be put to good use on other tasks. This presumes that an acceptable service contract could
be negotiated with the City of Muskegon.

Muskegon County Road Commission (MCRC)

MCRC is the conduit for a number of cooperative endeavors, primarily related to mass
purchasing. Both county-wide road striping and traffic signal maintenance contracts are bid
through MCRC, and a number of the municipalities “piggy back” for road salt purchase, sign
materials and plow blades. In regard to services, MCRC has provided chip sealing for the Cities
of Norton Shores and North Muskegon, among others.

For construction purposes, MCRC maintains a licensed survey crew. MCRC can justify this
resource through its construction workload in summer and design activities in winter. However,
with less construction activity, there may be workload capacity that could be outsourced to
others. Related to this, reasonable cost parameters would need to be established for survey and
construction inspection work if these services were to be provided to other Muskegon County
governments. The private sector can be expected to be competitive in offering a cost-efficient




                                              III - 34
alternative. However, if a reasonable cost can be established, this is a viable shared-service that
could benefit both MCRC and the user municipalities.

The City of Muskegon

The City of Muskegon has four Engineering Technicians and a vacant Assistant Engineer
position. Additionally, the Director of Public Works is a licensed Professional Engineer. The
Muskegon DPW has reportedly provided engineering services in the past to the Cities of Norton
Shores, Roosevelt Park and Muskegon Heights related to design and construction.

As mentioned, the demand for engineering services can be cyclical and also vary between
seasons. In this sense, it can be challenging to maintain employees at peak productivity levels.
The City of Muskegon has an excellent track record in identifying opportunities to market its
excess resource capacity to others. Engineering services could be a prime area for a broader
application of shared-services – presuming the market price is competitive.

                         Issues Pertaining to Inspection Services
In conducting the study, we heard repeatedly that a consolidated building department should be
considered as a potential target for shared-services. The suggested approach for this arrangement
would be a centralized service that would be operated through Muskegon County. Grand
Traverse County has a model of this type – serving many local jurisdictions with construction
plan review, permitting and inspection services encompassing building, electrical, mechanical
and plumbing.

With the housing market collapse, new construction has declined markedly across the state. In
this situation, many building departments have experienced cutbacks. Other municipalities have
retained staff to be used for code enforcement, rental unit inspections or other duties. Simply
put, it is not a good point-in-time to be considering the formation of a large-scale building
department.

From the County’s perspective there could also be financial risk. PA 230 of 1972 requires public
entities to account for revenues earmarked for building construction activities. The intent of this
and later legislation is to guarantee that revenues do not exceed operating costs. In turn, permit
fees must be limited to a level that assures that undue excesses do not occur. Consequently, from
the County’s perspective there is limited upside potential to consolidating this service and the
potential downside of continued economic stagnation and corresponding operating losses.

In fact, the majority of the studies municipalities contract for this service with the private sector.
This is illustrated in Exhibit 30.




                                               III - 35
                                              Exhibit 30
                                  Building Inspection Arrangements

                                            Building Inspection and Construction Trades:
                      Community                        In-house or Outsourced
                    Muskegon                              All trades in-house
                    North Muskegon                              Contract
                    Roosevelt Park                              Contract
                    Norton Shores            One inspector in house, trades are contracted
                    Fruitport                                   Contract
                    Whitehall                                   Contract
                    Montague                            Contract through Board
                    Note: Data not available for City of Muskegon Heights and Muskegon Charter Township
                    Source: Applicable municipalities


Under the contracts, the inspectors are self-employed and receive a percentage of the inspection
or plan review fee. If activity declines (as has been the case) the impact to the community is
limited to the loss of its portion of the inspection fee. This makes a strong case for retaining the
current system.

Another area of inspection activity focuses on rental properties. The City of Muskegon has a
rental inspection program – a proven tool for maintaining minimum standards, identifying
substandard housing and stabilizing neighborhoods. The City of Norton Shores has no rental
inspection program despite the presence of a fairly significant number of rental units (i.e. 4,200).
With a full-time building and trades inspection contingent as well as rental inspectors, the City of
Muskegon could have the workload capacity to service the City of Norton Shores under contract.
Though unpopular with landlords, a rental inspection fee could be used to finance the contract
services received. A rental inspection ordinance would be required to implement an associated
program.


                                       D. CENTRAL SERVICES
Central services can be defined in a number of ways. For our purposes, it refers to those services
provided by internal operations or administered from a central perspective.

As seen in Appendix A, a number of central services are currently consolidated through the
County – available to municipalities who wish to enter into contract. As examples, Muskegon
County Equalization performs assessment services for four of the nine studied communities and
five additional townships. Geographic Information Services (GIS) are provided to five of the
nine studied communities. The County also serves as the bonding agent for the municipalities in
securing debt issues.

In regard to other central services, there are constraints that should be noted. Specifically:

       Automated systems and capabilities differ between the communities. As discussed in the
       following pages, these differences limit the ability to consolidate some central services.



                                                       III - 36
       The "payback" may be limited for other services. In the smaller communities, payroll,
       tax collection and other financial duties are handled by very limited numbers of staff. In
       some cases, overflow work is absorbed by inexpensive part-time help. In these cases,
       very nominal cost savings, if any, would be achieved. Moreover, some duties may be
       removed from a productive position that will still be required. The City of North
       Muskegon is a good example of this. The Treasurer would still be required even if some
       nominal duties were removed. In its present form, it is a highly productive position.

       For the larger cities, differences in benefit costs and pension obligation have derailed
       previous attempts to consider consolidation of tax billing or other standard processes.
       Several cities cited the high cost of County workers as an effective deterrent to
       consolidating these services through the County.

Essentially, there are limitations on what can be realistically achieved through central services
consolidation. Our discussion seeks to illustrate this point as well as identify areas where
meaningful cost or service advantages can be realized. Toward this end, we have divided the
discussion into the following subsections:

        Information technology and phones
        Joint purchasing
        Geographic Information System (GIS)
        Combined income tax administration.

Each is discussed separately below.

                             Information Technology and Phones
At present, each of the seven municipalities participating in the study has a separate phone
system. In regard to information technology (IT), Exhibit 31 illustrates the methods used for IT
support.

                                                 Exhibit 31
                                           Information Technology

                                                 General Ledger              Information Technology
                     Community                      Software                         Support
               Muskegon                           Harris/GEMS                        In-house
               North Muskegon                        BS&A                        From Muskegon
               Roosevelt Park                        BS&A                           Contractor
               Norton Shores                      Fund Balance                      Contractor
               Fruitport                             BS&A                           Contractor
               Whitehall                             BS&A                           Contractor
               Montague                              BS&A                           Contractor
                Note: Data not available for City of Muskegon Heights and Muskegon Township
                Source: Applicable municipalities


As seen in the exhibit, all communities except for the City of Muskegon contract for this service.
The City of Muskegon has an in-house staff of three and provides IT support to the City of North


                                                        III - 37
Muskegon. This has been set up remotely to provide system back-up and help desk assistance.
Web publishing assistance is also provided. The negotiated cost is $85 per hour. The spirit of
the agreement has been to empower system users and act in a support role only. Site visits are
used only as a last resort.

Muskegon County also has an IT operation serving the various County departments. The County
has discussed providing services to others, but has not taken any action. In fact, any large scale
initiative by either the County or City of Muskegon would be dependent on the availability of a
reliable conduit (fiber or some form of wide area network connection). This type of connectivity
does not currently exist on a consistent large-scale basis. Lacking a good conduit, shared-
services from one location (for data hosting) could not be maintained on a remote basis. Support
calls would require a "tech in a truck" to go from one location to another – an ineffective
solution.

As a result, the consolidation of IT services can only be seen as a long-range future objective. A
good starting point would be the inventory of existing fiber in the County. Essentially,
determine where it is, how far it would need to run to connect offices and decide if a network is
practical.

The consolidation of telephone systems may be a more practical objective. During our
evaluation we were approached by a representative of Star2Star Communications, a company
that promotes using a location's internet connection to provide a full featured system that
connects telephones within an organization as well as connecting it to the public-switched
telephone system. Essentially, phone lines become a pooled resource within the system.

A system of this type could potentially be used to provide consolidated phone service for
communities in Muskegon County. Reportedly, a number of large organizations with multiple
sites are using the system, including the U.S. Postal Service. The State of Michigan is also
investigating the service. Should the municipalities wish to consider this option, logical first
steps would be to research the issue, meet with credible service vendors, identify potential cost
savings and ultimately issue a request for proposals.

                                       Joint Purchasing
At present, Muskegon's local governments coordinate and/or take advantage of a myriad of joint
purchasing opportunities. These include:

       Utilizing the State bid process for purchase of vehicles and other listed commodities
       (MIDEAL).

       Similarly, taking advantage of joint purchasing opportunities through Oakland County's
       bid process or bids organized through Muskegon County or the Muskegon County Road
       Commission.

       Working cooperatively between governments or professional associations (such as fire)
       to consolidate bids and purchases.


                                              III - 38
The obvious objective is to lower the unit price of a purchase by increasing quantity. The
studied communities appear to be utilizing every available option to achieve this objective.

The next logical step would be the centralization of the purchasing function – ideally through
Muskegon County. This could be an expensive process to initiate and implement, consequently
it has never gotten beyond the discussion stage.

However, Kent County has implemented a purchasing model that Muskegon County could use to
begin the centralization of the purchasing function. Known as a "reverse auction system", this
purchasing model consolidates desired item quantities from the various municipalities for an "E-
Bay style" bidding process among registered bidders. The system has been in place since
August, 2009 and more than 650 auctions have been conducted since that time. To date,
auctions have encompassed office supplies and equipment, electronics, furniture and some
vehicles. All County departments use the system as well as twelve communities.

Kent County reports the auction process as easy to implement and efficient to conduct. Rather
than adding staff, it has allowed for staff-time reductions. Savings have been significant with
smaller communities initially realizing cost savings of 40% on average. The County and larger
communities realized initial savings of approximately 15%. Over time, prices have been driven
down, with minimum bids (as set by the County) reduced correspondingly. Shipping and
accounts receivable are handled by the individual municipalities – not through the County.

Summarily, the reverse auction system would provide Muskegon County with an additional
"tool" for mass purchasing. It may also be a further step toward a truly centralized purchasing
function. A field trip to Kent County to view and discuss the system is suggested.

                             Geographic Information System
A Geographic Information System (GIS) is a software program that can be used to capture, store,
analyze and present data that is linked to location. Essentially, it is an automated mapping
system. For local government, a GIS project typically begins with a digital aerial photo on
which roads and property boundaries can be determined. Overlay maps can then be created for
virtually every municipal function, using location as the constant. Infrastructure maps, showing
the location of in-ground utilities are a typical objective – but data can also be collected and
analyzed for other municipal services ranging from police calls-for-service to forestry
inventories and workload planning.

With the ever expanding capabilities and applications of GIS, many municipalities and counties
are working diligently to implement these systems. However, in Muskegon County, GIS is still
in the developmental stage.

Muskegon County has taken the initiative to coordinate the GIS effort. The GIS data is centrally
hosted and municipalities can purchase a basic level of service contract. The contract provides
for digital formatting and zoning, land use and specific project mapping. At present, 17 of the 27
municipalities participate. Among the nine studied communities, five participants participate,
including the Cities of Muskegon, Norton Shores, Montague and Whitehall, and Muskegon


                                             III - 39
Township. Reportedly, the City of Whitehall has made significant progress in the mapping of
infrastructure, supported by the service. Others also report positive results.

Ideally, all communities would participate. Annual fees for the four non-participating
municipalities included in this study range from roughly $1,500-$6,000. Ultimately, all
municipalities will have, and depend on GIS applications. A coordinated effort in Muskegon
County will hasten this process and should be a primary objective of all local governments.

                         Combined Income Tax Administration
Of the nine communities targeted for this study, two have a local income tax: The Cities of
Muskegon and Muskegon Heights. The cities are among 18 communities state-wide that levy an
income tax. The tax rates are 1% for residents and 0.5% for non-residents employed in the City.

The City of Muskegon Heights was not a participant in this study, consequently our knowledge
of administrative operations is very limited. Regarding income tax administration we have
learned or presume the following:

       Income tax is administered by one employee.
       The City budgeted for $1,100,000 in income tax revenue for FY 2009 (the last audited
       fiscal year).
       $806,971 was collected or 73.4% of the budgeted amount in FY 2009.

We are not privy to the specifics of the budget process in the City of Muskegon Heights, and in
turn, cannot evaluate the accuracy of the budgeted income tax total. However, a collection rate
of 73.4% should be a cause of some concern. With only one employee involved in income tax
administration, it is conceivable that some tax dollars are being lost from lack of income tax
planning and enforcement.

In contrast, the City of Muskegon has a staff of five in the income tax division including an
Income Tax Auditor. Income tax collections totaled $6,482,290 in FY 2009, a 4.5% positive
variance from the budgeted amount.

Related to the above, this would appear to be an ideal situation for a service contract in which the
City of Muskegon would administer the income tax function for the City of Muskegon Heights.
With increased focus on withholding, collection and compliance, revenues would likely increase.
The result could be a situation in which each City gains.


                                 E. WATER PRODUCTION
Water facilities, water contracts and water rates have been ongoing topics of discussion, and in
some cases litigation among the Muskegon area communities. This is not uncommon for water
services in Michigan – relationships between water providers and wholesale customers can easily
be strained by rate increases, representation or other matters that affect cost and service.



                                              III - 40
Presently, there are four municipal water production facilities utilized by the nine studied
communities. These are owned and operated by the following:

       City of Muskegon, serving:
           - City of Roosevelt Park
           - City of North Muskegon
           - Muskegon Charter Township (portion south of Muskegon River)
           - County Northside System (includes portions of Dalton Township, Laketon
               Township, Fruitland Township and Muskegon Charter Township)
       City of Muskegon Heights, serving:
           - City of Norton Shores
           - Fruitport Township
       City of Montague
       City of Whitehall.

While there is the opportunity and much desire for service sharing or consolidation in the water
area, it is important to note that developing an optimal arrangement will be complex, due to a
number of factors that include engineering requirements, legal matters and financial
considerations. Within the context of these limitations, we have summarized several options for
shared water service arrangements, and noted the potential benefits and challenges of each
option. These are discussed in the following pages.

The Cities of Montague and Whitehall have stated they have no interest or need to engage in
discussion of water consolidation, as they believe their current municipal water systems are
sufficient to meet the needs of their communities. Additionally, they believe the cost of water to
their customers would increase substantially if they moved to a more regional water delivery
approach, given the distance from the other water production facilities in Muskegon and
Muskegon Heights. For these reasons, we have not included Montague and Whitehall in our
evaluation of water consolidation and shared-service options.

Current Water Production Facilities

Prior to any discussion on water services consolidation, it is important to understand the current
and expected future water capacity needs of the area. At the present time, the Muskegon and
Muskegon Heights plants reportedly have a combined capacity of 65 million gallons per day
(MGD). The design capacities of each plant are presented in the table below. The combined peak
daily flow requirement for the communities served by both plants is just less than 35 MGD,
while average daily flow is about 16 MGD.


                                            Plant         Average       Peak Daily
                                           Capacity      Daily Flow    Flow (MGD)
                                           (MGD)          (MGD)
                                            40.0            9.3           20.8
                 Muskegon
                                            25.2            6.3           14.0
                 Muskegon Heights
                 Totals                     65.2           15.9           34.8




                                              III - 41
The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission estimates population growth
countywide could increase by 12.5% between 2010 and 2035. Should the rate of water
consumption mirror the population forecast, peak daily flow for the communities currently
served by the Muskegon and Muskegon Heights water plants could reach 40 MGD in 25 years.
Further, the addition of any major commercial and industrial users could significantly increase
daily flow. In contrast, the loss of a major customer, water saving technologies or a change in
individual usage patterns could result in a reduction in daily flow. Summarily, we cannot predict
if both plants would be needed to service future need and what capacity upgrades are possible or
realistic.

Should the communities decide to explore a more regional water system, there may be benefits to
having two separate production facilities, including redundancy and easily expandable
production capabilities. Conversely, a significant downside of operating two water plants would
be the higher costs associated with maintaining the two plants, rather than one, for the region.

Current Water Rates

The City of Muskegon’s rate structure is currently comprised of three separate commodity rates:

       In-city customers: $1.872/1,000 gallons
       Wholesale rate to Roosevelt Park, Muskegon Charter Township and North Muskegon:
       $2.527/1,000 gallons
       Wholesale rate to County Northside system: $2.340/1,000 gallons.

The City of Muskegon Heights also charges a separate rate for in-city customers and wholesale
customers:

       In-city customers: $1.42/1,000 gallons
       Wholesale rate to Norton Shores and Fruitport Township: $1.775/1,000 gallons

It should be noted that it is not uncommon to see different rates for wholesale customers, due to
the individual needs and contractual arrangements of each wholesale community.

In addition to the above commodity rates, each customer community also charges customers for
debt service and distribution costs. These costs can vary substantially between communities,
depending on customer base, design and age of system, size and geography of distribution area,
water storage needs, and other factors, and in turn, add substantially to the customer rate. As an
example, Norton Shores and Fruitport Township both have significant debt resulting from the
upgrade of the Muskegon Heights facility – these costs add significantly to the cost of water.

The variation in wholesale rates among the communities in the region could be reduced with a
shared services arrangement. The degree of rate equalization possible would depend on the
service sharing arrangement implemented.




                                              III - 42
Options Related to Shared Water Service for the Muskegon Area

There are multiple options for water service consolidation or service-sharing in the Muskegon
area. We have provided information on five of these options below. First, an outline of the
requirements and potential outcomes is presented. Secondly, Exhibits 32-34 summarize the
impacts on each community. As noted, this is a very preliminary evaluation, intended to capture
and summarize information that can be used to guide future decision-making. Specific options
for water service include the following:

   1. Create a New Water Authority Consisting of All Communities Currently Served by
      the Muskegon and Muskegon Heights Systems

           Will require time to implement:
           - Need to determine the enabling legislation under which the authority would be
              created (there are several options, each with its own benefits and limitations)
           - The assets of the different utilities would have to be appraised
           - Articles of incorporation and bylaws would have to be drafted, revised and
              approved by all member communities
           - Governance/voting power issues could require time to negotiate
           - Financing would have to be arranged.

           Initial costs could be higher than a system owned by an existing municipality:
           - Debt costs would be higher (no bond rating/experience of the authority)
           - Operational inefficiencies are common in newly formed organizations.

           Would need to determine if the Muskegon Heights plant continues operation.

           Financial and legal analyses would be required to determine feasibility of selling
           water plant(s) to a regional authority:
           - Some bond/grant provisions may restrict ability to transfer ownership of the plant
           - See notes below regarding existing debt on the Muskegon Heights plant.

   2. Create a New Water Authority Consisting of Muskegon Heights, Norton Shores and
      Fruitport Township

           As with Option 1, requires time to implement and could face political roadblocks on
           various issues.

           Significantly less costly option than building a new plant to serve Norton Shores and
           Fruitport Township.

           Could provide a cash infusion to Muskegon Heights, amount depending on the net
           asset value of the plant.

           Financing costs could potentially be higher, given the lack of bond rating of the
           authority.


                                             III - 43
      Financial and legal analyses could be required to determine feasibility of selling water
      plant to a regional authority
      - Some bond/grant provisions may restrict ability to transfer ownership of the plant
      - See notes below regarding existing debt on the Muskegon Heights plant.

      Fruitport Township and Norton Shores have formed the West Michigan Regional
      Water Authority in an attempt to look at this option as the potential water source of
      the future.

3. County Purchases and Operates both Muskegon and Muskegon Heights Plants

      Authorized under County Public Improvements Act (similar arrangement to the
      Muskegon County wastewater utility).

      Potential cash infusion for Muskegon and Muskegon Heights.

      See notes below regarding existing debt on the Muskegon Heights plant.

      Muskegon Heights plant may not be required to meet water demand, which calls into
      question its economic value in this option.

      Financial and legal analyses would be required to determine feasibility of selling
      water plant(s) to the County:
      - Some bond/grant provisions may restrict ability to transfer ownership of the plant
      - See notes below regarding existing debt on the Muskegon Heights plant.

4. City of Muskegon Expands Distribution to Include Muskegon Heights, Norton
   Shores and Fruitport Township

      Muskegon plant may have sufficient capacity to serve expanded customer base.

      Muskegon Heights water plant may or may not be required to meet capacity needs:
      - Potential for Muskegon Heights to sell asset/land, which could benefit General
        Fund.

      Of all options, this may be the most expedient, since no new authority would need to
      be created, and there would be no change in ownership of either water plant.

      Operational efficiencies could be achieved:
      - Marginal operating costs of serving larger area would likely be minimal
      - Reduces redundancies associated with operating two separate systems
      - Fixed costs spread over larger customer base.

      Current Muskegon wholesale customers could see a reduced wholesale rate, due to
      larger customer base over which to spread costs.



                                        III - 44
      Further considerations required:
      - Determination of role of wholesale customers in influencing operating and
         financial decisions
      - Engineering study to determine:
             ƒ Capacity of Muskegon plant to ensure sufficiency of meeting maximum
                 day and maximum hour water needs of enlarged service area
             ƒ Required changes to connect Muskegon system with Muskegon Heights
                 and Norton Shores/Fruitport Township systems
             ƒ Necessary changes to water storage capacity to meet volume and pressure
                 requirements
             ƒ Additional pumping power required to provide sufficient pressure to
                 expanded service area
             ƒ Costs associated with expanding service area (both capital and operating
                 costs)
      - Resolution of Muskegon Heights water revenue bonds
      - Clarification of disposition of Muskegon Heights’ water plant assets
      - Rate analysis
             ƒ Revised retail and wholesale rates
             ƒ Updated rate methodology
      - Development of clearly defined utility financial policies.

      The City of Muskegon has expressed an interest in working with its existing
      wholesale customers, as well as Muskegon Heights, Norton Shores and Fruitport
      Township, to identify potential terms which could result in rates comparable to or
      lower than what each of these customers currently pays.

5. Norton Shores and Fruitport Terminate Agreement with Muskegon Heights and
   Construct a New Water Plant to Service These Communities

      Most costly of any of the options being considered (2010 engineering study suggests
      construction costs could exceed $51 million).

      Norton Shores and Fruitport Township would see an increase in control of water plant
      operations and capital expenditures. The future impact on rates will require further
      analysis.

      Requires a four-year notice of termination of Muskegon Heights water service
      agreement (termination notice has been submitted by Fruitport Township). Related to
      the impending contract termination, Norton Shores and Fruitport Township have
      created the West Michigan Regional Water Authority, and established a framework
      “to acquire, own, improve, enlarge, extend, and operate a water supply system.” The
      authority could also elect to purchase water from the City of Muskegon, in lieu of
      constructing a new plant.

      Adds unnecessary production capacity to the region, at significant cost.



                                        III - 45
               Customers in Norton Shores and Fruitport Township could see increases in rates to
               fund water production, due to construction costs of new plant, and debt settlement
               costs with Muskegon Heights (Note: the 2010 Prein & Newhof Water Supply
               Alternative Study did not include debt settlement costs associated with the Muskegon
               Heights plant in their comparison of potential rates under the four alternatives
               presented – this would be an additional cost.).

               The cost of water to Muskegon Heights customers could increase substantially, due to
               the increase in fixed costs that must be recovered from a smaller customer base.

               Muskegon Heights plant would likely become financially unsustainable with loss of
               Norton Shores and Fruitport.

               Environmental impact of a new water plant may not be justifiable, given capacity
               available in the region.

Notes related to Muskegon Heights existing debt and water services agreement:

Existing debt on Muskegon Heights plant/system would need to be addressed before undertaking any change in wholesale
customers, ownership or ceasing plant operations. Specifically:
               Existing bonds were issued as water system revenue bonds (assumes Muskegon Heights has a water system
               through which it can recover debt costs).
               A cost sharing agreement is in place between Muskegon Heights, Norton Shores and Fruitport Township ,
               governing each community’s financial obligation for the bond payments.
               If original water services agreement is terminated, there is a requirement that “Norton Shores and Fruitport
               Township agree to make payments to Muskegon Heights sufficient to service their portion of the debt”.
               An amendment to the agreement provides further clarification and requirements in the event of termination:
               “Norton Shores and Fruitport each agree as a condition of termination to make a termination payment to
               Muskegon Heights in an amount equal to (i) all its unpaid water bills… plus (ii) the then present value of its
               portion of the remaining debt”.
               Norton Shores and Fruitport are required to give four years notice of intent to terminate.
               Simply put, a change in the water service agreement would result in a defeasance of the bonds. The first
               opportunity to call the bonds appears to be 11/1/2015.



The following exhibits 32-34 summarize the above discussion in the following manner:

               Exhibit 32: Summary of Potential Financial Impacts for each Community

               Exhibit 33: Summary of Capacity Impacts for each Community

               Exhibit 34: Summary of Potential Impacts on Community Control for each
               Community

In regard to color coding:

               Green indicates an improved position for the particular community

               Yellow indicates no real change from status quo



                                                             III - 46
Lighter red indicates the potential for some negative impact

Red indicates the potential for a negative impact for the community.




                                  III - 47
                                                           Exhibit 32
                                     Water Plant Ownership/Operations Arrangement Options
                                           Summary of Potential Financial Impacts of
                                              Each Option, By Affected Community

                      Create a New Water
                      Authority Consisting      Create a New Water
                       of All Communities            Authority            County Purchases              City of Muskegon          Norton Shores and
            Options   Currently Served by          Consisting of          and Operates both           Expands Distribution        Fruitport Construct
Financial                Muskegon and           Muskegon Heights,           Muskegon and              to Include Muskegon         a New Water Plant
Impacts on             Muskegon Heights         Norton Shores and         Muskegon Heights               Heights, Norton           to Service These
                             Systems                 Fruitport                 Plants                 Shores and Fruitport           Communities
Communities
                      Costs may be higher if    Cost of water treatment    Cost of water may be        Some increased costs       Significant costs of new
                         Authority owns &        & debt could remain      higher if County owns &         associated with          construction & settling
Fruitport
                      operates 2 water plants   close to current levels   operates 2 water plants     connection to Muskegon      portion of MH plant debt
                      May realize a financial                              May realize a financial
                                                                                                      Could be fiscally neutral
                      gain from sale of water   Not included in option    gain from sale of water                                  Not included in option
Muskegon
                                                                                                             for City
                         plant to authority                                   plant to County
                                                                          Should be structured to
                       Not included in option   Not included in option      be fiscally neutral for    Not included in option      Not included in option
Muskegon County
                                                                                    County
                                                                                                                                     Significant loss of
                      May realize a financial   May realize a financial   May realize a financial       Retains water plant
                                                                                                                                      customer base,
                      gain from sale of water   gain from sale of water   gain from sale of water      assets/property. Could
Muskegon Heights
                                                                                                                                     resulting in large
                         plant to authority        plant to authority         plant to County          be sold to pay off debt
                                                                                                                                     increase in rates
                      Costs may be higher if                               Cost of water may be         Potential for reduced
Muskegon
                         Authority owns &       Not included in option    higher if County owns &      wholesale rate, due to      Not included in option
Township              operates 2 water plants                             operates 2 water plants      larger customer base
                      Costs may be higher if                               Cost of water may be         Potential for reduced
                         Authority owns &       Not included in option    higher if County owns &      wholesale rate, due to      Not included in option
North Muskegon
                      operates 2 water plants                             operates 2 water plants      larger customer base
                      Costs may be higher if                               Cost of water may be         Potential for reduced
                         Authority owns &       Not included in option    higher if County owns &      wholesale rate, due to      Not included in option
Northside System
                      operates 2 water plants                             operates 2 water plants      larger customer base
                      Costs may be higher if    Cost of water treatment    Cost of water may be        Some increased costs       Significant costs of new
                         Authority owns &        & debt could remain      higher if County owns &         associated with          construction & settling
Norton Shores
                      operates 2 water plants   close to current levels   operates 2 water plants     connection to Muskegon      portion of MH plant debt
                      Costs may be higher if                               Cost of water may be         Potential for reduced
                         Authority owns &       Not included in option    higher if County owns &      wholesale rate, due to      Not included in option
Roosevelt Park
                      operates 2 water plants                             operates 2 water plants      larger customer base




                                                                    III - 48
                                                              Exhibit 33
                                        Water Plant Ownership/Operations Arrangement Options
                                               Summary of Potential Capacity Impacts of
                                                 Each Option, By Affected Community

                      Create a New Water
                      Authority Consisting
                       of All Communities        Create a New Water       County Purchases and          City of Muskegon          Norton Shores and
            Options
                      Currently Served by       Authority Consisting         Operates both            Expands Distribution        Fruitport Construct
Capacity
                         Muskegon and           of Muskegon Heights,         Muskegon and             to Include Muskegon         a New Water Plant
Impacts on
                       Muskegon Heights          Norton Shores and         Muskegon Heights              Heights, Norton           to Service These
Communities                  Systems                  Fruitport                  Plants               Shores and Fruitport           Communities
                      MH plant may be forced    No change to production    No change to production     MH plant would be put      MH plant may be forced
                      to shut down. New plant   capacity with ownership    capacity if County keeps    offline, unless capacity   to shut down. New plant
Fruitport
                           lower capacity           change in plant        both plants in operation     study indicates need           lower capacity
                      MH plant may be forced    No change to production    No change to production     MH plant would be put      MH plant may be forced
                      to shut down. New plant   capacity with ownership    capacity if County keeps    offline, unless capacity   to shut down. New plant
Muskegon
                           lower capacity           change in plant        both plants in operation     study indicates need           lower capacity
                      MH plant may be forced    No change to production    No change to production     MH plant would be put      MH plant may be forced
                      to shut down. New plant   capacity with ownership    capacity if County keeps    offline, unless capacity   to shut down. New plant
Muskegon County
                           lower capacity           change in plant        both plants in operation     study indicates need           lower capacity
                      MH plant may be forced    No change to production    No change to production     MH plant would be put      MH plant may be forced
                      to shut down. New plant   capacity with ownership    capacity if County keeps    offline, unless capacity   to shut down. New plant
Muskegon Heights
                           lower capacity           change in plant        both plants in operation     study indicates need           lower capacity
                      MH plant may be forced    No change to production    No change to production     MH plant would be put      MH plant may be forced
Muskegon
                      to shut down. New plant   capacity with ownership    capacity if County keeps    offline, unless capacity   to shut down. New plant
Township                   lower capacity           change in plant        both plants in operation     study indicates need           lower capacity
                      MH plant may be forced    No change to production    No change to production     MH plant would be put      MH plant may be forced
                      to shut down. New plant   capacity with ownership    capacity if County keeps    offline, unless capacity   to shut down. New plant
North Muskegon
                           lower capacity           change in plant        both plants in operation     study indicates need           lower capacity
                      MH plant may be forced    No change to production    No change to production     MH plant would be put      MH plant may be forced
                      to shut down. New plant   capacity with ownership    capacity if County keeps    offline, unless capacity   to shut down. New plant
Northside System
                           lower capacity           change in plant        both plants in operation     study indicates need           lower capacity
                      MH plant may be forced    No change to production    No change to production     MH plant would be put      MH plant may be forced
                      to shut down. New plant   capacity with ownership    capacity if County keeps    offline, unless capacity   to shut down. New plant
Norton Shores
                           lower capacity           change in plant        both plants in operation     study indicates need           lower capacity
                      MH plant may be forced    No change to production    No change to production     MH plant would be put      MH plant may be forced
                      to shut down. New plant   capacity with ownership    capacity if County keeps    offline, unless capacity   to shut down. New plant
Roosevelt Park
                           lower capacity           change in plant        both plants in operation     study indicates need           lower capacity




                                                                      III - 49
                                                         Exhibit 34
                                   Water Plant Ownership/Operations Arrangement Options
                                  Summary of Potential Impacts on Community Control Under
                                            Each Option, By Affected Community

                      Create a New Water                                                                City of Muskegon
                      Authority Consisting        Create a New Water                                         Expands
                       of All Communities              Authority            County Purchases             Distribution to          Norton Shores and
            Options   Currently Served by            Consisting of          and Operates both          Include Muskegon           Fruitport Construct
Degree of                Muskegon and             Muskegon Heights,           Muskegon and               Heights, Norton          a New Water Plant
Control in Each        Muskegon Heights           Norton Shores and         Muskegon Heights               Shores and              to Service These
                             Systems                   Fruitport                 Plants                      Fruitport               Communities
Community
                                                     Greater control &                                                               Greater control &
                          Greater control &                                 No change under this       No change under this
                                                     decision making                                                                 decision making
Fruitport
                      decision making authority                                   option                     option
                                                        authority                                                                       authority
                      Lower degree of control                                                            Expands control of
                                                   No change under this     Loss of control of asset                              No change under this
                        & decision making                                                                water production in
Muskegon
                                                         option                and operations                                           option
                             authority                                                                         region
                                                                             Gains ownership and
                       No change under this        No change under this       control of regional      No change under this       No change under this
Muskegon County              option                      option                water production              option                     option
                                                                                   services
                       Lower degree of control    Lower degree of control
                                                                            Loss of control of asset   Loss of control of asset   Loss of control of asset
                         & decision making          & decision making
Muskegon Heights                                                               and operations             and operations             and operations
                              authority                  authority
Muskegon                  Greater control &        No change under this     No change under this       No change under this       No change under this
                      decision making authority           option                  option                     option                     option
Township
                                                                                                       No change under this
                          Greater control &        No change under this     No change under this                                  No change under this
                                                                                                             option
North Muskegon
                      decision making authority          option                   option                                                option
                                                                                                       No change under this
                          Greater control &        No change under this     No change under this                                  No change under this
                                                                                                             option
Northside System
                      decision making authority          option                   option                                                option
                                                    Greater control &                                                              Greater control &
                          Greater control &                                 No change under this       No change under this
                                                     decision making                                                                decision making
Norton Shores
                      decision making authority                                   option                     option
                                                        authority                                                                      authority
                          Greater control &        No change under this     No change under this       No change under this       No change under this
Roosevelt Park
                      decision making authority           option                  option                     option                      option




                                                                     III - 50
Summary and Conclusion

Cooperative efforts related to water services (and other utilities) are not uncommon in the
Muskegon area. Existing arrangements demonstrate the feasibility of sharing this vital municipal
service among neighboring communities. Some examples of service sharing include:

       The City of Norton Shores and Fruitport Township jointly own and operate an elevated
       storage tank, which serves both communities.

       While Muskegon Heights retains ownership and operating discretion of its water plant,
       Norton Shores and Fruitport Township have a voice in some decisions, as outlined in the
       1997 water service agreement between the three communities. The current disagreements
       between Muskegon Heights and its wholesale customers demonstrate the challenges that
       can arise from disproportionate representation in such a significant service area.

       Norton Shores and Fruitport Township have recently formed a new water authority,
       establishing a potential framework for future shared municipal water services in the
       region. These municipalities hope to attract other communities to join in this cooperative
       effort.

       The Northside Water System and Eastside Water System are cooperative efforts between
       Muskegon County and Dalton Township, Laketon Township, Fruitland Township and
       Muskegon Charter Township, in which the County owns and operates the transmission
       and distribution lines, and is responsible for all debt issuance and repayment.

       Muskegon County also owns and operates the regional wastewater collection and
       treatment facility, which has been a successful example of shared municipal services for
       nearly 40 years.

Given these and other shared-service arrangements in the region, it would seem likely that an
arrangement could be agreed-upon for regional water provision. As noted earlier, there are
significant engineering, financial and legal issues that must first be addressed before a successful
operating and governance structure could be concluded. Despite these challenges, it is our
conclusion that there appears to be sufficient evidence to suggest that combining water services
in the Muskegon area as opposed to continuing the current arrangements is a direction that
should be explored. Option 4, (i.e. City of Muskegon expands distribution to include Muskegon
Heights, Norton Shores and Fruitport Township) is the least encumbered alternative and, as such,
would provide a logical starting point.

                  *               *              *              *               *

In the following Section IV we present an overview of the suggestions for shared-service targets
                                 summarized in matrix form.




                                              III - 51
           SECTION IV

SUMMARY OF SHARED-SERVICE TARGETS
                                   SECTION IV
                       SUMMARY OF SHARED-SERVICE TARGETS


In this section of the report, we summarize shared-services opportunities identified and discussed
in the previous section. As discussed, some opportunities may be more readily achieved. Others
will require an incremental approach and some may be found to have limited value and will be
discarded. In all cases, our suggestions are presented as a “starting point” to facilitate additional
analysis and evaluation and provide a framework for the Community Service Improvement Plan.
Within this context, our nineteen suggested targets for shared-services are summarized in the
following Table A.




                                               IV - 1
                                                             Table A
                                                 Summary of Shared-Services Targets

                                                                                                                                  Main
Potential Shared-Service - Opportunity                          Municipalities or Departments Affected                          Reference
                                                                                                                                  Page
Fire Contract-for-Services                  Muskegon Heights contracts fire services to Muskegon or Norton Shores                 III-10
Ladder Truck Joint Purchase/Deployment      Muskegon-Area Fire Departments determine location and specifics                       III-11
Police and Fire Training Facility           All county-wide police and fire agencies utilize - funding must be determined         III-12
Police Contract-for-Services                Roosevelt Park contracts police services to Norton Shores                             III-20
Police Contract-for-Services                Muskegon Heights contracts police services to Muskegon or Muskegon County             III-21
Collaborative Community Policing            Muskegon Heights collaborates on community policing with Muskegon                     III-23
Police Authority                            Montague and Whitehall form a police authority                                        III-23
Solid Waste Authority                       All or most communities form a solid waste authority                                  III-28
Public Works Contract-for-Services          Roosevelt Park contracts remaining public works operations to Muskegon                III-30
Combined Public Works Operations            Montague and Whitehall incrementally combine public works operations                  III-32
Contract for Meter Reading and Billing      North Muskegon contracts water meter reading and billing to Muskegon                  III-34
Contract for Survey Services                Muskegon County Road Commission contracts survey services to others on demand         III-34
Contract for Engineering Services           Muskegon contracts engineering services to others on demand                           III-35
Contract for Rental Inspections             Norton Shores contracts with Muskegon for rental inspections                          III-36
Consolidated Telecommunications             Muskegon area communities combine phone systems                                       III-37
Centralized Purchasing                      Muskegon County institutes Reverse Auction purchasing process for all communities     III-38
Centralized Geographic Information System   Ten non-participating communities join County's GIS initiative                        III-39
Contract for Income Tax Administration      Muskegon Heights contracts with Muskegon for income tax administration                III-40
One Water Production System                 All Muskegon area communities joined in one common water production system            III-40




                                                                  IV - 1
      APPENDIX A

EXISTING SHARED-SERVICES
                                                       APPENDIX A-1
                                                  SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                       SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF MUSKEGON

                          All, Some or Select Services    Description(s) of the Services    Services Provided by the City       Cooperative Arrangements
                            Provided to the City of          Provided to the City of           of Muskegon to Other            With Other Municipalities for
      Service Area:              Muskegon by:                      Muskegon:                       Municipalities:                      Services:
                                                         Muskegon County is bonding
                                                         agent. Also, contract for mail
                                                         and copiers and printers with
                         Muskegon County                 Muskegon County
Administration/Finance
                         Muskegon County                 Property assessment
Assessing
                                                                                                                               Quantity purchase of election
                                                                                                                               materials through County and
                                                                                                                               County-wide election notices
Elections
                                                                                                                               Trucks and road material -
                                                                                                                               consolidated bid through Road
                                                                                            Trucks and road material -         Commission, some cooperative
                                                                                            consolidated bid through Road      purchasing though Muskegon
                                                                                            Commission                         County
Purchasing
                                                                                            IT support to North Muskegon
                                                                                            (possibly Dalton Township and      Hardware shared with
                                                                                            City of Whitehall in the future)   Muskegon County
Information Technology
                                                         GIS mapping and related
                         Muskegon County                 services
GIS

                         Muskegon Area First, West
                         Michigan Shoreline Regional
                         Development Commission          Economic development services
Economic Development
                                                                                            Provide CDBG administration
Community
                                                                                            for Norton Shores
Development/Planning
                                                                                                                               County-wide mutual aid
Fire services

                                                                                                                               West Michigan Enforcement
                                                                                            Install and inspect firing         Team, Muskegon Cold Case
                                                         Use County Prosecutor for civil    mechanisms for Muskegon            Team, West Michigan Criminal
                         Muskegon County                 violations                         Township                           Justice Training Consortium
Police services
                                                         Police, fire and other emergency
                         Central Dispatch Authority      dispatch services
911- Dispatch



                                                                           A-1
                                                   APPENDIX A-1 (CONT’D)
                                                  SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                       SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF MUSKEGON

                          All, Some or Select Services    Description(s) of the Services    Services Provided by the City      Cooperative Arrangements
                            Provided to the City of         Provided to the City of            of Muskegon to Other           With Other Municipalities for
     Service Area:               Muskegon by:                      Muskegon:                       Municipalities:                     Services:
                                                         BLS and ALS response and
                         PROMED                          medical transport
Ambulance services
                                                                                            Design and survey work to
                                                                                            Norton Shores, Roosevelt Park,
Engineering and survey
                                                                                            North Muskegon
services
                         Muskegon County Road            Road Commission provides           Trunk line maintenance to State   "Piggybacks" on Norton Shores
                         Commission                      various road repair services       of Michigan                       snow plow blade purchases
Road repair
                         Muskegon County Road            Road Commission coordinates
                         Commission                      county-wide bid
Traffic signals
                                                                                            Service to Roosevelt Park,
                                                                                            Fruitport Township, Laketon
Vactor and sewer
                                                                                            Township
jetting
                                                                                            Service to Muskegon Township,
                                                                                            Roosevelt Park, possibly
                                                                                            Muskegon Heights in 2011
Crack sealing
                                                                                            Service to North Muskegon,
                                                                                            though also use private
                                                                                            contractor
Street sweeping
                         Muskegon County Road            Road Commission coordinates
                         Commission                      county-wide bid
Centerline/Striping
                                                                                            Muskegon Township, Roosevelt
                                                                                            Park, Muskegon Heights
Vehicle maintenance
                                                         County facility services haulers
Landfill or transfer
                         Muskegon County                 and others
station

Household hazardous
                         Muskegon County                 County-wide program
waste program
                                                                                            Roosevelt Park, North
                                                                                            Muskegon, Northside System,       Interconnect with Muskegon
                                                                                            Muskegon Township (south)         Heights system
Water production
                                                                                            Muskegon Township, Northside
                                                                                            System, Laketon Township,
                                                                                            Dalton Township- also 2"+ taps
                                                                                            to many, and stand-by
Water distribution
                                                                                            emergency for Roosevelt Park
system

                                                                            A-2
                                                      APPENDIX A-1 (CONT’D)
                                                     SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                          SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF MUSKEGON

                            All, Some or Select Services      Description(s) of the Services     Services Provided by the City      Cooperative Arrangements
                              Provided to the City of           Provided to the City of             of Muskegon to Other           With Other Municipalities for
     Service Area:                 Muskegon by:                        Muskegon:                        Municipalities:                     Services:
                                                                                                 Roosevelt Park
Water testing
Elevated tanks and
pump house
                                                                                                 Northside System
maintenance
                                                                                                 On-call to North Muskegon for
                                                                                                 major sewer back-up, sanitary
                                                                                                 sewer repair for Muskegon
                                                                                                 Township, sewer maintenance
                                                                                                 for Laketon Township,
                                                                                                 emergency service for Roosevelt
                          Muskegon County                     County-wide system                 Park
Wastewater processing
                                                              Provides bus service to the City                                     West Michigan Shoreline
                                                              of Muskegon, Muskegon                                                Regional Development
                          Muskegon Area Transit               Heights, Roosevelt Park, Norton                                      Commission for Transportation
                          Authority                           Shores and Muskegon Township                                         Planning
Transportation service


                                                              Emergency management
Emergency
                          Muskegon County                     services under Act 381
Management
                                                                                                 Joint agreement with Muskegon
                                                                                                 County and North Muskegon to
                                                                                                 maintain Veterans Memorial
                                                                                                 Park
Parks and Recreation
                                                              Airport services for all local
                          Muskegon County                     communities
Airport
                                                              County-wide service at varying
                                                              service levels among
                          Muskegon County                     communities
Animal services
Source: Interviews with administration and department heads




                                                                                A-3
                                                      APPENDIX A-2
                                                 SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                  SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF NORTH MUSKEGON

                         All, Some or Select Services     Description(s) of the Services   Services Provided by the City of     Cooperative Arrangements
                        Provided to the City of North    Provided to the City of North        North Muskegon to Other          With Other Municipalities for
     Service Area:              Muskegon by:                       Muskegon:                       Municipalities:                      Services:
                                                        Muskegon County is bonding
                                                        agent
Administration/Finance Muskegon County
                                                                                                                              Quantity purchase of election
                                                                                                                              materials through County and
                                                                                                                              County-wide election notices
Elections
                                                                                                                              Trucks and road material -
                                                                                                                              consolidated bid through Road
                                                                                                                              Commission, some cooperative
                                                                                                                              purchasing though Muskegon
                                                                                                                              County
Purchasing
                                                        IT support and website
Information
                       Muskegon                         maintenance
Technology

                     Muskegon Area First, West
                     Michigan Shoreline Regional
                                                        Economic development services
Economic Development Development Commission
                                                                                                                              County-wide mutual aid and auto
                                                                                                                              aid agreement, joint equipment
                                                                                                                              purchase and use with Muskegon
                                                                                                                              Township, as well as shared fire
                                                                                                                              inspection services.
Fire services
                                                                                                                              West Michigan Criminal Justice
                                                                                                                              Training Consortium
Police services
                                                        Police, fire and other emergency
                       Central Dispatch Authority       dispatch services
911- Dispatch
                                                        BLS and ALS response and
                       PROMED                           medical transport
Ambulance services
Engineering and survey
                       Muskegon                         Design and survey services
services
                                                        Chip seal - also purchase sign
                                                        materials from the Road
                       Muskegon County Road             Commission and City of Grand                                          "Piggybacks" on Norton Shores
                       Commission                       Haven                                                                 snow plow blade purchases
Road repair
                       Muskegon County Road             Road Commission coordinates
                       Commission                       county-wide bid
Traffic signals
                                                                          A-4
                                                     APPENDIX A-2 (CONT’D)
                                                    SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                     SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF NORTH MUSKEGON

                            All, Some or Select Services        Description(s) of the Services   Services Provided by the City of     Cooperative Arrangements
                           Provided to the City of North       Provided to the City of North        North Muskegon to Other          With Other Municipalities for
     Service Area:                 Muskegon by:                          Muskegon:                       Municipalities:                      Services:
                                                              Service from Muskegon and
                          Muskegon and private                private contractor
Street sweeping
                          Muskegon County Road                Road Commission coordinates
                          Commission                          county-wide bid
Centerline/Striping
                                                              County facility services haulers
Landfill or transfer
                          Muskegon County                     and others
station
Household hazardous
                          Muskegon County                     County-wide program
waste program
                          Muskegon                            Wholesale water purchase
Water production

                                                                                                                                    Muskegon on-call for major sewer
                                                              County-wide system                                                    back-ups
Wastewater processing Muskegon County
                                                                                                                                    West Michigan Shoreline
                                                                                                                                    Regional Development
                                                                                                                                    Commission for Transportation
                                                                                                                                    Planning
Transportation service


                                                              Emergency management services
Emergency
                          Muskegon County                     under Act 381
Management
                                                              Provides service to Muskegon and
                                                              the majority of studied
                          Muskegon Area District Library      communities
Library
                                                              Joint agreement with Muskegon
                                                              County and Muskegon to have
                                                              Muskegon maintain Veterans
                          Muskegon                            Memorial Park
Parks and Recreation
                                                              Airport services for all local
                          Muskegon County                     communities
Airport
                                                              County-wide service at varying
                          Muskegon County                     service levels among communities
Animal services
Source: Interviews with administration and department heads




                                                                               A-5
                                                       APPENDIX A-3
                                                  SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                    SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF NORTON SHORES

                          All, Some or Select Services    Description(s) of the Services   Services Provided by the City    Cooperative Arrangements
                            Provided to the City of      Provided to the City of Norton     of Norton Shores to Other      With Other Municipalities for
      Service Area:            Norton Shores by:                    Shores:                       Municipalities:                   Services:
                                                         Muskegon County is bonding
                         Muskegon County                 agent
Administration/Finance
                         Muskegon County                 Property assessment
Assessing
                                                                                                                           Quantity purchase of election
                                                                                                                           materials through County and
                                                                                                                           County-wide election notices
Elections
                                                                                                                           Trucks and road material -
                                                                                                                           consolidated bid through State,
                                                                                                                           some cooperative purchasing
                                                                                                                           though Muskegon County
Purchasing
                                                         GIS mapping and related
                         Muskegon County                 services
GIS

                         Muskegon Area First, West
                         Michigan Shoreline Regional
                         Development Commission          Economic development services
Economic Development
Community
                         Muskegon                        CDBG administration
Development/Planning




                                                                         A-6
                                                APPENDIX A-3 (CONT’D)
                                               SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                 SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF NORTON SHORES


                      All, Some or Select Services     Description(s) of the Services    Services Provided by the City      Cooperative Arrangements
                     Provided to the City of Norton   Provided to the City of Norton      of Norton Shores to Other        With Other Municipalities for
    Service Area:             Shores by:                         Shores:                        Municipalities:                       Services:
                                                                                                                          County-wide mutual aid. Also,
                                                                                                                          cooperative training with White
                                                                                                                          Lake, Dalton, Holton, Blue
                                                                                                                          Lake, Egelston, Muskegon and
                                                                                                                          Fruitport Townships, and
                                                                                                                          Muskegon Heights. Fire auto aid
                                                                                                                          to most of Fruitport and
                                                                                                                          Muskegon Heights, member of
                                                                                                                          Muskegon County Emergency
                                                                                                                          Response Team and Michigan
                                                                                         Full service to Roosevelt Park   Region 6 Incident Management
                                                                                         and Muskegon Airport             Team.
Fire services
                                                                                                                          West Michigan Enforcement
                                                                                                                          Team, Muskegon County
                                                                                                                          Emergency Response Team,
                                                                                                                          Muskegon County Cold Case
                                                                                                                          Team, Muskegon County
                                                                                                                          Incident Management
                                                                                                                          Assistance Team, Michigan
                                                                                                                          Region 6 Incident Management
                                                                                                                          Team and West Michigan
                                                                                         Airport security contract with   Criminal Justice Training
                                                                                         Muskegon County                  Consortium.
Police services
                                                      Police, fire and other emergency
                     Central Dispatch Authority       dispatch services
911- Dispatch
                                                      BLS and ALS response and
                     PROMED                           medical transport
Ambulance services
                                                                                         Street sweeping to Roosevelt
                                                                                         Park
Street sweeping
Engineering and
                     Muskegon                         Design and survey services
survey services




                                                                        A-7
                                                  APPENDIX A-3 (CONT’D)
                                                 SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                   SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF NORTON SHORES

                          All, Some or Select Services     Description(s) of the Services    Services Provided by the City     Cooperative Arrangements
                         Provided to the City of Norton   Provided to the City of Norton      of Norton Shores to Other      With Other Municipalities for
     Service Area:                Shores by:                         Shores:                        Municipalities:                     Services:
                                                                                                                             Allows Muskegon, North
                                                                                                                             Muskegon, County Wastewater,
                                                                                                                             Spring Lake and Ludington to
                                                                                                                             "piggyback" on snow plow
                                                                                                                             blade purchases. Montague and
                         Muskegon County Road                                                                                Whitehall for microsurfacing
                         Commission                       Chip seal                                                          bids.
Road repair
                         Muskegon County Road             Road Commission coordinates
                         Commission                       county-wide bid
Traffic signals
                                                                                             Service to Roosevelt Park
Street sweeping
                         Muskegon County Road             Road Commission coordinates
                         Commission                       county-wide bid
Centerline/Striping
                                                                                                                             Also, Landfill Authority -
                                                                                                                             Transfer Station: Norton Shores,
                                                          County facility services haulers                                   Muskegon Township, Eggleston
Landfill or transfer
                         Muskegon County                  and others                                                         Township
station
Household hazardous
                         Muskegon County                  County-wide program
waste program
                         Muskegon Heights                 Wholesale water purchase
Water production
                                                                                                                             Water tower shared with
                                                                                                                             Fruitport Township and joint
                                                                                                                             purchase of mains
Water distribution
                         Muskegon Heights                 Water testing
Water testing
                         Muskegon County                  County-wide system
Wastewater processing
                                                          Provides bus service to the City
                                                          of Muskegon, Muskegon                                              West Michigan Shoreline
                                                          Heights, Roosevelt Park, Norton                                    Regional Development
                         Muskegon Area Transit            Shores and Muskegon                                                Commision for Transportation
                         Authority                        Township                                                           Planning
Transportation service


                                                          Emergency management
Emergency
                         Muskegon County                  services under Act 381
Management



                                                                            A-8
                                                     APPENDIX A-3 (CONT’D)
                                                    SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                      SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF NORTON SHORES

                           All, Some or Select Services        Description(s) of the Services   Services Provided by the City         Cooperative Arrangements
                          Provided to the City of Norton      Provided to the City of Norton     of Norton Shores to Other           With Other Municipalities for
    Service Area:                  Shores by:                             Shores:                      Municipalities:                        Services:
                                                              Provides service to Muskegon
                                                              and the majority of studied
                          Muskegon Area District Library      communities
Library

                                                                                                Provide youth recreation
                                                                                                services to Roosevelt Park -latter
                                                                                                pays non-resident fee portion.
Parks and Recreation
                                                              Airport services for all local    Provides deicing service to the
                          Muskegon County                     communities                       Airport
Airport
                                                              County-wide service at varying
                                                              service levels among
                          Muskegon County                     communities
Animal services
Source: Interviews with administration and department heads




                                                                               A-9
                                                     APPENDIX A-4
                                                SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                  SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF ROOSEVELT PARK

                          All, Some or Select Services    Description(s) of the Services    Services Provided by the City    Cooperative Arrangements
                            Provided to the City of          Provided to the City of         of Roosevelt Park to Other     With Other Municipalities for
     Service Area:             Roosevelt Park by:               Roosevelt Park:                    Municipalities:                   Services:
                                                         Muskegon County is bonding
                         Muskegon County                 agent
Administration/Finance
                         Muskegon County                 Property assessment
Assessing
                                                                                                                            Quantity purchase of election
                                                                                                                            materials through County and
                                                                                                                            County-wide election notices
Elections
                                                                                                                            Trucks and road material -
                                                                                                                            consolidated bid through Road
                                                                                                                            Commission, some cooperative
                                                                                                                            purchasing though Muskegon
                                                                                                                            County
Purchasing
                         Muskegon Area First, West
                         Michigan Shoreline Regional
                         Development Commission          Economic development services
Economic Development
                                                         Full-service fire and emergency
                         Norton Shores                   protection
Fire services
                                                                                                                            West Michigan Criminal Justice
                                                                                                                            Training Consortium
Police services
                                                         Police, fire and other emergency
                         Central Dispatch Authority      dispatch services
911- Dispatch
                                                         BLS and ALS response and
                         PROMED                          medical transport
Ambulance services
Engineering and survey
                         Muskegon
services
                         Muskegon County Road            Road Commission coordinates
                         Commission                      county-wide bid
Traffic signals
                         Muskegon County Road            Road Commission coordinates
                         Commission                      county-wide bid
Centerline/Striping
                         Muskegon                        Full motorized equipment repair
Vehicle maintenance
                                                         County facility services haulers
Landfill or transfer
                         Muskegon County                 and others
station
Household hazardous
                         Muskegon County                 County-wide program
waste program

                                                                          A - 10
                                                    APPENDIX A-4 (CONT’D)
                                                   SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                     SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF ROOSEVELT PARK

                            All, Some or Select Services      Description(s) of the Services     Services Provided by the City    Cooperative Arrangements
                              Provided to the City of           Provided to the City of           of Roosevelt Park to Other     With Other Municipalities for
     Service Area:               Roosevelt Park by:                 Roosevelt Park:                     Municipalities:                   Services:
                           Muskegon                           Wholesale water purchase
Water production
                                                              Water sampling and testing and
                           Muskegon                           stand-by utility emergency
Water testing
                                                                                                                                 Muskegon provides emergency
                           Muskegon County                    County-wide system                                                 back-up service
Wastewater processing
                                                              Provides bus service to the City
                                                              of Muskegon, Muskegon                                              West Michigan Shoreline
                                                              Heights, Roosevelt Park, Norton                                    Regional Development
                           Muskegon Area Transit              Shores and Muskegon                                                Commission for Transportation
                           Authority                          Township                                                           Planning
Transportation service


                                                              Emergency management
Emergency
                           Muskegon County                    services under Act 381
Management
                                                              Provides service to Muskegon
                                                              and the majority of studied
                           Muskegon Area District Library     communities
Library


                           Norton Shores                      Street sweeping
Street sweeping
                                                              Norton Shores provides youth
                                                              recreation services, Roosevelt
                                                              Park pays non-resident fee
                                                              portion
Parks and Recreation
                                                              Airport services for all local
                           Muskegon County                    communities
Airport
                                                              County-wide service at varying
                                                              service levels among
                           Muskegon County                    communities
Animal services
Source: Interviews with administration and department heads




                                                                              A - 11
                                                      APPENDIX A-5
                                                 SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                     SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY FRUITPORT TOWNSHIP

                          All, Some or Select Services    Description(s) of the Services       Services Provided by           Cooperative Arrangements
                             Provided to Fruitport           Provided to Fruitport          Fruitport Township to Other      With Other Municipalities for
     Service Area:               Township by:                      Township:                      Municipalities:                     Services:
                                                         Muskegon County is bonding
                         Muskegon County                 agent
Administration/Finance
                                                                                                                             Quantity purchase of election
                                                                                                                             materials through County and
                                                                                                                             County-wide election notices
Elections
                                                                                                                             Trucks and road material -
                                                                                                                             consolidated bid through Road
                                                                                                                             Commission, some cooperative
                                                                                                                             purchasing though Muskegon
                                                                                                                             County
Purchasing
                         Muskegon Area First, West
                         Michigan Shoreline Regional
                         Development Commission          Economic development services
Economic Development
                                                                                                                             County-wide mutual aid and
                                                                                                                             cooperative training with
                                                                                                                             Muskegon Township and
                                                                                            Provides service to Sullivan     Norton Shores and fire auto aid
                                                                                            Township and Fruitport Village   with Norton Shores
Fire services
                                                                                                                             West Michigan Criminal Justice
                                                                                            Service to Fruitport Village     Training Consortium
Police services
                                                         Police, fire and other emergency
                         Central Dispatch Authority      dispatch services
911- Dispatch
                                                         BLS and ALS response and
                         PROMED                          medical transport
Ambulance services
                         Muskegon                        Vactor and sewer jetting
Vactor sewer jetting
                                                         County facility services haulers
Landfill or transfer
                         Muskegon County                 and others
station
Household hazardous
                         Muskegon County                 County-wide program
waste program
                         Muskegon Heights                Wholesale water purchase
Water production
                                                                                                                             Water tower shared with Norton
                                                                                                                             Shores and joint purchase of
                                                                                                                             mains
Water distribution

                                                                         A - 12
                                                     APPENDIX A-5 (CONT’D)
                                                    SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                        SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY FRUITPORT TOWNSHIP

                            All, Some or Select Services      Description(s) of the Services      Services Provided by        Cooperative Arrangements
                               Provided to Fruitport             Provided to Fruitport         Fruitport Township to Other   With Other Municipalities for
     Service Area:                 Township by:                        Township:                     Municipalities:                  Services:
                           Muskegon County                    County-wide system
Wastewater processing
                                                                                                                             West Michigan Shoreline
                                                                                                                             Regional Development
                                                                                                                             Commission for Transportation
                                                                                                                             Planning
Transportation service
                                                              Emergency management
Emergency
                           Muskegon County                    services under Act 381
Management
                                                              Provides service to Muskegon
                                                              and the majority of studied
                           Muskegon Area District Library     communities
Library
                                                              Airport services for all local
                           Muskegon County                    communities
Airport
                                                              County-wide service at varying
                                                              service levels among
                           Muskegon County                    communities
Animal services
Source: Interviews with administration and department heads




                                                                             A - 13
                                                       APPENDIX A-6
                                                   SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                       SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF WHITEHALL

                          All, Some or Select Services    Description(s) of the Services   Services Provided by the City    Cooperative Arrangements
                            Provided to the City of         Provided to the City of            of Whitehall to Other       With Other Municipalities for
      Service Area:              Whitehall by:                     Whitehall:                     Municipalities:                   Services:
                                                         Muskegon County is bonding
                         Muskegon County                 agent
Administration/Finance
                         Muskegon County                 Property assessment
Assessing
                                                                                                                           Quantity purchase of election
                                                                                                                           materials through County and
                                                                                                                           County-wide election notices
Elections
                                                                                                                           Trucks and road material -
                                                                                                                           consolidated bid through Road
                                                                                                                           Commission, some cooperative
                                                                                                                           purchasing though Muskegon
                                                                                                                           County
Purchasing
                                                         GIS mapping and related
                         Muskegon County                 services
GIS
                         Muskegon Area First, West
                         Michigan Shoreline Regional     Economic development
                         Development Commission          services
Economic Development
                                                         (Includes Whitehall Township,                                     White Lake Fire Authority is in
                                                         Fruitland Township and                                            County-wide mutual aid
                         White Lake Fire Authority       Whitehall)                                                        agreement
Fire services
                                                                                                                           West Michigan Criminal Justice
                                                                                                                           Training Consortium
Police services
                                                         Police, fire and other
                         Central Dispatch Authority      emergency dispatch services
911- Dispatch
                                                                                                                           White Lake Ambulance
                                                                                                                           Authority: Muskegon County
                         White Lake Ambulance            BLS and ALS response and                                          Incident Management Assistance
                         Authority                       medical transport                                                 Team
Ambulance services
                                                                                                                           Joint hot patch purchase with
                                                                                                                           Montague, and paver purchase.
                                                                                                                           "Piggyback" on Norton Shores
                                                                                                                           microsurfacing bids.
Road repair
                         Muskegon County Road            Road Commission coordinates
                         Commission                      county-wide bid
Traffic signals
                                                                                           Laketon Township on request
Street sweeping
                                                                          A - 14
                                                      APPENDIX A-6 (CONT’D)
                                                     SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                         SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF WHITEHALL

                            All, Some or Select Services       Description(s) of the Services    Services Provided by the City    Cooperative Arrangements
                              Provided to the City of             Provided to the City of            of Whitehall to Other       With Other Municipalities for
     Service Area:                 Whitehall by:                         Whitehall:                     Municipalities:                   Services:
                           Muskegon County Road               Road Commission coordinates
                           Commission                         county-wide bid
Centerline/Striping
                                                              County facility services haulers
                           White Lake Solid Waste             and others. White Lake is a
                           Transfer Authority and             small transfer station that can
Landfill or transfer
                           Muskegon County                    service residents.
station
Household hazardous
                           Muskegon County                    County-wide program
waste program
                                                                                                                                 Shared reading equipment with
Meter reading and/or
                                                                                                                                 Montague
billing
                                                                                                                                 Water interconnect with
                                                                                                                                 Montague
Water production
                           Muskegon County                    County-wide system
Wastewater processing
                                                                                                                                 West Michigan Shoreline
                                                                                                                                 Regional Development
                                                                                                                                 Commission for Transportation
                                                                                                                                 Planning
Transportation service
                                                              Emergency management
Emergency
                           Muskegon County                    services under Act 381
Management
                           White Lake Community               Provides service to residents in
                           Library                            the White Lake School District
Library
                                                                                                                                 Fireworks, parades, events
                                                                                                                                 jointly with Montague
Parks and Recreation
                           White Lake Senior Center           Senior services
Senior services
                                                              Airport services for all local
                           Muskegon County                    communities
Airport
                                                              County-wide service at varying
                                                              service levels among
                           Muskegon County                    communities
Animal services
Source: Interviews with administration and department heads




                                                                               A - 15
                                                       APPENDIX A-7
                                                  SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                       SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF MONTAGUE

                          All, Some or Select Services    Description(s) of the Services    Services Provided by the City    Cooperative Arrangements
                            Provided to the City of          Provided to the City of           of Montague to Other         With Other Municipalities for
      Service Area:              Montague by:                      Montague:                       Municipalities:                   Services:
                                                         Muskegon County is bonding
                         Muskegon County                 agent
Administration/Finance

                                                                                                                            Quantity purchase of election
                                                                                                                            materials through County and
                                                                                                                            County-wide election notices
Elections
                                                                                                                            Trucks and road material -
                                                                                                                            consolidated bid through Road
                                                                                                                            Commission, some cooperative
                                                                                                                            purchasing though Muskegon
                                                                                                                            County
Purchasing
Information
Technology
                                                         GIS mapping and related
                         Muskegon County                 services
GIS

                         Muskegon Area First, West
                         Michigan Shoreline Regional
                         Development Commission          Economic development services
Economic Development
                                                                                                                            Joint inspection Board with
                                                                                                                            Montague Township
Building Inspection
                                                                                                                            Joint inspection Board with
                                                                                                                            Montague Township
Trades Inspection
                                                         (Includes Montague Township,
                                                         White River Township,
                         Montague Fire District          Montague)                                                          County-wide mutual aid
Fire Service
                                                                                                                            West Michigan Criminal Justice
                                                                                                                            Training Consortium
Police Service
                                                         Police, fire and other emergency
                         Central Dispatch Authority      dispatch services
911- Dispatch
                         White Lake Ambulance            BLS and ALS response and
                         Authority                       medical transport
Ambulance Services



                                                                         A - 16
                                                    APPENDIX A-7 (CONT’D)
                                                   SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                        SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF MONTAGUE

                          All, Some or Select Services    Description(s) of the Services     Services Provided by the City     Cooperative Arrangements
                            Provided to the City of         Provided to the City of             of Montague to Other         With Other Municipalities for
     Service Area:               Montague by:                      Montague:                        Municipalities:                      Services:
                                                                                                                             Joint hot patch purchase with
                                                                                                                             Whitehall, and paver purchase.
                                                                                                                             "Piggyback" on Norton Shores
                                                                                                                             microsurfacing bids.
Road repair
                         Muskegon County Road             Road Commission coordinates
                         Commission                       county-wide bid
Traffic signals
                         Muskegon County Road             Road Commission coordinates
                         Commission                       county-wide bid
Centerline/Striping
                         Private contract
Solid waste collection
                                                          County facility services haulers
                         White Lake Solid Waste           and others. White Lake is a
                         Transfer Authority and           small transfer station that can
Landfill or transfer
                         Muskegon County                  service residents.
station
Household hazardous
                         Muskegon County                  County-wide program
waste program
                                                                                                                             Shared reading equipment with
Meter reading and/or
                                                                                                                             Whitehall
billing
                                                          Montague Township , White                                          Water interconnect with
                         In-house service                 River Township                                                     Whitehall
Water production
                         In-house service
Water distribution
                         Muskegon County                  County-wide system
Wastewater processing
                                                                                                                             West Michigan Shoreline
                                                                                                                             Regional Development
                                                                                                                             Commission for Transportation
                                                                                                                             Planning
Transportation service
                                                          Emergency management
Emergency
                         Muskegon County                  services under Act 381
Management
                                                          Provides service to Muskegon
                                                          and the majority of studied
                         Muskegon Area District Library   communities
Library
                                                                                                                             Fireworks, parades, events
                                                                                                                             jointly with Whitehall
Parks and Recreation


                                                                          A - 17
                                                      APPENDIX A-7 (CONT’D)
                                                     SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                          SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF MONTAGUE

                            All, Some or Select Services      Description(s) of the Services   Services Provided by the City    Cooperative Arrangements
                              Provided to the City of           Provided to the City of           of Montague to Other         With Other Municipalities for
     Service Area:                 Montague by:                        Montague:                      Municipalities:                   Services:
                           White Lake Senior Center           Senior services
Senior services
                                                              Airport services for all local
                           Muskegon County                    communities
Airport
                                                              County-wide service at varying
                                                              service levels among
                           Muskegon County                    communities
Animal services
Source: Interviews with administration and department heads




                                                                             A - 18
                                                     APPENDIX A-8
                                               SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF MUSKEGON HEIGHTS

                          All, Some or Select Services    Description(s) of the Services    Services Provided by the City    Cooperative Arrangements
                            Provided to the City of          Provided to the City of        of Muskegon Heights to Other    With Other Municipalities for
     Service Area:          Muskegon Heights by:               Muskegon Heights:                   Municipalities:                   Services:
                                                          Muskegon County is bonding
                         Muskegon County                 agent
Administration/Finance
                                                                                                                            Quantity purchase of election
                                                                                                                            materials through County and
                                                                                                                            County-wide election notices
Elections
                                                                                                                            Trucks and road material -
                                                                                                                            consolidated bid through Road
                                                                                                                            Commission, some cooperative
                                                                                                                            purchasing though Muskegon
                                                                                                                            County
Purchasing

                         Muskegon Area First, West
                         Michigan Shoreline Regional
                         Development Commission          Economic development services
Economic Development
                                                                                                                            County-wide mutual aid
Fire services
                                                                                                                            Muskegon Cold Case Team,
                                                                                                                            West Michigan Criminal Justice
                                                                                                                            Training Consortium
Police services
                                                         Police, fire and other emergency
                         Central Dispatch Authority      dispatch services
911- Dispatch
                                                         BLS and ALS response and
                         PROMED                          medical transport
Ambulance services
                         Muskegon County Road            Road Commission coordinates
                         Commission                      county-wide bid
Traffic signals
                                                         Possibly Muskegon will do in
                         Muskegon                        2011
Crack sealing
                         Muskegon County Road            Road Commission coordinates
                         Commission                      county-wide bid
Centerline/Striping
                         Muskegon                        Full motorized equipment repair
Vehicle maintenance
                                                         County facility services haulers
Landfill or transfer
                         Muskegon County                 and others
station
Household hazardous
                         Muskegon County                 County-wide program
waste program

                                                                         A - 19
                                                     APPENDIX A-8 (CONT’D)
                                                    SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                     SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY CITY OF MUSKEGON HEIGHTS

                              All, Some or Select Services    Description(s) of the Services     Services Provided by the City     Cooperative Arrangements
                                Provided to the City of         Provided to the City of          of Muskegon Heights to Other    With Other Municipalities for
     Service Area:              Muskegon Heights by:              Muskegon Heights:                     Municipalities:                     Services:
                                                                                                 Norton Shores, Fruitport        Interconnect with Muskegon
                                                                                                 Township                        system
Water production
                             Muskegon                         Some water taps
Water distribution
                                                                                                 Norton Shores
Water testing
                             Muskegon County                  County-wide system
Wastewater processing
                                                              Provides bus service to the City
                                                              of Muskegon, Muskegon                                              West Michigan Shoreline
                                                              Heights, Roosevelt Park, Norton                                    Regional Development
                             Muskegon Area Transit            Shores and Muskegon                                                Commission for Transportation
                             Authority                        Township                                                           Planning
Transportation service
                                                              Provides service to Muskegon
                                                              and the majority of studied
                             Muskegon Area District Library   communities
Library
                                                              Airport services for all local
                             Muskegon County                  communities
Airport
                                                              County-wide service at varying
                                                              service levels among
                             Muskegon County                  communities
Animal services
Source: Secondary sources, list is not complete or verified




                                                                                A - 20
                                                      APPENDIX A-9
                                                 SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                     SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY MUSKEGON TOWNSHIP

                          All, Some or Select Services    Description(s) of the Services     Services Provided by the       Cooperative Arrangements
                            Provided to Muskegon            Provided to Muskegon            Muskegon Township to Other     With Other Municipalities for
      Service Area:              Township by:                    Township By:                     Municipalities:                   Services:
                                                         Muskegon County is bonding
                         Muskegon County                 agent
Administration/Finance
                                                                                                                           Quantity purchase of election
                                                                                                                           materials through County and
                                                                                                                           County-wide election notices
Elections
                                                                                                                           Trucks and road material -
                                                                                                                           consolidated bid through Road
                                                                                                                           Commission, some cooperative
                                                                                                                           purchasing though Muskegon
                                                                                                                           County
Purchasing
                                                         GIS mapping and related
                         Muskegon County                 services
GIS

                         Muskegon Area First, West
                         Michigan Shoreline Regional
                         Development Commission          Economic development services
Economic Development
                                                                                                                           County-wide mutual aid. Also,
                                                                                                                           cooperative training with
                                                                                                                           Fruitport Township and Norton
                                                                                                                           Shores. Joint equipment use
                                                                                                                           with North Muskegon.
                                                                                                                           Muskegon County Incident
                                                                                                                           Management Assistance Team
                                                                                            Service to Laketon and Cedar   and Michigan Region 6 Incident
                                                                                            Creek Townships                Management Team.
Fire services
                                                                                                                           Muskegon County Incident
                                                                                                                           Management Assistance Team
Police services
                                                         Police, fire and other emergency
                         Central Dispatch Authority      dispatch services
911- Dispatch
                                                         BLS and ALS response and
                         PROMED                          medical transport
Ambulance Services
                         Muskegon                        Crack sealing services
Crack sealing
                         Muskegon                        Some fleet maintenance
Vehicle maintenance

                                                                         A - 21
                                                       APPENDIX A-9 (CONT’D)
                                                      SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                          SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY MUSKEGON TOWNSHIP

                              All, Some or Select Services    Description(s) of the Services      Services Provided by the     Cooperative Arrangements
                                Provided to Muskegon            Provided to Muskegon             Muskegon Township to Other   With Other Municipalities for
     Service Area:                   Township by:                    Township By:                      Municipalities:                   Services:
                                                                                                                              Also, Landfill Authority -
                                                                                                                              Transfer Station: Norton Shores,
                                                              County facility services haulers                                Muskegon Township, Eggleston
Landfill or transfer
                             Muskegon County                  and others                                                      Township
station
Household hazardous
                             Muskegon County                  County-wide program
waste program
                             Muskegon                         Wholesale water purchase
Water production
                             Muskegon                         System maintenance
Water distribution
                             Muskegon County and              County-wide system, sanitary
                             Muskegon                         sewer repair by Muskegon
Wastewater processing
                                                              Provides bus service to the City
                                                              of Muskegon, Muskegon                                           West Michigan Shoreline
                                                              Heights, Roosevelt Park, Norton                                 Regional Development
                             Muskegon Area Transit            Shores and Muskegon                                             Commission for Transportation
                             Authority                        Township                                                        Planning
Transportation service
                                                              Provides service to Muskegon
                                                              and the majority of studied
                             Muskegon Area District Library   communities
Library
                                                              Emergency management
Emergency
                             Muskegon County                  services under Act 381
Management
                                                              Airport services for all local
                             Muskegon County                  communities
Airport
                                                              County-wide service at varying
                                                              service levels among
                             Muskegon County                  communities
Animal services
Source: Secondary sources, list is not complete or verified




                                                                              A - 22
                                                       APPENDIX A-10
                                                   SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                       SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY MUSKEGON COUNTY

                          All, Some or Select Services   Description(s) of the Services          Services Provided by            Cooperative Arrangements
                            Provided to Muskegon           Provided to Muskegon               Muskegon County to Other          With Other Municipalities for
      Service Area:               County by:                       County:                           Municipalities:                     Services:
                                                                                            Contract for copiers and printers
                                                                                            to Muskegon and provide mail
                                                                                            service, also bonding agent for
                                                                                            municipalities
Administration/Finance
                                                                                            Assessing Services to Cities of
                                                                                            Muskegon, Whitehall, Norton
                                                                                            Shores and Roosevelt Park - and
                                                                                            Townships of Egelston, Holton,
                                                                                            Moorland, Sullivan and
                                                                                            Montague
Assessing
                                                                                                                                Provides central point for some
                                                                                                                                cooperative purchasing
Purchasing
                                                                                                                                Quantity purchase of election
                                                                                                                                materials through County and
                                                                                                                                County-wide election notices
Elections
                                                                                                                                Hardware shared with
Information
                                                                                                                                Muskegon
Technology
                                                                                            Provide GIS mapping and
                                                                                            related services to participating
                                                                                            municipalities including
                                                                                            Muskegon, Norton Shores,
                                                                                            Muskegon Township, Montague
                                                                                            and Whitehall
GIS
                         Muskegon Area First, West
                         Michigan Shoreline Regional
                         Development Commission          Economic development services
Economic Development
                                                                                            Police contracts with three non-
                                                                                            study entities, Prosecutor          West Michigan Enforcement
                                                                                            handles civil violations for        Team, Muskegon Cold Case
                                                                                            Muskegon                            Team
Police services
                                                         Police, fire and other emergency
                         Central Dispatch Authority      dispatch services
911- Dispatch
                         PROMED and White Lake           BLS and ALS response and
                         Ambulance Authority             medical transport
Ambulance Services

                                                                         A - 23
                                                        APPENDIX A-10 (CONT’D)
                                                       SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                                           SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY MUSKEGON COUNTY

                            All, Some or Select Services      Description(s) of the Services      Services Provided by             Cooperative Arrangements
                              Provided to Muskegon              Provided to Muskegon            Muskegon County to Other          With Other Municipalities for
     Service Area:                  County by:                          County:                      Municipalities:                       Services:

                                                                                                                                  County Wastewater
                                                                                                                                  "piggybacks" on Norton Shores
                                                                                                                                  snow plow blade purchases
Road repair
                                                              Wholesale water purchase for
                           Muskegon                           Northside system
Water production
                                                              System repair and maintenance
                           Muskegon                           for Northside System
Water distribution
                                                                                               County facility services haulers
Landfill or transfer
                                                                                               and others
station
Household hazardous
                                                                                               County-wide HHW program
waste program
                           Norton Shores                      Police
Police services
                                                              Fire Department emergency
                           Norton Shores                      services
Fire services
                                                                                               County-wide system
Wastewater processing
                                                                                                                                  West Michigan Shoreline
                                                                                                                                  Regional Development
                                                                                                                                  Commission for Transportation
                                                                                                                                  Planning
Transportation service
                                                                                               County-wide emergency
                                                                                               management services under Act
Emergency
                                                                                               381
Management
                                                              Joint agreement with North
                                                              Muskegon and Muskegon to
                                                              have Muskegon maintain
                           Muskegon                           Veterans Memorial Park
Parks and Recreation
                                                              Provides service to most
                           Muskegon Area District Library     Muskegon County residents
Library
                                                                                               Airport services for all local
                                                                                               communities
Airport
                                                                                               County-wide service at varying
                                                                                               service levels among
                                                                                               communities
Animal services
Source: Interviews with administration and department heads

                                                                             A - 24
                                                    APPENDIX A-11
                                               SHARED-SERVICES STUDY
                           SERVICES PROVIDED TO AND BY MUSKEGON COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION

                                                                                               Services Provided by the
                            All, Some or Select Services   Description(s) of the Services      Muskegon County Road            Cooperative Arrangements
                            Provided to the Muskegon        Provided to the Muskegon            Commission to Other          With Other Municipalities for
     Service Area:         County Road Commission By:       County Road Commission:                Municipalities:                      Services:
                                                                                                                             Trucks and road material -
                                                                                                                             consolidated bid through Road
                                                                                                                             Commission
Purchasing
                           Muskegon Area First, West
                           Michigan Shoreline Regional
                           Development Commission          Economic development services
Economic Development
                           Central Dispatch Authority      Emergency dispatch               Emergency dispatch services
911- Dispatch
                                                                                            Shared cost arrangements with
                                                                                            select municipalities
Road construction
                                                                                            Chip sealing to Norton Shores,
                                                                                            Lakewood Club, North
                                                                                            Muskegon, various road repair
                                                                                            services to Muskegon
Road repair
                                                                                            Road Commission coordinates
                                                                                            county-wide bid
Traffic signals
                                                                                            Road Commission coordinates
                                                                                            county-wide bid
Centerline/Striping
Source: Interview with administration




                                                                          A - 25
        APPENDIX B

FIRE DEPARTMENT SCHEDULING
          Appendix B-1
Muskegon County Fire House Locations




               B-1
                             Appendix B-2
Estimated Distance (ISO Travel Time) From Muskegon County Fire Houses




                                B-2
                                B-2
       APPENDIX C

POSSIBLE POLICE SCHEDULES
                                                        Appendix C-1
                                           Whitehall - Montague Police Department
                                         OPTION A: Operate With 10 Full-Time Officers
                                            12 Hour Schedule, 42 Hour Work Week

                        1   2   3   4     5   6   7   8   9   10    11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26
                        M   T   W   TH    F   S   S   M   T   W    TH    F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F
Chief         8A-4P     8   8   8   8     8           8   8   8     8    8              8    8    8    8    8              8    8    8    8    8
                                              \   \                           \    \                             \    \
              8A-4P     1   1   1   1     1   0   0   1   1   1     1    1    0    0    1    1    1    1    1    0    0    1    1    1    1    1
   Staffing
A Shift       7A-7P     M   T   W   TH    F   S   S   M   T   W    TH    F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F
              P.O.      D   D             D   D   D           D     D                   D    D              D    D    D              D    D
              P.O.      D   D             D   D   D           D     D                   D    D              D    D    D              D    D
B Shift       7A-7P
              P.O.              D   D                 D   D              D    D    D              D    D                   D    D              D
              P.O.              D   D                 D   D              D    D    D              D    D                   D    D              D
              7A-3P     2   2   2   2     2   2   2   2   2   2     2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2
W/O Admin

Sergeant       3P-11P   A   A   A   A     A           A   A   A     A    A              A    A    A    A    A              A    A    A    A    A
                                              \   \                           \    \                             \    \
Part-time     3P-11P                      A   A                          A    A                             A    A                             A
Part-time     7P-3A                       N   N                          N    N                             N    N                             N

C Shift       7P-7A     M   T   W   TH    F   S   S   M   T   W    TH    F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F
              P.O.      N   N             N   N   N           N     N                   N    N              N    N    N              N    N
              P.O.      N   N             N   N   N           N     N                   N    N              N    N    N              N    N
D Shift       7P-7A
              P.O.              N   N                 N   N              N    N    N              N    N                   N    N              N
              P.O.              N   N                 N   N              N    N    N              N    N                   N    N              N
                        2   2   2   2     2   2   2   2   2   2     2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2
Staffing      7P-7A
              7P-11P    3   3   3   3     5   4   3   3   3   3     3    5    4    3    3    3    3    3    5    4    3    3    3    3    3    5
W/Sgt/PT
              11P-3A    2   2   2   2     3   3   2   2   2   2     2    3    3    2    2    2    2    2    3    3    2    2    2    2    2    3
W/Part-time
               3A-7A    2   2   2   2     2   2   2   2   2   2     2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2




                                                                   C-1
                                                               Appendix C-1
                                                  Whitehall - Montague Police Department
                                                OPTION A: Operate With 10 Full-Time Officers
                                                   12 Hour Schedule, 42 Hour Work Week


Notes:
Four (4) platoon system, steady shifts, officers selection
Ten full-time positions supplemented by part-time (1 Chief, 1 Sgt., 8-FT P.O.s, P/T officers)
Eliminates 1 Chief position
Eliminates 1 SRO position
Eliminates 1 Detective position
Maintains Sgt. position with adjusted schedule to provide supervision on the afternoon shift
         Hours TBD by Chief 3P-11P, 4P- Midnight, 7P-3A, etc.
Sgt. should be included in minimum shift staffing levels
Platoons made up of two (2) police officers
Sergeant can provide coverage for vacancies created by benefit time off during summer months, vacation periods, etc.
All officers are assigned to work on the same day, maximizing staffing levels barring benefit time off vacancies
Chief to determine appropriate shift start and end times for platoons, 7A-7P/7P-7A or 8A-8P/8P-8A, or 6A-6P
Chief to work road patrol and to fill in on shift vacancies when necessary
Maintains minimum staffing of 2 officers per shift with supplemental staff (Sgt and part-time officers)
Chief to determine part-time staff hours
Part-time officers are shown as working Friday and Saturday evenings and nights
Utilizes part-time officers to supplement patrol staff




                                                                            C-2
                                                                Appendix C-2
                                                   Whitehall - Montague Police Department
                                                 OPTION B: Operate With 9 Full-Time Officers
                                                   12 Hour Schedule, 42 Hour Work Week

                                     1   2   3    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28
                                     M   T   W   TH   F   S   S   M   T   W    TH   F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F    S    S
Chief                       8A-4P    8   8   8    8   8           8   8   8    8    8              8    8    8    8    8              8    8    8    8    8
                                                          \   \                          \    \                             \    \                             \    \
Detective                   8A-4P    8   8   8    8   8           8   8   8    8    8              8    8    8    8    8              8    8    8    8    8
                                                          \   \                          \    \                             \    \                             \    \
                                     2   2   2    2   2   0   0   2   2   2    2    2    0    0    2    2    2    2    2    0    0    2    2    2    2    2    0    0
        Staffing   8A-4P
                   7A-7P             M   T   W   TH   F   S   S   M   T   W    TH   F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F    S    S
A Shift            P.O.              D   D            D   D   D           D    D                   D    D              D    D    D              D    D
                   P.O.              D   D            D   D   D           D    D                   D    D              D    D    D              D    D
B Shift            P.O.                      D    D               D   D             D    D    D              D    D                   D    D              D    D    D
                   P.O.                      D    D               D   D             D    D    D              D    D                   D    D              D    D    D
                   Part-time 7A-3P   8   8   8    8   8   8       8   8   8    8    8    8         8    8    8    8    8    8         8    8    8    8    8    8
     If needed

                                     3   3   3    3   3   3   3   3   3   3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3
        W/O Admin. 7A-3P
Sergeant                             8   8   8    8   8           8   8   8    8    8              8    8    8    8    8              8    8    8    8    8
                   3P-11P                                 \   \                          \    \                             \    \                             \    \
                   7P-7A             M   T   W   TH   F   S   S   M   T   W    TH   F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F    S    S
C Shift            P.O.              N   N            N   N   N           N    N                   N    N              N    N    N              N    N
D Shift            P.O.                      N    N               N   N             N    N    N              N    N                   N    N              N    N    N

                                     1   1   1    1   1   1   1   1   1   1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1
   F/T Staffing
                   PT 3P-11P         8   8   8    8   8   8   8   8   8   8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8
                   PT 11P-7A         8   8   8    8   8   8   8   8   8   8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8
Weekends only      PT 11P-7A                          8   8                         8    8                             8    8                             8    8
W/Sgt.             3P-7P             3   3   3    3   3   2   2   3   3   3    3    3    2    2    3    3    3    3    3    2    2    3    3    3    3    3    2    2
W/Sgt. & PT        7P-11P            3   3   3    3   3   2   2   3   3   3    3    3    2    2    3    3    3    3    3    2    2    3    3    3    3    3    2    2
W/Part-time        11p-7A            2   2   2    2   3   3   2   2   2   2    2    3    3    2    2    2    2    2    3    3    2    2    2    2    2    3    3    2




                                                                          C-3
                                                                  Appendix C-2
                                                     Whitehall - Montague Police Department
                                                   OPTION B: Operate With 9 Full-Time Officers
                                                     12 Hour Schedule, 42 Hour Work Week

Notes:
Four (4) platoon system, steady shifts, officers selection
Nine (9) full-time positions supplemented by part-time (1- Chief, 1- Sgt., 1- Detective, 6- P.O.s, P/T officers to supplement staff)
Eliminates four (4) full time positions (1-Chief., 2-P.O.s, 1- school Resource Officer
Utilizes part-time officers to supplement patrol staff
Maintains Detective position
SRO position eliminated
Maintains Sgt. position with adjusted schedule to provide supervision on the afternoon shift
         Hours TBD by Chief 3P-11P, 4P- Midnight, 7P-3A, etc.
Sgt. should be included in minimum shift staffing levels.
Day shift platoons made up of two (2)-full-time P.O. per platoon and 1 part-time officer to supplement staffing
Night shift platoons made up of one (1) full-time P.O. per platoon and part-time officer to supplement staffing
Increase weekend coverage by adding part-time patrol officers as needed
Only one (1) officer is allowed off at a time for vacation, compensatory or personal time
Allows for adequate leave time and weekends off, 26 scheduled weekends off per year
Full-time platoon officers get every other weekend off, 26 - 3 day weekends off per year
Work 182 days per year, leave days 182 days per year
42 hour work week
Full-time platoon officers workday/off day cycle, 2 on 2 off, 3 on 2 off, 2 on 3 off
Chief to determine appropriate shift start and end times for platoons, 7A-7P/7P-7A or 8A-8P/8P-8A, or 6A-6P
Chief to work road patrol and to fill in on shift vacancies when necessary
Maintains minimum staffing of 2 officers per shift with supplemental staff (Sgt. and part-time officers)
Chief to determine part-time staff hours
         Chief can adjust part-time schedules as necessary, i.e. 8A-4P, 7P-3A, 11P-7A to supplement vacancies
         Part-time officers can be added to supplement any of the shifts as needed or determined by the Chief




                                                                               C-4
                                                     Appendix C-3
                                        Whitehall - Montague Police Department
                                      OPTION C: Operate With 8 Full-Time Officers
                                        12 Hour Schedule, 42 Hour Work Week

                                  1   2   3   4    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26
                                  M   T   W   TH   F   S   S   M   T   W    TH   F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F
Chief          8A-4P              8   8   8   8    8           8   8   8    8    8              8    8    8    8    8              8    8    8    8    8
                                                       \   \                          \    \                             \    \
               8A-4P              1   1   1   1    1   0   0   1   1   1    1    1    0    0    1    1    1    1    1    0    0    1    1    1    1    1
    Staffing
               7A-7P              M   T   W   TH   F   S   S   M   T   W    TH   F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F
A Shift        P.O.               D   D            D   D   D           D    D                   D    D              D    D    D              D    D
B Shift        P.O.                       D   D                D   D             D    D    D              D    D                   D    D              D
               Part-time 7A-3P    8   8   8   8    8   8   8   8   8   8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8
               Part-time 3P-11P   8   8   8   8    8   8   8   8   8   8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8

               7A-3P              2   2   2   2    2   2   2   2   2   2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2
W/O Admin
Sergeant                3P-11P    8   8   8   8    8           8   8   8    8    8              8    8    8    8    8              8    8    8    8    8
                                                       \   \                          \    \                             \    \
C Shift        7P-7A              M   T   W   TH   F   S   S   M   T   W    TH   F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F
               P.O.               N   N            N   N   N           N    N                   N    N              N    N    N              N    N
               P.O.               N   N            N   N   N           N    N                   N    N              N    N    N              N    N
D Shift        7P-7A              M   T   W   TH   F   S   S   M   T   W    TH   F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F    S    S    M    T    W    TH   F
               P.O.                       N   N                N   N             N    N    N              N    N                   N    N              N
               P.O.                       N   N                N   N             N    N    N              N    N                   N    N              N

                                  2   2   2   2    2   2   2   2   2   2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2    2
F/T Staffing
               Part-time 11P-7A   8   8   8   8    8   8   8   8   8   8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8    8
W/Sgt.         3P-7P              3   3   3   3    3   2   2   3   3   3    3    3    2    2    3    3    3    3    3    2    2    3    3    3    3    3
W/Part-time    7P-11P             4   4   4   4    4   3   3   4   4   4    4    4    3    3    4    4    4    4    4    3    3    4    4    4    4    4
W/Part-time    11p-7A             3   3   3   3    3   3   3   3   3   3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3    3




                                                               C-5
                                                                  Appendix C-3
                                                     Whitehall - Montague Police Department
                                                   OPTION C: Operate With 8 Full-Time Officers
                                                     12 Hour Schedule, 42 Hour Work Week

Notes:
Four (4) platoon system, steady shifts, officers selection
Eight (8) full-time positions supplemented by part-time (1- Chief, 1- Sgt., 6- P.O.s, P/T officers to supplement staffing)
Eliminates five (5) full time positions (1-Chief., 2-P.O.'s, 1 Detective, 1-School Resource Officer)
Utilizes part-time officers to supplement patrol staff
SRO position eliminated
Maintains Sgt. position with adjusted schedule to provide supervision on the afternoon shift
         Hours TBD by Chief 3P-11P, 4P- Midnight, 7P-3A, etc.
Sgt. should be included in minimum shift staffing levels
Day shift platoons made up of 1 full-time P.O. and 1 part-time officer as supplemental staff
Night shift platoons made up of two (2) full-time P.O.'s with part-time officers as supplemental staff
Only one (1) officer is allowed off at a time for vacation, compensatory or personal time
Allows for adequate leave time and weekends off, 26 scheduled weekends off per year
Full-time platoon officers get every other weekend off, 26 - 3 day weekends off per year
Work 182 days per year, leave days 182 days per year
42 hour work week
Full-time platoon officers workday/off day cycle, 2 on 2 off, 3 on 2 off, 2 on 3 off,
Chief to determine appropriate shift start and end times for platoons, 7A-7P/7P-7A or 8A-8P/8P-8A, or 6A-6P
Chief to work road patrol and to fill in on shift vacancies when necessary
Maintains minimum staffing of 2 officers per shift with supplemental staff (Sgt and part-time officers)
Chief to determine part-time staff hours
         Currently listed to work 7A-3P day shift and 3P-11 P afternoon shift
         Chief can adjust part-time schedules as necessary, i.e. 8A-4P, 7P-3A, 11P-7A to supplement vacancies
         Part-time officers can be added to supplement any of the shifts as needed or determined by the Chief




                                                                               C-6
                                                                   Appendix C-4
                                                      Whitehall - Montague Police Department
                                                    OPTION D: Operate With 7 Full-Time Officers
                                                      12 Hour Schedule, 42 Hour Work Week

                                        1   2   3    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14 15   16   17   18   19   20 21   22   23 24   25   26 27   28
                                        M   T W TH F         S   S M T W TH            F    S    S   M   T    W TH      F    S   S   M    T   W TH     F   S   S
Chief                          8A-4P    8   8   8    8   8           8   8   8    8    8             8   8    8    8    8            8    8   8   8    8
                                                             \   \                          \    \                           \   \                         \   \
Detective                      8A-4P    8   8   8    8   8           8   8   8    8    8             8   8    8    8    8            8    8   8   8    8
                                                             \   \                          \    \                           \   \                         \   \
                     8A-4P              2   2   2    2   2   0   0   2   2   2    2    2    0    0   2   2    2    2    2    0   0   2    2   2   2    2   0   0
    Staffing

                                        1   1   1    1   1   0   0   1   1   1    1    1    0    0   1   1    1    1    1    0   0   1    1   1   1    1   0   0
                     7A-7P              M   T W TH F         S   S M T W TH            F    S    S   M   T    W TH      F    S   S   M    T   W TH     F   S   S
A Shift              P.O.               D   D            DDD                 D    D                  D   D              D    D   D            D   D
B Shift              P.O.                       D    D               DD                D    D    D            D    D                 D    D            D   D   D
                     Part-time 7A-3P    8   8   8    8   8   8   8   8   8   8    8    8    8    8   8   8    8    8    8    8   8   8    8   8   8    8   8   8

                                        2   2   2    2   2   2   2   2   2   2    2    2    2    2   2   2    2    2    2    2   2   2    2   2   2    2   2   2
   W/O Admin 7A-3P
                                        4   4   4    4   4   2   2   4   4   4    4    4    2    2   4   4    4    4    4    2   2   4    4   4   4    4   2   2
        W/Admin 8A-4P

Sergeant                                8   8   8    8   8           8   8   8    8    8             8   8    8    8    8            8    8   8   8    8
                     3P-11P                                  \   \                          \    \                           \   \                         \   \
                     7P-7A              M   T W TH F         S   S M T W TH            F    S    S   M   T    W TH      F    S   S   M    T   W TH     F   S   S
C Shift              P.O.               N   N            NNN                 N    N                  N   N              N    N   N            N   N
D Shift              P.O.                       N    N               NN                N    N    N            N    N                 N    N            N   N   N
                     Part-time 3P-11P   8   8   8    8   8   8   8   8   8   8    8    8    8    8   8   8    8    8    8    8   8   8    8   8   8    8   8   8
                     Part-time 11P-7A   8   8   8    8   8   8   8   8   8   8    8    8    8    8   8   8    8    8    8    8   8   8    8   8   8    8   8   8
          Staffing
W/Sgt & PT.          3P-7P              3   3   3    3   3   2   2   3   3   3    3    3    2    2   3   3    3    3    3    2   2   3    3   3   3    3   2   2
W/Sgt & PT.          7P -11P            3   3   3    3   3   2   2   3   3   3    3    3    2    2   3   3    3    3    3    2   2   3    3   3   3    3   2   2
W/Part-time          11p-7A             2   2   2    2   2   2   2   2   2   2    2    2    2    2   2   2    2    2    2    2   2   2    2   2   2    2   2   2




                                                                             C-7
                                                                  Appendix C-4
                                                     Whitehall - Montague Police Department
                                                   OPTION D: Operate With 7 Full-Time Officers
                                                     12 Hour Schedule, 42 Hour Work Week

Notes:
Four (4) platoon system, steady shifts, officers selection
Seven (7) full-time positions supplemented by part-time (1- Chief, 1- Sgt., 1- Detective, 4-P.O.'s, P/T officers to supplement staffing)
Eliminates six (6) full time positions (Chief, 4-P.O.'s, 1-School Resource Officer
Utilizes part-time officers to supplement patrol staff
Maintains Detective position
SRO position eliminated
Maintains Sgt. position with adjusted schedule to provide supervision on the afternoon shift
         Hours TBD by Chief 3P-11P, 4P- Midnight, 7P-3A, etc.
Sgt. should be included in minimum shift staffing levels.
Day and night shift platoons made up of 1-Full-time P.O. and 1 Part-time officers as supplemental staff
Chief to determine appropriate shift start and end times for platoons, 7A-7P/7P-7A or 8A-8P/8P-8A, or 6A-6P
Chief to work road patrol and to fill in on shift vacancies when necessary
Maintains minimum staffing of 2 officers per shift with supplemental staff (Sgt and Part-time officers)
Chief to determine part-time staff hours
         Chief can adjust part-time schedules as necessary, i.e. 8A-4P, 7P-3A, 11P-7A to supplement vacancies
         Part-time officers can be added to supplement any of the shifts as needed or determined by the Chief




                                                                               C-8
Date:     December 13, 2011
To:       Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From:     Ann Cummings, City Clerk
RE:       2012 National League of Cities
          Membership Dues


SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The 2012 National League of Cities
Membership Renewal Notice has been received.


FINANCIAL IMPACT: $3,813.


BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: This has not been budgeted for.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None.

Top of Page