View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 8, 2005
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS@ 5:30 P.M.
AGENDA
Q CALL TO ORDER:
Q PRAYER:
Q PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Q ROLL CALL:
Q HONORS AND AWARDS:
Q INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATION:
Q CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Approval of Minutes. CITY CLERK
B. Polling Place Change. CITY CLERK
C. Request to Fly the Irish Flag. CITY CLERK
D. SECOND READING: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Residential
Design Criteria. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
E. SECOND READING: Rezoning Request for Property Located at 1282
Arthur Street. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
F. Additional Taxicabs. CITY CLERK
G. 2005 Bryne Memorial Grant (JAG) Program. PUBLIC SAFETY
H. Amend the Long Range Plan Submittal to Include the Downtown
Development Project. ENGINEERING
I. Public Service Building Modifications. PUBLIC WORKS
J. 2005 - 2006 City Commission Goals. CITY MANAGER
Q PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Request for the Establishment of an Industrial Development District -
Port City Industrial Finishing. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
B. Request for an Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate - Port City
Industrial Finishing. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
C. Create a Special Assessment District for Pine Street. Laketon to Dale.
ENGINEERING
D. Create a Special Assessment District for Fifth Street Campus to Merrill.
ENGINEERING
E. Taxicab Rates. CITY CLERK
F. Recommendation for Annual Renewal of Liquor Licenses. CITY CLERK
o COMMUNICATIONS:
o CITY MANAGER'S REPORT:
o UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
o NEW BUSINESS:
A. User Fee Adjustment - Daily Launch Ramp Fees. FINANCE
B. Amendment to the Wastewater System's Access Rights Agreement.
CITY MANAGER
C. Consideration of Bids - Walton Ave .. Murphy to Emerald. ENGINEERING
D. Liquor License Request- GFB. L.L.C .. 1920 Lakeshore. CITY CLERK
E. Approval of Sale of Property: Citv of Muskegon Assessors Plat of
Stevens Sub Division Lot 7 & East 10 Feet Lot 6. COMMUNITY &
NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
F. 2005-2006 CDBG/HOME Preliminary Funding Allocations. COMMUNITY
& NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
G. Consideration of Proposals for Construction Engineering Services on
Shoreline drive Phase II (first to Webster). ENGINEERING
o ANY OTHER BUSINESS:
o 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 l 0 minutes if previously registered with City Clerk.)
o CLOSED SESSION:
o ADJOURNMENT:
ADA POLICY: THE CITY OF MUSKEGON WILL PROVIDE NECESSARY AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS WHO
WANT TO AlTEND THE MEETING UPON TWENTY FOUR HOUR NOTICE TO THE CITY OF MUSKEGON. PLEASE CONTACT GAIL A.
KUNDINGER, CllY CLERK, 933 TERRACE STREET. MUSKEGON, Ml 49440 OR BY CALLING (23 1) 724-6705 OR TOO: (231)
724-4172.
Date: March 8, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Gail A. Kundinger, City Clerk
RE: Approval of Minutes
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To approve the minutes of the Regular
Commission Meeting that was held on Tuesday, February 22, 2005.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the minutes.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 8, 2005
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS@ 5:30P.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, March 8,
2005.
Mayor Warmington opened the meeting with a prayer from Pastor Sarah
Johnson of the Word of Truth Outreach after which the Commission and public
recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL FOR THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING:
Present: Mayor Stephen Warmington, Vice Mayor Bill Larson, Commissioner
Chris Carter, Kevin Davis, Stephen Gawron, Clara Shepherd, and Lawrence
Spataro, City Manager Bryon Mazade, City Attorney John Schrier,. and City Clerk
Gail Kundinger.
HONORS AND AWARDS: Mayor Warmington announced that City Manager
Bryon Mazade was awarded a Certificate of Special Recognition by the
Michigan Local Government Management Association.
2005-23 CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Approval of Minutes. CITY CLERK
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To approve the minutes of the Regular Commission
Meeting that was held on Tuesday, February 22, 2005.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the minutes.
B. Polling Place Change. CITY CLERK
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To approve the request to modify the polling places as
follows:
Precinct# 2 change to Steele School, 1150 Amity Avenue.
Oakview School use to house both precinct 2 and 3 in their gym. Turnout at the
elections last year showed us that the location is too small for both precincts.
Precinct # 3 will stay at Oakview School and we are recommending the use of
Steele School for Precinct # 2.
Precinct# 8 change location to Nelson School, 550 W. Grand.
This precinct used to be at Craig School. Last year school officials informed us
that because of the type of student that attends the school, the election process
would be too distracting to students. We investigated other locations, but Nelson
has a large gym for our use with a door adjacent to the gym. There is parking
available close to the entrance to the polling place.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the changes as recommended.
C. Request to Fly the Irish Flag. CITY CLERK
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Muskegon Irish American Society is requesting
permission to fly the Irish Flag outside City Hall on Thursday, March 17th through
Wednesday, March 23rd to celebrate St. Patrick's Day.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
D. SECOND READING: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Residential
Design Criteria. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request to amend Section 2319 of Article XXIII (General
Provisions) to amend the Residential Design Criteria language regarding
minimum storage space in multi-family dwelling units decreasing the minimum
required storage space from 15% to 10% in each multi-family dwelling unit.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends amendment of the Zoning
Ordinance to amend language regarding residential design criteria language.
COMMITIEE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the request at their 2/10/05 meeting. B. Mazade, T. Johnson, S.
Warmington, T. Michalski, B. Turnquist, J. Aslakson, and L. Spataro voted in favor
of the change. B. Smith and T. Harryman were absent.
E. SECOND READING: Rezoning Request for Property Located at 1282
Arthur Street. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request to rezone property owned by the City of
Muskegon, located at 1282 Arthur Street. from RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family
Residential to R-1, Single Family Residential.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the request at their 2/10/05 meeting. The vote was unanimous with
T. Harryman and B. Smith absent.
F. Additional Taxicabs. CITY CLERK
Withdrawn per request of applicant.
G. 2005 Brvne Memorial Grant (JAG} Program. PUBLIC SAFETY
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request that the City Manager and Director of Public
Safety be authorized to sign the lnterlocal Agreement between the City of
Muskegon, City of Muskegon Heights and the County of Muskegon for a (Justice
Assistance Grant} Bryne Memorial Grant Application Number 2005-F1706-MI-DJ.
The City of Muskegon has not been designated a direct single award under the
(JAG} Bryne Memorial Grant for the 2005 Fiscal Year. However, an allocation
has been made for a Joint Application between the County of Muskegon, City
of Muskegon and the City of Muskegon Heights in the amount of $92,167.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City of Muskegon will not be responsible for any match
funds or outlays for this program. The Grant will provide $92,167 to fund an
assistant prosecutor position with the County Prosecutor's Office and to reinstate
Project Cornerstone under the title of Project Cornerstone II.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends entering into the lnterlocal
Agreement with the County of Muskegon and the City of Muskegon Heights.
Project Cornerstone has had a positive impact in a number of our higher crime
areas in the past. It allows for prosecutor's office participation in curfew sweeps
and direct involvement with the neighborhoods and neighborhood
associations.
I. Public Service Building Modifications. PUBLIC WORKS
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Phase one consists of one room being modified to
make two offices to accommodate a supervisor who is now working in a
temporary area. Phase two consists of constructing a new office to
accommodate the consolidation of the forestry department into the Public
Service Building.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: $17,052. $70,000 has been earmarked for capital needs at
the Public Service Building in 2005.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval.
J. 2005 - 2006 City Commission Goals. CITY MANAGER
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To adopt the 2005-2006 City Commission goals.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the Vision, Value and Mission statements
and the 2005-2006 goals.
COMMITIEE RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission determined these goals
at their annual goal setting session on January 28, 2005.
K. Accept Resignations and Make Appointments to Various Boards and
CommiHees. CITY CLERK
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To accept the resignation of Lynn Alrich Spearing from
the Equal Opportunity Committee and Eileen Allen from the Land Reutilization
Committee. To appoint Sue Thompson to the Historic District Commission;
Rebecca Flowers to the Leisure Services Board; Jodi McClain to the Land
Reutilization Committee; Trent Lidke to the Equal Opportunity Committee; and
David Wotli to the Local Development Finance Authority.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To accept resignations and make appointments.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Community Relations Committee
recommended the acceptance of the resignations and appointments at their
March 7th meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Spataro, second by Commissioner Carter to approve
the Consent Agenda with the exception of item H.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Davis, Gawron, Larson, Shepherd, Spataro, Warmington, and
Carter
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
2005-24 ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA:
H. Amend the Long Range Plan SubmiHal to Include the Downtown
Development Project. ENGINEERING
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Authorization to submit the streets within the downtown
development project (Former Mall Area) to the West Michigan Shoreline
Regional Development Commission for inclusion in the Long Range Plan to
ensure eligibility for possible federal funding. The streets that were identified by
staff for inclusion are:
• Western Ave. between Terrace & Third
• Second St. between Morris & Clay
• First St. between Morris & Clay
• Jefferson/Market St. between Terrace & Clay
The resolution is required as part of the submittal to commit the local match if
project funding is granted.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the project submittal and resolution.
Motion by Commissioner Davis, second by Vice Mayor Larson to amend the
Long Range Plan Submittal to include the Downtown Development Project and
to amend the plan year to 2030 instead of 2025.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Gawron, Larson, Shepherd, Spataro, Warmington, Carter, and
Davis
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
2005-25 PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Request for the Establishment of an Industrial Development District -
Port City Industrial Finishing. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Pursuant to Public Act 198 of 1974. as amended. Port
City Industrial Finishing. 1867 Huizenga Avenue, Muskegon. Michigan, has
requested the establishment of an Industrial Development District for property
located at 1867 Huizenga, Muskegon, Michigan. The project will result in
$250,000 in private investment.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Certain property taxes will be collected.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the resolution establishing the Industrial
Development District for Port City Industrial Finishing.
The Public Hearing opened at 5:42 p.m. to hear and consider any comments
from the public. No comments were heard.
Motion by Commissioner Carter, second by Vice Mayor Larson to close the
Public Hearing at 5:43 p.m. and approve the resolution establishing the Industrial
Development District for Port City Industrial Finishing.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Larson, Shepherd, Spataro, Warmington, Carter, Davis, and
Gawron
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
B. Request for an Industrial facilities Exemption Certificate - Port City
Industrial Finishing. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Pursuant to Public Act 198 of 1974, as amended, Port
City Industrial Finishing, 1867 Huizenga Avenue, has requested the issuance of an
Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate for the property located at 1867
Huizenga Street Muskegon. The total capital investment is approximately
$250,000 in personal property. This request qualifies Port City Industrial Finishing
for a 6-year exemption for personal property. Port City Industrial Finishing's
current workforce is 55.
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
Facilities Exemption Certificate for a term of six (6) years for personal property.
The Public Hearing opened at 5:44 p.m. to hear and consider any comments
from the public. No comments were heard.
Motion by Vice Mayor Larson, second by Commissioner Davis to close the Public
Hearing at 5:46 p.m. and approve the Industrial facilities Exemption Certificate
for Port City Industrial Finishing.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Shepherd, Spataro, Warmington, Carter, Davis, Gawron, and
Larson
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
C. Create a Special Assessment District for Pine Street. Laketon to Dale.
ENGINEERING
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To hold a public hearing on the proposed special
assessment for Pine Street Laketon to Dale, and to create the special
assessment district and appoint two City Commissioners to the Board of Assessors
if it is determined to proceed with the project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To create the special assessment district and assign
two City Commissioners to the Board of Assessors by adopting the resolution.
The Public Hearing opened at 5:46 p.m. to hear and consider any comments
from the public. No comments were heard.
Motion by Commissioner Gawron, second by Commissioner Spataro to close the
Public Hearing at 5:49 p.m. and approve the Special Assessment District for Pine
Street. Laketon to Dale.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Spataro, Warmington, Carter, Davis, Gawron, Larson, and
Shepherd
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
Mayor Warmington and Commissioner Spataro were assigned to the Board of
Assessors.
D. Create a Special Assessment District for Fifth Street. Campus to Merrill.
ENGINEERING
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To hold a public hearing on the proposed special
assessment for Fifth Street Campus to MerrilL and to create the special
assessment district and appoint two City Commissioners to the Board of Assessors
if it is determined to proceed with the project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To create the special assessment district and assign
two City Commissioners to the Board of Assessors by adopting the resolution.
The Public Hearing opened at 5:50 p.m. to hear and consider any comments
from the public. No comments were heard.
Motion by Vice Mayor Larson, second by Commissioner Carter to close the
Public Hearing at 5:53 p.m. and create the Special Assessment District for Fifth
Street. Campus to Merrill.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Warmington, Carter, Davis, Gawron, Larson, Shepherd, and
Spataro
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
Commissioner Shepherd and Commissioner Gawron were assigned to the Board
of Assessors.
E. Taxicab Rates. CITY CLERK
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: We have received a request from Port City Cab and
Yellow Cab for an increase in Taxicab fares. The last time there was a change in
rates was November 10, 1998. The requested changes are as follows:
Current rates
Flag Drop: $1.65 (first 1/10 mile)
Each 1/10 Mile $ .15 ($1.50 per full mile)
Wait Time $12.00 per hour
Proposed rates
Flag Drop: $2.00 (first 1/7 mile)
Each 1/7 Mile $ .25 ($1.75 per full mile)
Wait Time $18.00 per hour
Out of town trips $2.00 per mile
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
The Public Hearing opened at 5:54 p.m. to hear and consider any comments
from the public. Comments for approval were heard from Craig Hall, 177 6
Division and Nell Williams, 391 Amity.
Motion by Vice Mayor Larson, second by Commissioner Shepherd to close the
Public Hearing at 5:57 p.m. and grant approval of the increase in taxicab fares.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Carter, Davis, Gawron, Larson, Shepherd, Spataro, and
Warmington
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
F. Recommendation for Annual Renewal of Liquor Licenses. CITY CLERK
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To adopt a resolution recommending non-renewal of
those liquor license establishments who are in violation of Section 50-146 and 50-
147 of the Code of Ordinance for the City of Muskegon. These establishments
have been found to be in non-compliance with the City Code of Ordinances
and renewal of their liquor licenses should not be recommended by the City
Commission. If any of these establishments come into compliance by March 23,
2005, they will be removed from this resolution, and recommendation for their
renewal will be forwarded to the Liquor Control Commission.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the resolution.
The Public Hearing opened at 5:58 p.m. to hear and consider any comments
from the public. Comments were heard from Sue Payne, 753 Ruddiman; and
Steve Seng, 3701 E. Broadway.
Motion by Commissioner Spataro, second by Vice Mayor larson to close the
Public Hearing at 6:05 p.m. and recommend the annual renewal of liquor
licenses with the exception of those listed.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Davis, Gawron, larson, Shepherd, Spataro, Warmington, and
Carter
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
2005-26 NEW BUSINESS:
A. User Fee AdJustment - Daily launch Ramp Fees. FINANCE
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Staff is recommending the following adjustment to the
2005 User Fee Schedule:
Creation of a new "Fishing Tournament Launch Ramp Fee" - 2005 user fees
approved last year included an increase in daily launch ramp fees from $5 to
$10. Interested parties have expressed concern that the increase may harm
sponsored fishing tournaments which bring substantial economic benefit to the
community. Staff concurs with this and recommends that a special tournament
fee category be established at $5 per day. Staff recommends keeping the
regular daily launch ramp fee at the $10 level. This will help cover operating
costs for the Marina and Launch Ramp fund. Also, we are trying to incentivize
boaters to purchase seasonal permits in lieu of daily permits because of the
enforcement problems that daily permits pose. Seasonal permit fees were not
increased for 2005. We have prepared a schedule showing how Muskegon's
launch ramp fees compare with other communities. Although our fees are
higher than many other communities, staff believes the pricing is appropriate
due to the very high-quality of our facilities and boating opportunities.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The impact of this adjustment on City revenues will be minor
and is offset by the overall local economic benefit that fishing tournaments
provide.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
Motion by Vice Mayor larson, second by Commissioner Davis to approve the
user fee adjustment to the daily launch ramp fees.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Gawron, larson, Shepherd, Spataro, Warmington, Carter, and
Davis
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
B. Amendment to the Wastewater System's Access Rights Agreement.
CITY MANAGER
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To approve the first amendment to the wastewater
system's Access Rights Agreement. This amendment would eliminate the "buy-
in" requirements of the Access Rights Agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None anticipated.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the amendment.
Motion by Commissioner Spataro, second by Commissioner Gawron to approve
the amendment to the wastewater system's Access Rights Agreement.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Larson, Shepherd, Spataro, Warmington, Carter, Davis, and
Gawron
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
C. Consideration of Bids - Walton Ave., Murphy to Emerald. ENGINEERING
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The paving as well as underground utility upgrade
contract (H-1603) on Walton Avenue between Murphy St. & Emerald St. be
awarded to Schultz Excavating, Inc. out of Ludington, MI. Schultz Excavating,
Inc. was the lowest responsible bidder with a bid price of $141 ,571 .45.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The construction cost $141,571.45 plus engineering cost
which is estimated at an additional 15%.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Award the contract to Schultz Excavating, Inc.
Motion by Vice Mayor Larson, second by Commissioner Carter to award the bid
to the second lowest bidder which is Jackson-Merkey.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Shepherd, Warmington, Carter, and Larson
Nays: Spataro, Davis, and Gawron
MOTION PASSES
D. Liquor License Request- GFB. L.L.C .. 1920 Lakeshore. CITY CLERK
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The liquor license transfer request was approved by the
City Commission on June 22, 2004, pending final inspection. The Liquor Control
Commission is requiring an "unconditional" resolution in order for this to go
forward.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All departments are recommending approval.
Motion by Commissioner Spataro, second by Commissioner Gawron to approve
the liquor license request for GFB, L.L.C., 1920 Lakeshore.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Spataro, Warmington, Carter, Davis, Gawron, Larson, and
Shepherd
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
E. Aooroval of Sale of Property: City of Muskegon Assessors Plat of
Stevens Sub Division Lot 7 & East 10 Feet Lot 6. COMMUNITY &
NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To approve the sale of the parcel described as City of
Muskegon Assessors Plat of Stevens Sub Division Lot 7 & East 10 Feet Lot 6 to
Trinity Nonprofit Housing Development for one dollar ($1.00). Two years ago CNS
office obtained the tax reverted home from the State of Michigan. CNS
demolished the blighted structure that was on the site. The City intends to quit
claim the parcel to Trinity in order to assist the nonprofit in building a single family
home on the site that will eliminate a financial liability of Trinity's to the City of
Muskegon.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the quit claim of the property to Trinity
Housing.
Motion by Commissioner Spataro, second by Commissioner Carter to approve
the sale of property City of Muskegon Assessors Plat of Stevens Sub Division Lot 7
and East 10 Feet Lot 6 to Trinity Housing Development.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Warmington, Carter, Davis, Gawron, Larson, Shepherd, and
Spataro
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
F. 2005-2006 CDBG/HOME Preliminary Funding Allocations. COMMUNITY
& NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To accept the allocation recommendation of the City's
administration and the Citizen's District Council for the 2005-2006 fiscal year.
After accepting the recommended allocations, the Commission is requested to
make its preliminary allocation recommendation in order so the CNS office can
continue the Consolidated Plan process. The CNS office will conduct a public
hearing on April 12, 2005. At that time the Commission will be asked to make
their final allocations decision and to direct staff to submit the required
information to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Will determine the CDBG/HOME allocation for the 2005-
2006 fiscal year.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To accept the recommendation of the City of
Muskegon Administration and the Citizen's District Council and then make the
Commissions preliminary allocation decision.
Motion by Commissioner Gawron, second by Commissioner Carter to approve
the CDBG preliminary funding allocations submitted by the Muskegon
administration less the funds for the Community Based Organizations and to not
go above the mandated 15% of the fund and for the remainder to be split
proportionately between the two CHDOS.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Carter, Davis, Gawron, Larson, Shepherd, Spataro, and
Warmington
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
G. Consideration of Proposals for Construction Engineering Services on
Shoreline Drive Phase II (First to Webster). ENGINEERING
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Authorize staff to enter into an engineering services
agreement with a consulting firm to provide complete construction engineering
services on the second phase of Shoreline Drive between First & Webster Ave. A
recommendation along with backup information will be presented at or before
the work session of March 7, 2005. This request is being presented to you in this
fashion due to lack of available time since construction is scheduled to begin
later this month and approval from MDOT to hire a consulting firm was not
granted until February 25, 2005.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The cost for the engineering services would be from the
MDOT grant.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation will be presented at or
before the work session meeting of March 7th.
Motion by Commissioner Spataro, second by Commissioner Gawron to approve
the consideration of proposals for construction engineering services on Shoreline
Drive Phase II (First to Webster) as recommended by staff.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Davis, Gawron, Larson, Shepherd, Spataro, Warmington, and
Carter
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
2005-27 CLOSED SESSION: To discuss pending litigation.
Motion by Commissioner Gawron, second by Commissioner Shepherd to go into
Closed Session at 7:25p.m. to discuss pending litigation.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Gawron, Larson, Shepherd, Spataro, Warmington, Carter, and
Davis
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
Motion by Commissioner Shepherd, second by Commissioner Carter to come
out of Closed Session at 7:56 p.m.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Larson, Shepherd, Spataro, Warmington, Carter, Davis, and
Gawron
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
Motion by Commissioner Carter, second by Commissioner Shepherd to concur
with the City Attorney's recommendation.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Shepherd, Spataro, Warmington, Carter, Davis, Gawron, and
Larson
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
ADJOURNMENT: The City Commission adjourned at 7:58p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gail A. Kundinger, MMC
City Clerk
Date: March 8, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
from: Gail A. Kundinger, City Clerk
RE: Polling Place Changes
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To approve the request to modify the polling places as
follows:
Precinct# 2 change to Steele School, 1150 Amity Avenue.
Oakview School use to house both precinct 2 and 3 in their gym. Tumout at
the elections last year showed us that the location is to small for both precincts.
Precinct# 3 will stay at Oakview School and we are recommending the use of Steele
School for Precinct # 2.
Precinct# 8 change location to Nelson School, 550 W. Grand.
This precinct used to be at Craig School. Last year school officials informed
us that because of the type of student that attends the school, the election process
would be to distracting to students. We investigated other locations, but Nelson has
a large gym for our use with a door adjacent to the gym. There is parking available
close to the entrance to the polling place.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the changes as recommended.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: None.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Stephen J. Warmington Mayor Bill Larson (At Large) (Vice Mayor) Stephen J. Gawron (At Large)
1524 Lakeshore Dr. 1555 Randolph 1362 Palmer
755·5057 755-5358 755-3425
Ward I Ward II Ward Ill Ward IV
Precincts 1,2 & 3 Precincts 4,5 & 6 Precincts 7,8 & 9 Precincts 10, 11, 12,& 13
Chris Carter Clara Shepherd Lawrence 0. Spataro Kevin Davis
943 Ada (Zip 49442) 408 Monroe (Zip 49441) 1567 Sixth (Zip 49441 3162 Boltwood (Zip 49441)
777-4784 725·8130 725-9384 755-3978
POLLING PLACES
Precinct 1 Precinct 4 Precinct 7 Precinct 10
Marquette School Smith·Ryerson Moon School Glenside School
480 Bennett 650Wood 1826 Hoyt 1213 W. Hackley
Muskegon, 49442 Muskegon, 49442 Muskegon, 49442 Muskegon, 49441
720-2600 728-5395 720-2700 720-2500
Precinct 2 PrecinctS PrecinctS Precinct 11
Steele School Mclaughlin School Nelson School McGraft Park
1150 Amity 125 Catherine 550 W. Grand Community Bldg.
Muskegon, 49442 Muskegon, 49442 Muskegon, 49441 Muskegon, 49441
720-3000 720-2750 720-2200 755-3170
Precinct 3 Precinct6 Precinct 9 Precinct 12
Oakview School Hackley Administration Fire Statlon #4 Bunker School
1420 Madison 349 W. Webster I 836 Robinson 2312 Denmark
Muskegon, 49442 Muskegon, 49440 Muskegon, 49441 Muskegon, 49441
720-2450 720-2000 724-3200 720-2300
Precinct 13
Bluffton School
18 75 Waterworks
Muskegon, 49441
720-2170
Date: March 8, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Gail Kundinger, City Clerk
RE: Request to Fly the Irish Flag
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Muskegon Irish American Society is
requesting permission to fly the Irish Flag outside City Hall on Thursday,
March 17th through Wednesday, March 23rd to celebrate St. Patrick's
Day.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
FF.S-21-2005 05:OOPM FROM-MUSKEGON CONSTRUCT I ON CO 2317283547 T-221 p 001/001 F-261
t
musk~ou
fRfsb _
amer<.1can
sOdecy
February 14, 2004
Linda Potter, Deputy City Clerk
City of Muskegon
933 Terrace Street
Muskegon MI 49443
Dear Ms. Potter,
The Muskegon Irish American Society is submitting its request to fly the Irish Flag beginning
on Thursday, March 17, 2005 to celebrate St. Patrick's Day. The Irish population of
Muskegon enjoys seeing the flag displayed at such a prominent location during this time of
year.
The flag measures 3' X 5' and consists of3 stripes, green, white and orange.
The officers of the Muskegon Irish American Society are:
President- Kevin Donovan, I 086 Ireland, Muskegon MI 49441
Vice President- Kathleen Marek, 2504 Letart, Muskegon MI 49441
Treasurer- Kevin Donovan, 1086 Ireland, Muskegon MI 49441
Secretary- Jeanne O'Brien, 8985 Lakeshore, West Olive MI 49460
Program Chairperson- Mary Anne Gorman, 3475 Lake Dunes Drive, Muskegon MI 49456
We request that the flag be flown from Thursday, March 1i 11 through Wednesday March 23ro
in front of City Hall. As in the past, I can collect the flag from the Engineering Dept.
Our organization is a non-profit social organization.
I am the contact person who will be responsible for the flag's condition and presentation. We
would like to gather at approximately 5:30PM on March 17th to raise the flag. The entire
activity takes approximately I 0 to 15 minutes. Please inform me if the above request is
granted. We appreciate the past cooperation of the City of Muskegon.
Kevin Donovan, President
Muskegon Irish American Society
Phone; 231-722-423 7
I 086 Ireland
Muskegon MI 49441
Affirmatl\'t Action
(231 J124-6703
FAX: (231)711-1214
Asse51or/Equallzation
(231 )724-6708
FAX: (231)716-5181
Cemetery Department
(231)7Z4-6783
FAX: (231)726-5617
City Manager
{231 )724-6724 West Michigan's Shoreline Clty
FAX: (231)722-1214
Civil Sen1ce
(231)714-6716 February 22, 2005
FAX: (231)724-4465
Clerk
(231 )724-6705
FAX: (231)714-4178
Community and
Kevin Donovan, President
Neigh. Service~ Muskegon Irish American Society
{231)724-6717
FAX: (231)726-2501 1086 Ireland
Muskegon, MI 49441
Computer Info.
System•
1
(231)724-6744 Thank you for your request to fly the Irish Flag March 17 h through March 23'd in
FAX: (231)722-4301
front of City HalL This request will be presented to the City Commission at their
Engineering Dept.
(231)724-6707
March gth meeting.
FAX: (231}727-6904
Ftnance Dept.
If you have any questions, please call me at (231) 724-6915.
(231 )724-671 3
FAX: (231)724-6768
Thank you,
!lltk
Ftre Department
~;J?q
(231)724-6792
FAX: (231}724-6985
Income Tax
(231 )724-6770 Linda Potter
FAX: (231)714-6768
Deputy Clerk
Inspection Services
(231)724-6715
FAX: (231)718-4371
Leisure Services
(231 )724-6704
FAX: (231)724-1196
Mayor's Office
(231 )724-6701
FAX: (231)7ll-1214
Planning/Zoning
(231)724-6702
FAX: (231)724-6790
Pollee Deptartment
(231 )724-6750
FAX: (231)721-5140
Public Work5 Dept.
{231 )714-41 00
FAX: {231)722-4188
Treasurer's Office
(231 )724-6720
FAX: {231)724-6768
Water Billing Dept.
(231)714-6718
FAX: (Z31)724-6768
Water Filtration
(231 )724-41 06
FAX: (231)755-5290
City of Muskegon, 933 Terrace Street, P.O. Box 536, Muskegon, MI 49443-0536
Commission Meeting Date: February 22, 2005
Date: February 14,2005
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Planning & Economic Development ~
RE: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Residential Design
Criteria
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Request to amend Section 2319 of Article XXIII (General Provisions) to amend the Residential
Design Criteria language regarding minimwn storage space in multi-family dwelling units
decreasing the minimum required storage space from 15% to 10% in each multi-family
dwelling unit.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to amend language regarding residential
design criteria language.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Conunission recommended approval of the request at their 2/10 meeting. B.
Mazade, T. Johnson, S. Wannington, T. Michalski, B. Turnquist, J. Aslakson, and L. Spataro
voted in favor of the change. B. Smith and T. Harryman were absent.
2/14/2005 1
Staff Report (EXCERPT)
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
February 10, 2005
Hearing, Case 2005-02- Staff initiated request to amend Section 2319 of Article XXIII (General
Provisions) to amend the Residential Design Criteria language regarding minimum storage
space in multi-family dwelling units
BACKGROUND
The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) recently granted a variance allowing only 10% storage space for
a multi-family development at 860 Marquette Avenue, whereas 15% is required by ordinance. Staff
feels that the minimum 15% storage requirement may be unreasonable for multi-family units due to
the fact that most multi-family units do not have basements, thus making it more difficult to provide
the required 15% minimum storage for each of the units than if they did have basements. Staff feels
that in a multi-family apartment-type setting, adequate storage can be provided for at 10% of interior
living space of each unit of the dwelling. The following is an excerpt from the minutes of the
November 9, 2004 ZBA minutes that helps explain the reasoning behind the approval of the variance:
The following findings of fact were offered: There are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to other properties or class of uses in the same zoning
district because the homes that are being built are on a concrete slab. The dimensional variance
is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by
other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity because other homes have
basements which allow them to meet the zoning ordinance in regards to storage. These homes
will be built on a concrete slab, which creates limited space to work with for storage.
Authorizing of such dimensional variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public interest
because this would allow for the project to proceed as is and allow for the garages to remain the
size they are proposed to be. The alleged difficulty is caused by the Ordinance and has not been
created by any person presently having an interest in the property, or by any previous owner
because this project will have ample storage, but it isn't what the ordinance requires. The
alleged difficulty is not founded solely upon the opportunity to make the property more
profitable or to reduce expense to the owner because it would make the construction of the
project more reasonable. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate
the difficulty because the proposed project has storage of 10% as opposed to the 15% the
zoning ordinance requires.
2
NEW INFORMATION
As requested, staff has contacted several surrounding connnunities to inquire as to any minimum
storage requirements as part of their zouing ordinances. We contacted the following connnunities and
their responses were as follows:
Muskegon Heights- No requirements
North Muskegon- No requirements
Norton Shores- No requirements
Roosevelt Park- No response
Muskegon Township- No requirements
Whitehall Township- No response
Fruitport Township- No requirements
Dalton Township- No requirements
Aun Arbor- No requirements
Detroit- No requirements
Staff was also asked to investigate a couple of other issues regarding this request.
1. Where did the original IS% number come from? Previous zoning staff tells me that the
original intent of this language was to incorporate it into the single-family zoning requirements as a
way of keeping the number of low-end houses built in the City of Muskegon to a minimum. It
somehow was applied to other residential uses as well
2. How often have we had requests for a variance to these standards? It appears that most
multi-family developments in the past several years have utilized the PUD option, and these standards
weren 't applied
RECOMMENDATION
Staff reconnnends approval of the request, based on the fact that this amendment is to be applied to
multi-family structures only.
NEW LANGUAGE
Deletions are erossea ell! and additions are in bold. (Reference to #9. onder multi-family standards
only):
9. Storage space of at least fifteen percent~ (10%) of the interior living space of the
dwelling unit, exclusive of auto storage or attic storage, shall be provided within the
structure.
3
DELIBERATION
I move that the amendment to Section 2319 of Article X:Xill (General Provisions) of the Zoning
Ordinance for Residential Design Criteria language regarding minimum storage space in multi-family
dwelling units be recommended to the City Commission for (approvaVdenial).
4
CITY OF MUSKEGON
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICHIGAN
ORDINANCE NO. 2145
An ordinance to amend Section 2331 of Article XXIII (General Provisions) to amend
Section 2319 of Article XXIII (General Provisions) to amend the Residential Design Criteria
language regarding minimum storage space in multi-family dwelling units.
THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MUSKEGON HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 2319 of Article XXIII (General Provisions) to amend the Residential Design Criteria
language regarding minimum storage space in multi-family dwelling units are hereby amended
to decrease the minimum storage requirement from 15% to 10% for each multi-family dwelling
unit:
9. Storage space of at least ten percent (10%) ofthe interior living space ofthe dwelling
unit, exclusive of auto storage or attic storage, shall be provided within the structure.
This ordinance adopted:
Ayes: Davis, Gawron, Larson, Shepherd, Spataro, Warmington, and Carter
Nayes: None
Adoption Date: March 8, 2005
Effective Date: March 22, 2005
First Reading: February 22, 2005
Second Reading: March 8, 2005
CITY OF MUSKEGON
By: ~
L=-.: : D~
._=-.:. . L
~d
~
Gail A. Kundinger, MMC
City Clerk
CERTIFICATE
Ordinance #2145
The undersigned, being the duly qualified clerk of the City of Muskegon, Muskegon County,
Michigan, does hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of an ordinance
adopted by the City Commission of the City of Muskegon, at a regular meeting of the City
Commission on the gth day of March, 2005, at which meeting a quorum was present and
remained throughout, and that the original of said ordinance is on file in the records of the City
of Muskegon. I further certify that the meeting was conducted and public notice was given
purs\lant to and in full compliance with Act No. 267, Public Acts of Michigan of 1976, as
amended, and that minutes were kept and will be or have been made available as required
thereby.
DATED: March 8, 2005.
Gail A. Kundinger, MMC
City Clerk
CITY OF MUSKEGON
NOTICE OF ADOPTION
Please take notice that on March 8, 2005, the City Commission of the City of Muskegon adopted
an ordinance to amend Section 2319 of Article XXIII (General Provisions) to amend the
Residential Design Criteria language to allow I 0% minimum storage space in multi-family
dwelling units .
Copies of the ordinance may be viewed and purchased at reasonable cost at the Office of the
City Clerk in the City Hall, 933 Terrace Street, Muskegon, Michigan, during regular business
hours.
This ordinance amendment is effective ten days from the date of this publication.
Published: March 12, 2005
CITY OF MUSKEGON
By__~--------------------
Gail A. Kundinger, MMC
City Clerk
Commission Meeting Date: February 22, 2005
Date: February 11, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Planning & Economic Development e.6C...
RE: Rezoning request for property located at 1282 Arthur Street
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Request to rezone property owned by the City of Muskegon, located at 1282 Arthur
Street, from RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family Residential to R-1, Single Family
Residential.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request at their 2/10 meeting.
The vote was unanimous with T. Harryman and B. Smith absent.
0:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\City Commission Items\rezone\Approve\2005 Approvals\1282 Arthur.doc
1
City of Muskegon '
Planning Commission
Case# 2005-09
-~·
• = SubjeotPE~perty(lu)
0 = NoticeAru
R·1 = Single·f amity R e.;idential
RT = Two-F am~v Re>ldenl!al
M·1 " Low Density Mulliple·f amity R uidential
6·1 = L!mltedeuslness
"' ""
800 feel
0:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\City Commission Items\rezone\Approve\2005 Approvals\1282 Arthur.doc
2
Staff Report [EXCERPT]
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
February 10, 2005
Hearing; Case 2005- 09: Staff initiated request to rezone the property located at 1282
Arthur Street from RM-1, Low Density Multiple-Family Residential to R-1, Single
Family Residential.
BACKGROUND
Applicant: City Planning Department
Property Address/Location: 1282 Arthur Street
Present Land Use: Vacant
Current Zoning: RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family Residential
Proposed Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential
STAFF OBSERVATIONS
1. The subject property is located at the northeasterly corner of Peck and Arthur and is currently
City-owned.
I. Other properties along the easterly side of Peck Street is zoned RM-1, across Arthur
is zoned RT, and to the east the zoning is R-1.
2. The properties across Peck Street are zoned RM-1.
3. There are several multi-family units located along Peck Street, and one across Arthur
Street. There is a large vacant parcel located to the north of the subject property that
also zoned RM -1. The property that is zoned R -1 located to the east, contains a
single-family residence.
5. The property is unbuildable in either RM-1 or R-1 zoning because it contains only
5,775 sq. ft.
6. The adjacent property owner located at 32 Iona (zoned R-1) has given a deposit to
the City of Muskegon for the purchase of this lot so he may join the two parcels
together in order to expand his yard and construct a garage. His present property is
only 44.5 x 66 ft., totaling 2,937 sq. ft.
ORDINANCE EXCERPTS
0:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\City Commission ltems\rczone\Approve\2005 Approvals\1282 Arthur.doc
3
ARTICLE IV- R ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
PREAMBLE
These districts are designed to be composed of low density residential development. The
regulations are intended to stabilize, protect, and encourage the residential character of the
district and prohibit activities not compatible with a residential neighborhood. Development
is limited to single family dwellings and such other uses as schools, parks, churches, and
certain public facilities which serve residents of the district. It is the intent of these districts
to recognize that the City of Muskegon has been developed and platted with some lots that
are smaller than those found in recently urbanized communities, and the standards in
Section 2100 reflect residential development standards that the citizens of Muskegon find to
be compatible.
SECTION 400: PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED
In R, One Family Residential, Districts no building or land shall be used and no building
shall be erected, structurally altered, or occupied except for one or more of the following
specified uses, unless otherwise provided in this Ordinance;
One Family detached dwellings.
2. Home occupations of a non-industrial nature may be permitted. Permissible home
occupations include, but are not limited to the following: [amended 11/02]
3. Adult Foster Care Family Homes, provided that such facilities shall be at least one
thousand five hundred (1,500) feet from any other similar facility. [amended 11/02]
4. Accessory buildings and accessory uses customarily incidental to any of the above
Principal Uses Permitted.
5. Uses similar to the above Principal Uses Permitted.
SECTION 401: SPECIAL LAND USES PERMITTED [amended 2/02]
The following uses, and their accessory buildings and accessory uses, shall be permitted
under the purview of Section 2332 after review and approval of the use (and a site plan, if
required) by the Plarming Commission, after Public Hearing, subject to the applicable
conditions, and any other reasonable conditions imposed by the Planning Commission:
1. Private recreational areas, and institutional recreational centers when not operated
for profit, and nonprofit swimming pool clubs, all subject to the following
conditions: [amended 2/02]
2. Colleges, universities, and other such institutions of higher learning, public and
private, offering courses in general, technical, or religious education not operated for
profit, all subject to the following conditions:
3. Churches and other facilities normally incidental thereto subject to the following
conditions:
4. Elementary, intermediate, and/or secondary schools offering courses in general
education, provided such uses are set back thirty (30) feet from any lot in a
residential zone.
0:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\City Commission ltems\rezone\Approve\2005 Approvals\1282 Arthur.doc 4
5. Cemeteries.
6. Previously existing or established commercial uses not already converted to a
residential use may be authorized under Special Use Permit for the following
[amended 12/99]:
7. Accessory buildings and accessory uses customarily incidental to any of the above
Special Land Uses Permitted.
8. Uses similar to the above Special Land Uses Permitted.
SECTION 402: [RESERVED] [amended 8/01]
SECTION 403: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OPTION [amended 12/97]
Planned unit developments (PUDs) may be allowed by the Planning Commission under the
procedural guidelines of Section 2101. The intent of Plauned Unit Developments in the
single family residential district is to allow for flexibility in the design of housing
developments, including but not limited to condominium developments and cluster
subdivisions, to allow for the preservation of open space; allow for economies in the
provision of utilities and public services; provide recreational opportunities; and protect
important natural features from the adverse impacts of development.
1.- 9....
SECTION 404: AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS [amended 4/00]
1. Minimum lot size: 6,000 sq. feet
2. Density (see definition in Article II): 7 dwelling units per buildable acre.
3. Maximum lot coverage:
Buildings: 50%
Pavement: 10%
4. Lot width: 50 feet (shall be measured at road frontage unless a cul-de-sac, then
measured from setback).
5. Width to depth ratios: The depth of any lot(s) or parcel(s) shall not be more than
three (3) times longer its width.
6. Height limit: 2 stories or 35 feet.
Height measurement: In the case of a principal building, the vertical distance
measured from the average finished grade to the highest point of the roof
surface where the building line abuts the front yard, except as follows: to the
deck line of mansard roofs, and the average height between eaves and the
ridge of gable, hip, and gambrel roofs (see Figure 2-2). If the ground is not
entirely level, the grade shall be determined by averaging the elevation of the
ground for each face of the building (see Figure 2-3).
7. Front Setbacks:
Minimum:
0:\Pianning\COMMON\Zoning\City Commission Items\rezone\Approve\2005 Approvals\1282 Arthur.doc
5
Expressway, Arterial Street or Major Street: 30 feet
Collector Street: 25 feet
Minor Street: 15 feet
Note: For minimum front setbacks new principal structures on minor streets may
align with existing principal structures in the immediate area even if the front
setback is below the minimum required.
8. Rear setback: 30 feet
9. Setback from the ordinary high water mark or wetland: 30 feet (principal structures
only).
10. Side setbacks:
1-story: 6 feet and 10 feet
2-story: 8 feet and 12 feet
Note, setback measurement: All required setbacks shall be measured from the right-
of-way line to the nearest point of the determined drip line of buildings. [amended
10/02]
11. Zero lot line option: New principal buildings may be erected on the rear lot line
and/or one side lot line provided: [amended 10/02]
0:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\City Commission Items\rezone\Approve\2005 Approvals\1282 Arthur.doc
6
ARTICLE VII- RM-1 LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS
PREAMBLE
The RM-1 Low Density Multiple Family Residential Districts are designed to provide sites for
multiple family dwelling structures, and related uses, which will generally serve as zones of
transition between the nonresidential districts and the lower density One Family and Two Family
Residential Districts, and MHP Mobile Home Park Districts.
SECTION 700: PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED
In an RM-1 Low Density Multiple Family Residential District no building or land shall be used and no building
shall be erected, st:ructru·ally altered, or occupied except for one (1) or more of the following specified uses, unless
otherwise provided for in this Ordinance:
1. All Principal Uses Permitted in the R One Family and RT Two Family Residential
Districts with the lot area, yard, and floor area requirements for one (1) and two (2)
family dwellings equal to at least the requirements of the immediately abutting residential
district.
2. Multiple dwellings and row houses for any number of families.
3. Accredited fraternity and sorority houses when located not less than twenty (20) feet
from any other lot in any residential district.
4. Bed & Breakfast facilities, under the following conditions: [amended 7/03]
5. Rooming houses with a capacity of not more than three (3) roomers.
6. Churches and other facilities normally incidental hereto subject to the following
conditions:
7. Home occupations of a non-industrial nature may be permitted. Permissible home
occupations include, but are not limited to the following: [amended 11102]
8. Foster Care Small Group Homes. [amended 11/02]
9. Accessory buildings and accessory uses customarily incidental to the above Principal
Permitted Uses.
10. Uses similar to the above Principal Permitted Uses.
SECTION 701: SPECIAL LAND USES PERMITTED [amended 2/02] [amended 2/03]
The following uses, and their accessory buildings and accessory uses, shall be permitted under
the purview of Section 2332 after review and approval of the use (and a site plan, if required) by
the Planning Commission, after Public Hearing, subject to the applicable conditions, and any
other reasonable conditions imposed by the Planning Commission:
0:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\City Commission Items\rezone\Approve\2005 Approvals\1282 Arthur.doc 7
Offices and clinics of physicians, dentists, architects, engineers, attorneys, accountants, real
estate appraisers, or other professional persons; real estate, insurance, credit service (other than
loan) offices and similar businesses supplying services instead of products when determined by
the Planning Commission upon application to it, to be consistent with the nature and condition of
neighboring uses and structures.
Buildings to be used exclusively to house the offices of c1v1c, religious or charitable
organizations, the activities of which are conducted by mail, and which are not displaying or
handling merchandise or rendering service on the premises.
Schools and colleges not involving the use of mechanical equipment except such as is
customarily found in dwellings or professional offices provided that any such building shall be
located not less than thirty (30) feet from any other lot in any residential district.
Adult Foster Care Large Group Homes, provided that such facility shall be at least one thousand
five hundred (I ,500) feet from any other similar facility. [amended 11/02]
Previously existing or established commercial uses not already converted to a residential use
may be authorized under Special Use Permit for the following [amended 12/99]:
Accessory buildings and accessory uses customarily incidental to the above Special Land Uses
Permitted.
Uses similar to the above Special Land Uses Permitted.
SECTION 702: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT [amended 10/98)
Planned developments may be allowed by the Planning Commission under the procedural
guidelines of Section 2101. The intent of Planned Unit Development in the RM-1 Low Density
Multiple Family Residential District is to allow mixed land uses, which are compatible to each
other, while prohibiting nonresidential uses which would not be compatible or harmonious with
residential dwellings.
SECTION 703: AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS [amended 4/00)
1. Minimum lot size: 10,890 sq. feet.
2. Density (see definition in Article II): 16 dwelling units per buildable acre.
3. Dedicated open space requirement: 15%
4. Maximum lot coverage:
Buildings: 60 %
Pavement: 20 %
5. Lot width: 100 feet (shall be measured at road frontage unless a cul-de-sac, then
measured from setback).
6. Maximum building width: 50% (as a portion of the lot width).
0:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\City Commission Items\rezone\Approve\2005 Approvals\1282 Arthur.doc 8
7. Width to depth ratios: The depth of any lot(s) or parcel(s) shall not be more than three
(3) times longer its width.
8. Height limit: 3 stories or 50 feet.
Height measurement: In the case of a principal building, the vertical distance measured from the
average finished grade to the highest point of the roof surface where the building line abuts the
front yard, except as follows: to the deck line of mansard roofs, and the average height between
eaves and the ridge of gable, hip, and gambrel roofs (see Figure 2-2). If the ground is not
entirely level, the grade shall be determined by averaging the elevation of the ground for each
face of the building (see Figure 2-3).
9. Front Setbacks:
Minimum:
Expressway or Arterial Street: 30 feet
Collector or Major Street: 25 feet
Minor Street: 20 feet
I 0. Rear setback: 30 feet
11. Setback from the ordinary high water mark or wetland: 50 feet (principal structures
only).
12. Side setbacks:
1-story: 8 feet and 12 feet
2-story: 10 feet and 14 feet
3-story: 12 feet and 16 feet
Note, setback measurement: All required setbacks shall be measured from the right-of-way line
to the nearest point of the determined drip line of buildings. [amended 10/02]
13. Zero lot line option: New principal buildings may be erected on the rear lot line and/or
one side lot line provided: [amended 10/02]
All required side and rear setbacks shall be landscaped, greenbelt buffers, unless zero-lot-line is
employed for a structure or fire access. At least fifty percent of all required front setbacks shall
be landscaped and adjacent to the road right-of-way. An average minimum greenbelt of 10 feet
shall be maintained along each street frontage. [amended 12/01, amended 10/02]
0:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\Cily Commission Itcms\rczone\Approve\2005 Approvals\1282 Arthur.doc 9
0:\P\anning\COMMON\Zoning\City Commission ltems\rczonc\Approvc\2005 Approvals\1282 Arthur.doc 10
0:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\City Commission Items\rezone\Approve\2005 Approvals\1282 Arthur.doc 11
RECOMMENDATION
The intent of the RM-1 zone district is to provide sites for multiple family dwellings that will
generally serve as zones of transition between the nonresidential districts and lower density one
and two family residential districts. Some of the primary differences between the R -1 and RM-1
zone districts are: principal uses permitted in the RM-1 zone are more intensive than those in the
R-1 zone; greater allowable density; and greater flexibility with the PUD option in the RM-1
zone. Based on the plans reflected in the Future Land Use Map included in the Master Plan, the
area in question is recommended for single family development. The area went through a major
down zoning effort in 2003, however this parcel wasn't changed from it's RM-1 status, probably
because of its property line on Peck Street.
Since this property is slated to be sold to the property owner at 32 Iona, and would subsequently
be joined as one parcel, it would be desirable to for the entire parcel to have the same zoning
designation.
There are several large trees on the site. They are located on the perimeter of the lot and will not
interfere with any plans for a garage. They should be retained by the new owner.
Based upon the above analysis, staff is recommending approval of the request to rezone the
subject property from RM-1 to R-1 because the request conforms to the goals and
recommendations of the 1997 Master Plan, including the Future Land Use Map.
DELIBERATION
Criteria-based questions typically asked during a rezoning include:
1. What, if any, identifiable conditions related to the petition have changed which justify
the petitioned change in zoning.
2. What are the precedents and the possible effects of precedent that might result from the
approval or denial of the petition?
3. What is the impact ofthe amendment on the ability of the city to provide adequate
public services and facilities and/or programs that might reasonably be required in the future if
the petition is approved?
4. Does the petitioned zoning change adversely affect the environmental conditions
or value ofthe surrounding property?
5. Does the petitioned zoning change generally comply with the adopted Future
Land Use Plan of the City?
6. Are there any significant negative environmental impacts which would reasonably
occur if the petitioned zoning change and resulting allowed structures were built such as:
a. Surface water drainage problems
b. Waste water disposal problems
c. Adverse effect on surface or subsurface water quality
d. The loss of valuable natural resources such as forest, wetland, historic sites,
or wildlife areas.
7. Is the proposed zoning change a "Spot Zone"?
0:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\City Commission Items\rezone\Approve\2005 Approvals\1282 Arthur.doc 12
a. Is the parcel small in size relative to its surroundings?
b. Would the zoning change allow uses that are inconsistent with those allowed in
the vicinity?
c. Would the zoning change confer a benefit to the property owner that is not
generally available to other properties in the area?
d. A spot zone is appropriate if it complies with the Master Plan.
DETERMINATION
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the request to rezone the property located at 1282 Arthur Street, from RM-1 Low
Density Multiple-Family Residential to R-1 Single-Family Residential district, as described in
the public notice, be recommended for (approval/denial) to the City Commission pursuant to
the City of Muskegon Zoning Ordinance, and the determination of (compliance/lack of
compliance) with the intent of the City Master Land Use Plan and zoning district intent.
0:\P\anning\COMMON\Zoning\City Commission Itcms\rezone\Approve\2005 Approvals\1282 Arthur.doc 13
CITY OF MUSKEGON
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICHIGAN
ORDINANCE NO. 21 4 6
An ordinance to amend the zoning map of the City to provide for a zone change for certain
property from RM-1 "Low Density Multiple-Family Residential" to R-1 "Single Family
Residential"
THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MUSKEGON HEREBY ORDAINS:
The zoning map of the City of Muskegon is hereby amended to change the zoning of the
following described property from RM-1 "Low Density Multiple-Family Residential" toR-
1 "Single Family Residential":
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAN OF 1903 W 87-112 FT LOT 4 BLK 240
This ordinance adopted:
Ayes : Davis, Gawron, Larson, Shepherd, Spataro, Warmington,
and Carter
Nayes: None
Adoption Date:__M_a_r_c_h_8_:_,_2_0_0_5_ _ _ __
Effective Date: March 22, 2005
--------------
First Reading: _ _F_e_b_r_u_a_r_y_2_2_,_2_o_o_s_ __
Second Reading:_M_a_r_c_h_a_,_ 2_0_0_5_ _ _ __
CITY OF MUSKEG~b
By: i:Lt D,
Gail A. Kundinger, MMC
.
Clerk
CITY OF MUSKEGON
NOTICE OF ADOPTION
Please take notice that on March 8 , 2005, the City Commission of the City of Muskegon
adopted an ordinance amending the zoning map to provide for the change of zoning of the
following property from RM-1 "Low Density Multi-Family Residential" to R-1 "Single Family
Residential":
CITY OF MUSKEGON REVISED PLAN OF 1903 W 87-112 FT LOT 4 BLK240
Copies of the ordinance may be viewed and purchased at reasonable cost at the Office of the City
Clerk in the City Hall, 933 Terrace Street, Muskegon, Michigan, during regular business hours.
This ordinance amendment is effective ten days from the date ofthis publication.
Published /l!arclf /~ '2005 CITY OF MUSKEGON
By __~~~~~----~-------
Gail A. Kundinger, MMC
City Clerk
PUBLISH ONCE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF FINAL PASSAGE.
Account No. 101-80400-5354
Date: March 8, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners \
From: Gail Kundinger, City Clerk \})
RE: Additional Taxicabs
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: We have received a request f10m Port City
Cab and Yellow Cab to add two more taxicabs to their license. This will
change their total cabs from 12 to 14.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve this request contingent upon
approval from the Police Department
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
March 8, 2005
Date: February 24, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
From: Anthony L. Kleibecker, Director of Public Safety
Re: 2005 Bryne Memorial Grant (JAG) Program
Joint Agreement- Muskegon County, City of Muskegon,
City of Muskegon Heights
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Request that the City Manager and Director of Public Safety be authorized to sign the Interlocal
Agreement Between the City ofMuskegon, City ofMuskegon Heights and the County ofMuskegon
for a (Justice Assistance Grant) Bryne Memorial Grant Application Number 2005-Fl706-MI-DJ.
The City of Muskegon has not been designated a direct single award under the (JAG) Byrne
Memorial Grant for the 2005 Fiscal Year, However an allocation has been made for a Joint
Application between the County ofMuskegon, City ofMuskegon and the City ofMuskegon Heights
in the amount of$ 92, 167.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The City of Muskegon will not be responsible for any match funds or outlays for this program. The
Grant will provide $ 92, 167 to fund an assistant prosecutor position with the County Prosecutor's
Office and to reinstate Project Cornerstone under the title of Project Cornerstone II.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
StaffRecommends entering into the Interlocal Agreement with the County ofMuskegon and the City
ofMuskegon Heights. Project Cornerstone has had a positive impact in a number of our higher crime
areas in the past. It allows for prosecutor's office participation in curfew sweeps and direct
involvement with the neighborhoods and neighborhood associations.
GMS Application Number: 2005-F1706-MI -OJ
2005 BYRNE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM AWARD
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF MUSKEGON
AND
CITY OF MUSKEGON HEIGHTS
AND
COUNTY OF MUSKEGON
The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, through the Office of
Justice Programs, has awarded Muskegon County, City of Muskegon and City of Muskegon
Heights a joint award in the amount of $92,167 to be utilized for law enforcement and justice
initiatives targeting specific geographic areas within the City of Muskegon and the City of
Muskegon Heights, Muskegon County, Michigan for a period not to exceed 48 months from
October 1, 2004.
The Muskegon County Prosecutor's Office will subrnit an on-line application for the total joint
award for implementation of a community prosecution program entitled Project Cornerstone II.
The Muskegon County Prosecutor's Office will act as fiduciary for the coalition.
Interest/Intent Regarding JAG award:
1/we, the undersigned, hereby agree to direct our JAG allocation and be part of a coalition and
request that these funds be awarded and expended for our benefit by the fiscal agent listed
below:
Muskegon County Prosecutor's Office
This Agreement is made and entered into this /C) 1~ay of Wo.A.A'.-It , 2005, by and
between the County of Muskegon, City of Muskegon, City of Muskegon Heights, and Muskegon
County, Michigan.
For the City of Muskegon:
----T" I~
Ton/i~J;ibecker, Chief of Police
Melvin Burns, Ill, City Manager
REQUEST FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION-COUNTY OF MUSKEGON
COMMITTEE Courts and Public Safely IBU~GETED NON-BUDGETED PARTIALLY BUDGETED
..--.
-
D 0
-7
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT PROSECUTOR REQUEST DATE 02/24/05 REQU~ SIG~~ <.
- ~-r-
SUMMARY OF REQUEST (GENERAL DESCRIPTION, FINANCING, OTHER OPERATIONAL IMPACT, POSSIBLE ALT.f'RNATIVEV
The Prosecutor's Office is requesting approval to submit an application for a Justice Assistance Grant
(JAG) from the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice in the amount of $92,167 with
no local match requirement. Muskegon County, the City of Muskegon and the City of Muskegon
Heights are joint recipients of the JAG award which is federal funding for law enforcement and justice
initiatives. The City of Muskegon and the City of Muskegon Heights have agreed to direct their portion
of the JAG allocation to Muskegon County and be part of a coalition and request that these funds be
awarded and expended for their benefit by the Prosecutor's Office. The Prosecutor's Office is proposing
to expand its community prosecution program and submit Project Cornerstone II which expands the
current program into Muskegon Heights.
The JAG grant application includes a funding request for a full-time Assistant Prosecutor I, equipment,
printing and supplies. The grant period is October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006. Application
is due at the Office of Justice Programs no later than March 31, 2005.
SUGGESTED MOTION (STATE EXACTLY AS IT SHOULD APPEAR IN THE MINUTES)
Move to authorize Prosecutor to apply for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
(JAG) from the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, for the purpose of
continuing and expanding a community prosecution program, in the amount of $92,167 with no
local match obligation and no effect on the County general fund, which will require the
establishment of an Assistant Prosecutor I position.
ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYSIS (AS APPLICABLE)
HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYSIS: FINANCE & MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS:
CORPORATE COUNSEL ANALYSIS: ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION:
AGENDA DATE: IAGENDA NO.: BOARD DATE: I PAGE NO:
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistance Grant
JAG
FY 2005 Local Solicitation
Eligibility
Units of local government appearing on the FY 2005 Units of Local Government List
are eligible to apply for JAG funds. To view this list, go to www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJNqranVjagallocations.html.
GMS Application Deadline
All JAG applications are due on or before 8:00 p.m. EST on March 31, 2005.
For assistance with the JAG solicitation, contact:
T1mothy S W1ght, Associate Deputy Director, Programs Off1ce, at~ or
Matthew D Hanson, Director's Spec1al Assistant for Adm1n1stralion, at~~
----------- -~------
f-Single Application I Joint Application
§~ ~urisdiction Name _ Award Amount
------------
Award Amount ·······-
Ml BAY COUNTY ----
---~-------
$23,710 - ·
Ml BAY CITY -----··.
Ml BERRIEN COUNTY ------· --- $47,665
Ml BENTON HABOR CITY
Ml BENTON CHARTER TOWNSHIP -----
$19,765
Ml CALHOUN COUNTY ----------- --
Ml ALBION CITY -~------~----
$122,656
Ml BATTLE CREEK CITY --
1-·
Ml EATON COUNTY ··-·----
$16,560
Ml GENESEE COUNTY ·······-- . --
Ml FLINT CITY ----- •. · · · - - - - -
Ml BURTON CITY - ----- $313,853
Ml FLINT CHARTER TOWNSHIP- - - - --·-
Ml GENESEE CHARTER TOWNSHIP ----···-·
Ml MOUNT MORRIS CHARTER TOWNSHIP ··---
Ml GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY- _____ ________ ,
----- $11,053 --·
Ml INGHAM COUNTY ----- --- $175,459
Ml LANSING CITY ··-
Ml EAST LANSING CITY $21,860 ···--·-----
Ml JACKSON COUNTY --·- $66,896
Ml JACKSON CITY ----------
-----
Ml KALAMAZOO COUNTY ---~------ ··- $123,026
Ml KALAMAZOO CITY --------
Ml PORTAGE -- CITY ______ _____ , $12,615 -- · · · · · · · - - -
Ml KALAMAZOO CHARTER TOWNSHIP ....... $11,423 -----
f---
Ml KENT COUNTY --·------ -------- $299,430 - - - - - -
Ml GRAND RAPIDS CITY .. ----
Ml WYOMING CITY $38,338 ---·------- - - - -
Ml KENTWOOD CITY --~----
$15,245
Ml LENAWEE COUNTY ---- . -·-· ·-·--- $12,779 - - - - -
Ml ADRIAN CITY - - -------· -------~- ---
Ml EASTPOINTE CITY . ---- $20,874
~-- ----- .... ·-- $14,669 -·----·--
Ml MOU-NT CLEMEN§c~- -----
- - - - - - - - - - ------- .• •.
Ml ROSEVILLE CITY .
$20,135
···--------~~ ------ ------------- - -
Ml STC-LAIR SHORES CITY . -- ___$20,094
--- ------- -------
~- WARREN CITY.
MACOMB COUNTY
~- STERLING HEIGHTS CITY - ------- ---·------ $219,426
Ml
Ml CLINTON CHARTER TOWNSHIP
------- -- ..
----- ·-------- -
Ml MONROE COUNTY $30,284 -------·
Ml MONROE CITY $10,232 --
J41_. MUSKEGON COUNTY .. -------------·
Ml MUSKEGON CITY $92,167
Ml MUSKEGON HEIGHTS CITY
Ml
Ml
.
OAKLAND COUNTY
PONTIAC CITY
.
I=
. ------- ··--·--
$307,854 - - - -
------- ---
J41_ SOUTHFIELD CITY . -f-·-·· ·-
Ml FERNDALE CITY ________ j_1Q,2n -- -- - - - - - - - - - - -------··
~--
Ml HAZECPARK cTfy·------------------- $13,026
Ml
Ml
ROYAL OAK CITY
fR6Ycl~- - ------···-·---- $15,286
- $11,8'75 ---·--- ------~~+----·---~
Ml FARMINGTON HILLS cffY_______________$2@ ---~~----1--~~-
MI WATERFORD CHARTER TOWNSHIP- ~--- $16,683 - -----+-----~~---~----1
Ml OTTAWA COUNTY _______________ $32,133 -------·--+-----
Ml
~-
HOLLAND CITY
~~,~~"'·'=-;--~-----
SAGINAWCOUNTY ______
$15,163 - .....
----~~----r----------~--+~-·-·-
$178746f-~----
MI SAGINAW CITY '
-M\-- BUENA VISTA CHARTER TOWNSHIP - - - - - $13,067 _ - ~--+---·---
MI SAGINAW CHARTER TOWNSHIP ___ $10,519 ----------+~~---+
Ml STCLAIR COUNTY _ $21,902 -·----j-----j
Ml PORT HURON CITY $21,902
Ml WASHTENAW COUNTY _ ___ $45,200
·····-··------+--···-
Ml ANN ARBOR CITY $39,283
Ml
Ml
YPSILANTICITY
WAYNE COUNTY
···----=::--·· ___
·--$25,148 _____________ -
---+--- -
Mi DEARBORN CITY ~~~~- ··-· -----~----·--
~~2:--+E::O:D~~~""~""~""~~geil'rv~TY.;-_·-==--=----~~~-~-=-=---+__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_· ------
-----
~---
Ml
=-==-----------
HAMTRAMCK CITY
-------------~ -·-··-----
Ml -HIGHLAN""D~PA~R"'K'7-C'-o"'ITY~~------- -----
---------··
'MJ. INKSTER CITY ----------- ·------------ ------··-
fi"ii--j~~~;-~.iu-;-.'-=-~~-------- ----- .. ---~---
MI LINCOLN PARK CITY .-
$3,035,392 ~---
----~~~-- ------~--~
Ml LIVONIA
-·
CITY . -· -------
~- ~~g~~Hi:~TS
~:
_
~~~~:~~,-$1TY
CJ!1__ =-_
__
~:t~~ ~~=:=
$____ _______
w- ROMULUS Crfy -~- ----- --·------ . ·- ·--
MI CANTON CHARTER TOWNSHIP - - ···-·· - --
~~--~~f;~~~~~A~~~~TOWNSHIP --T-=--~1 ·2~!.;~;~--___ -~-- -d--- _-:_
~--=-~- ---=~ __
·:=~-=-- _ =~-j~ncl~d~IE)!;S th:n~:0,000!llo~~~~~amount===--=
___ t~~~o}~~~~-~--- _ --1-- _$16,817,0~; . ______ j---------
GMS Application Number: 2005-F1706-MI- DJ
2005 BYRNE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM AWARD
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF MUSKEGON
AND
CITY OF MUSKEGON HEIGHTS
AND
COUNTY OF MUSKEGON
The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, through the Office of
Justice Programs, has awarded Muskegon County, City of Muskegon and City of Muskegon
Heights a joint award in the amount of $92,167 to be utilized for law enforcement and justice
initiatives targeting specific geographic areas within the City of Muskegon and the City of
Muskegon Heights, Muskegon County, Michigan for a period not to exceed 48 months from
October 1, 2004.
The Muskegon County Prosecutor's Office will submit an on-line application for the total joint
award for implementation of a community prosecution program entitled Project Cornerstone II.
The Muskegon County Prosecutor's Office will act as fiduciary for the coalition.
Interest/Intent Regarding JAG award:
1/we, the undersigned, hereby agree to direct our JAG allocation and be part of a coalition and
request that these funds be awarded and expended for our benefit by the fiscal agent listed
below:
Muskegon County Prosecutor's Office
This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 2005, by and
between the County of Muskegon, City of Muskegon, City of Muskegon Heights, and Muskegon
County, Michigan.
For the City of Muskegon:
Tony Kleibecker, Chief of Police Bryon Mazade, City Manager
Melvin Burns, Ill, City Manager
Paul Baade, Chairman of the Board
Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program Page I of I
2005-F1706·MI-DJ [~1
Application Correspondence Switch to ...
Application Handbook Project Information
*Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project
Project Cornerstone II - A community prosecution approach
8RPJL@nt to create a collaboration of private and public agencies,
Information law enforcement and citizens to work together to prevent
*Areas Affected by Project
Project Information
City of Muskegon and City of Muskegon Heights
Budget and
Program
Attachments Proposed Project
*Start 01
Assurances and October 2005
Date
Certifications
*End Date September. 30 2006
Review SF 424
*Congressional Districts of
Project
1zo•1~t[essional District 01, Ml
.U:J¥11.U€11•$nt;i•,.41®11
Congressional District 03, Ml
Help/Frequentli' Congressional District 04, Ml
Aske'·~gnature
Address l] ))" Y11\\ f' ":J\ Address
Thank you for taking the time to vote on this important issue. 9
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
HEARING RESPONSE CARD
NO RESPONSE COUNTS AS "IN FAVOR" OF PROJECT-To have your vote count, please
Return This Card By: MARCH 8, 2005
Project Title: PINE ST., LAKETON AVE. TO DALE AVE.
Project Description: MILL & RESURFACE
INSTRUCTIONS
If you wish to have your written vote included as part of the tabulation of votes forwarded to
the City Commission for the scheduled public hearing, please return this card by the date
indicated above. To use this response card please indicate whether you Oppose or Favor
this special assessment project, sign the form and return it to the City Clerk's Office. To
return this card by mail, simply told on the dotted lines so the address on the reverse side is
showing. Be sure to seal the form with a small piece of tape or staple prior to mailing. IF
YOU DO NOT SEND IN THIS FORM YOUR VOTE COUNTS AS "IN FAVOR" OF
PROJECT.
Assessment Information
Property Address: 1766 PINE ST
Parcel Number 24-205-307-0003-00
Assessable Frontage: $60.00 Feet
Estimated Front Foot Cost: $17.50 per Foot
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST $1,050.00
Property Description
CITY OF MUSKEGON
REVISED PLAT OF 1903
LOT 3 & 4 BLK 307
I' '·
Your vote COUNTS! ·~-~---
Please vote either in favor or opposed to the Special Assessment Street Paving Project.
I AM IN FAVOR D I AM OPPOSED ~
owner /:J_UJit 7llt!alt/d:ilv coowner/Spouse - - - - - - - - - - -
Signature1:J..~ (~ Signature
Address ;qqkJ;b_d(z/h~);JJ}; Address
Thank you for taking the time to vote on this important issue. 21
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
HEARING RESPONSE CARD
NO RESPONSE COUNTS AS "IN FAVOR" OF PROJECT-To have your vote count, please
Return This Card By: MARCH 8, 2005
Project Title: PINE ST., LAKETON AVE. TO DALE AVE.
Project Description: MILL & RESURFACE
INSTRUCTIONS
If you wish to have your written vote included as part of the tabulation of votes forwarded to
the City Commission for the scheduled public hearing, please return this card by the date
indicated above. To use this response card please indicate whether you Oppose or Favor
this special assessment project, sign the form and return it to the City Clerk's Office. To
return this card by mail, simply fold on the dotted lines so ihe address on the reverse side is
showing. Be sure to seal the form with a small piece of tape or staple prior to mailing. IF
YOU DO NOT SEND IN THIS FORM YOUR VOTE COUNTS AS "IN FAVOR" OF
PROJECT.
Assessment Information
--
Property Address: 1726 PINE ST
/'; ·.
..
----------~~-.
,•.
Parcel Number 24-205-297-0011-00
Assessable Frontage: $60.00 Feet (''
Estimated Front Foot Cost: $17.50 per Foot
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST $1,050.00
Property Description
CITY OF MUSKEGON
REVISED PLAT OF 1903
LOTS 11 & 12 BLK 297
Your vote t;OUNTSi
Please vote either in favor or opposed to the Special Assessment Street Paving Project.
I AM IN FAVOR D I AM OPPOSED f>? ·Assessment Information
' 2 ; t)=lfop~rty Address: 1291 5TH ST
. Parcel Number 24-205-388-0001-10
Assessable Frontage: $44.00 Feet
.'Estimated Front Foot Cqst: $32:oo ·per Foot
·.·ESTIMATED TOTAL COST . $1,408.00
· · Property Description
CITY OF MUSKEGON
REVISED PLAT OF 1903
NELY 92FT OF SE 44FT OF NW 88FT OF LOTS 1-2 BLK 388
Your vote COUNTS!
.. Please 'vote either in favor or opposed to the Special Assessment Street Paving Project.
I AM IN FAVOR D I AM OPPOSED IX I
·'·' ,'
Owner pJ_ J; e. A .. ._Te,..,4.coowner/Spouse ·~'t;,.;..(:lfU:..;;.;;;;.~+-·__,::;~:;.._;;;;:;___,;.__
..:L'·.
~ig~ature ~ ~ Signature
i• . Address j'2..I1 1 F/f/L Address·
16
Thank you for taking the time to vote on this important issue.
H-1599 FIFTH ST., CAMPUS AVE. TO MERRILL AVE.
PROPERTY OWNER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TABULATION
FEET r:EBJ::;ENTAYE TOTAL NUMBE~ OF PARCELS- 27
FOR OPPOSE
LETTER# ST# STNAME PARCEL# FEET LETTER# ST# ST NAME PARCEL# FEET
TOTAL ASSESSABLE FRONT FOOT AGE 1542.00 ... ~ 2 1296 FIFTH 24·205·387-0006-10 66.00 16 1291 FIFTH 24·205-388-000 1· 10 44.00
20 1335 FIFTH 24·205-391-000 1·10 66.00 17 1297 FIFTH 24-205-388-000 1·20 44.00
FRONT FEET OPPOSED 359.67 23.32% 6 1336 FIFTH 24-205·392-0006-1 0 66.00
24 1375 FIFTH 24-205·398-0001-1 0 70.00
RESPONDING FRONT FEET IN FAVOR 132.00 8.56% 14 1392 FIFTH 24·205-397-0009-20 47.67
27 1403 FIFTH 24-205-398-00 13·00 53.00
NOT RESPONDING- FRONT FEET IN FAVOR 1050.33 68.11% 23 223 STRONG 24·205·398·000 1·00 35.00
TOTAL FRONT FEET IN FAVOR 1182.33 76.68%
TOTALS 132.00 359.67
TABULATED AS OF: 05:16PM
l/8/2005 5:16PM TABULATION OF THE RESPONSES TO THE SP. ASS. HEARING ON FIFTH ST.-CAMPUS ST.
THE FARES AND CHARGES FOR TAXICABS IN THE
CITY OF MUSKEGON WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE
MUSKEGON CITY COMMISSION ON MARCH 8, 2005
TAXICAB RATES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
FLAG DROP $2.00 (FIRST 1/7 MILE)
EACH 1/7 MILE $ .25 ($1. 75 PER FULL MILE)
WAIT TIME $18.00 PER HOUR
OUT OF TOWN TFUPS $2.00 PER MILE
Date: March 8, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Gail Kundinger, City Clerk
RE: Taxicab Rates
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: We have received a request from Port City Cab and
Yellow Cab for an increase in Taxicab fares. The iast time there was a change in
rates was November 10, 1998. The requested changes are as follows:
Current rates
Flag Drop: $1.65 (first 1/10 mile)
Each 1/10 Mile $ .15 ($1.50 per full mile)
Wait Time $12.00 per hour
Proposed rates
Flag Drop: $2.00 (first 1!7 mile)
Each 1!7 Mile $ .25 ($1.75 per full mile)
Wait Time $18.00 per hour
Out of town trips $2.00 per mile
Attached are rates for Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, and Lansing.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
4
J~W KEFIELD LEASING CORP.
P~RT C;;Y C~B co. YELLOW CAB co.
TAXICAB RATES
Muskegon - Current Muskegon - Proposed Grand Rapids Kalamazoo Lansing
Flag Drop $1.65 (first 1/10 mile) $2.00 (first 1/7 mile) $2.50 (first 1/7 mile) $1.85 (first 1/10 mile) $2.25 (first 1/10 mile)
Each Mile $1.50 ($.15 each 1/1 0) $1.75 ($.25 each 1/7) $1.75 ($.25 each 1/7) $1.70 ($.17 each 1/10) $1.80 ($.20 each 1/9)
Wait Time $12.00 per hour $18.00 per hour $18.00 per hour $19.80 per hour $18.00 per hour
TAXICAB RATES
Grand Rapids
Flag Drop: $2.50 (first 1/7 mile)
Each 1/7 mile $ .25 ($1.75 per full mile)
Wait Time $ .30 (each minute)
(effective 1-1-05)
Kalamazoo
Flag Drop: $1.85 (first 1/10 mile)
Each 1110 Mile $ .17 ($1.70 per full mile)
Wait Time $ .33 (each minute)
(effective 6-18-0 I)
Lansing
Flag Drop: $2.25 (first 1/10 mile)
Each 119 mile $ .20 ($1.80 per full mile)
Wait Time $ .30 (each minute)
(effective 5-11-04)
GR CIT\ CLERK lii'J00!/002
F
GRjAND RA IDS CITY CLERK
30(1 MON.l{O NW
'~~J:;
-.-..m'"-" .··-c~· ':'"'":;4'"-·J!~'l' ~---. ,,,,,., ''*"'''lli'''!!11';~
GIV\ND RA IDS MI 49503
•ms•w'-c¥·---
.;!W"- '""'--~ - ,!!l!C .•'i\1llf'<
,..., -..... '•i!f_·-,.,, ,_,_,_ --"" ,,,
PHONE: (6 6) 456-3010 Port Citv Taxi
F~: (61 ) 456-4607 ~;~-~-·&t·.itt'·•-fl•-f'f~·s~··:~\~t~::''l\\1!_--'+·\1-#. 4 ·
JB?Jl}~J37~·2?_l6
,_
l•."
~- : ·
.. •
.• --·""-~"''ll_-
- .lou;;·
·-'·-'•· .
'"•- -=--.-...,.,, . _
-:'i~. "-~t:~·;•il~-~i-·:_,;,!1~.\'l,·
-,-._'i7!3!.l~ ·,,, ~··~-
•.,~,..,.-::··-ff_·:r~::-~lf@'~
,,'"' .::/0:...-.·----·.--·,. ~
..
~-'"•'",lJi--~--- 1;J.J.,, ~-'''·•:o>'-·•
Dawn Kulak
~-~~~~i-.:;,f;i~VI'-.:~•·;~r·~':ii;)!ii~;;··_;,~r••N;'·;;t._·;~t
2
~~~~-~<;::~~~
NOTES:
Fi>l\m"lng Is eqpy of the resolution that the Grand Rapids City Commission passed on December 14, 2004
r~garding th TaJvD~t'""";:::'ep
02/24/28 5 89:48
"" '
CITIES OF' LA.NSlNG & EAST LANSING oJ(l ,fr01-b
Taxicab RATE CHART ~tll/04
FIRST ONE-TENTH MILE OR FRACTION THEREOF, ONE TO
FOUR PASSENGERS
EACH ADDITIONAL ONE-NINTH MilE OR FRACTION THEREOF,
ONE TO FOUR PASSENGERS
EACH ONE MINUTE WAITING TIME OR CONOESTEO TRAFFIC
DEI..AYS (,1&.00 PER HOUR)
----~-¥~~~~~~
. GGA , R , Y,
E FIRST 50 LaS AND EACH 50 LBS ii-IEREAFTER
X
$ 0.50 DELIVERIES OR ERRANDS WITHOUT PASSENGER
T $ 0.25 EACH MILE OR FRACTION BEYOND CITY liMITS
R UP TO 10 MILES
A $ 0 50 EACH Pi>.SSENQER OVER FOUR
ETSR CLEARED AFTER EACH PAID FARE
OUT SlOE TRIPS BEYOND T!N MIL!I- ONE AND ON~i<·NINTH
TER AATI! FOR ONE WAY OR STRAIGHT METER ROUND TRIP
Date: March 8, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Gail A. Kundinger, City Clerk
RE: Recommendation for Annual Renewal of Liquor
Licenses
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To adopt a resolution recommending non-
renewal of those liquor license estallishments who are in violation of
Section 50-146 and 50-147 of the Code of Ordinance for the City of
Muskegon. These establishments have been found to be in non-
compliance with the City Code of Ordinances and renewal of their liquor
licenses should not be recommended by the City Commission. If any of
these establishments come into compliance by March 23, 2005, they will
be removed from this resolution, and recommendation for their renewal
will be forwarded to the Liquor Control Commission.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the resolution.
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING STATE WITHHOLD
RENEWAL OF LIQUOR LICENSES FOR CODE
VIOLATIONS
Resolution No. 2005-25(f)
THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MUSKEGON DO RESOLVE, that
whereas, the following business establishments in the City of Muskegon have liquor
licenses and are found to be in violation of Article V, Section 50-146 and 50-147 of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Muskegon:
SEE ATTACHED LIST OF VIOLATIONS
AND WHEREAS, a hearing was held on March 8, 2005, before the City Commission to
allow such licensees an opportunity to refute the determination of the City Commission
that such establishments are in non-compliance with the City Code of Ordinances and
renewal of their liquor licenses should not be recommended by the City Commission; and
WHEREAS, an affidavit of mailing of Notices of Hearing and Notification of Non-
Compliance to City Standards to the licensees has been filed;
.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Commission of the City of
Muskegon hereby recommends that these liquor licenses not be approved for renewal,
and a copy of this Resolution be sent to the State Liquor Control Commission. If any of
these establishments come into compliance before March 23, 2005, they will be removed
from this Resolution.
Approved and adopted this 81h day ofMarch, 2005.
A YES: Davis, Gawron, Larson, Shepherd, Spataro, Warmington, and Carter
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Gail A. Kundinger, MMC
City Clerk
2005 VIOLATIONS
BUSINESS BUSINESS OCCUPENCY MONEY INCOME
NAME ADDRESS PERMIT/FIRE OWED TAX
Captain Jack's Bar & Grill 1601 Beach X
Brewer's Brews & Cues 817 Forest X
Pat's Roadhouse 157 S. Getty X
Pop-A-Top Tavern 2185 Henry X
Lakeshore Tavern 1963 Lakeshore X
Ghezzi's Market 2017 Lakeshore X
Docker's Waterfront Cafe 3505 Marina View X
H & J Party Store 939 E Laketon X
Kwik-Way Food Mart 45 E Muskegon X
Super Stop 2390 W Sherman X
Frontier Liquor Shoppe 631 W Southern X
Muskegon Family Foods 1157 Third X
Wood Street Market 1149 Wood X
X represents in violation
CERTIFICATION
2005-25(f)
This resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Commission, held on March
8, 2005. 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.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Date: March 8, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Finance Director
RIE: User Fee Adjustment- Daily Launch Ramp Fees
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Staff is recommending the following adjustment to the
2005 User Fee Schedule:
Creation of a new "Fishing Tournament Launch Ramp Fee"- 2005 user fees approved last
year included an increase in daily launch ramp fees from $5.00 to $10.00. Interested parties
have expressed concern that the increase may harm sponsored fishing tournaments which
bring substantial economic benefit to the community. staff concurs with this and
recommends that a special tournament fee category be established at $5.00 per day. staff
recommends keeping the regular daily launch ramp fee at the $10.00 level. This will help
cover operating costs for the Marina and Launch Ramp fund. Also, we are trying to icentivize
boaters to purchase seasonal permtts in lieu of daily permtts because of the enforcement
problems that daily permits pose. Seasonal permit fees were not increase for 2005.
Attached is a schedule showing how Muskegon's launch ramp fees compare with other
communtties. Atthough our fees are higher than many other communities, staff believes the
pricing is appropriate due to the very high-quality of our facilities and boating opportunities.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The impact of this adjustment on city revenues will minor and is
offset by the overall local economic benefit that fishing tournaments provide.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: None.
9/18/97
Local Municipal Marina Boat Launch Fees
Daily Launch Permits Seasonal Permits Senior Permits
Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident
Grand Haven, Ml $7.00 $7.00 $50.00 $60.00 $35.00 $50.00
Holland, Ml $5.00 $8.00 $25.00 $40.00 $18.00 $25.00
Ludington, Ml $7.00 $7.00 $23.00 $35.00 N/A N/A
Manistee, Ml $5.00 $5.00 $25.00 $35.00 N/A N/A
Montague, Ml $10.00 $10.00 $50.00 $50.00 N/A N/A
Muskegon, Ml $10.00 $10.00 $40.00 $55.00 $25.00 $40.00
Muskeogn Heights, Ml $6.00 $6.00 $15.00 $20.00 $6.00 N/A
State Park $6.00 $6.00 $24.00 $29.00 $6.00 N/A
Average $7.00 $7.38 $31.50 $40.50 $18.00 $38.33
Highest $10.00 $10.00 $50.00 $60.00 $35.00 $50.00
Lowest $5.00 $5.00 $15.00 $20.00 $6.00 $25.00
Local Municipalities Boat Launch Fee
Stat e Park
_, 0 Senior Perrni1s
Non- Resident
Muskeogn Heights, Ml
=I • Senior Perrni1s
Resident
t:::=::::::~ I
Muskegon, Ml 0 Seasonal Permits
Non-Resident
I !
Montague, Ml
D Seasonal Penn its
I Resident
Manistee, Ml
Ludington, Ml
t:::=:::i
I 0 Daily Launch
Permi1s Non-
I Resident
Holland, Ml D Daily Launch
1--' I Permi1s Resident
Grand Haven, Ml
l I
$0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00
LEWIS REED & ALLEN P.C.
Attorneys
W. Fred Allen, Jr. 136 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 800 Of Counsel
Stephen M. Denenfeld Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007-3975 Willy Nordwind, Jr.
Robert C. Engels
Anne M. Fries Telephone 269-388-7600 Gould Fox
David A. Lewis
Dean S. Lewis
Fox 269-349-3831 R EC E I VE 0 (1905-2002)
Winfield]. Hotlander
James M. Marquardt (1906-1996)
Michael B. Onega MAR 1. 8 2005
William A. Redmond
Richard D. Reed March 16, 2005 . MUSKEGON
Thmnas C. Richardson Cl1 y MANAGER'S OFFICE
Michael A. Shields
Gregory G. St. Arnauld
TO: MUSKEGON MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Re: First Addendum to Amended Service Agreement (Sappi Agreement)
·· DearMembers:--
Enclosed for your files is a fully executed copy of the First Addendum to Amended Service
Agreement, incorporating the Sappi Wastewater rate reduction.
A few minor points. First, I realized that I had not included Montague Township in the first
paragraph of the Addendum, and that has now been added. All parties, including Montague
Township, have signed.
Second, at page 4 of the Addendum, the Agreement has no specified effective date. I had
anticipated that the County would date the Agreement, as the County was the last signatory.
However, I don't think this is important, and I simply refer to this as the "2004 First Addendum to
Amended Service Agreement." The First Addendum is no less binding.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
LEWIS REED & ALLEN P.C.
Michael B. Ortega
MBO:der
Enclosure
cc: Thoa Du (w/enclosure)
Dave Kendrick (w/enclosure)
AGENDA ITEM NO.
CITY COMMISSION MEETING March 8, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM: City Manager Bryon Mazade
DATE: February 17, 2005
RE: Amendment to the Wastewater System's Access Rights Agreement
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
To approve the first amendment to the wastewater system's Access Rights Agreement.
This amendment would eliminate the "buy-in" requirements of the Access Rights Agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None anticipated.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To approve the attached amendment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The City Commission will consider this amendment at their work session on 3/7/05.
O:pmb (Wastewater System Access Rights Agreement Amendment 030805)
LEWIS REED & ALLEN P.C.
Attorneys
\V. Fred Allen, Jr. 136 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 800 OfCounsd
Stephen M. Denenfeld Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007-3975 Willy :..:ordwind, Jr.
Robert C. Engels
Anne M. Fries Telephone 269-388-7600 Gould Fox
David A. Lewis Fax 269-349-3831 (1905-2002)
DeanS. Lewis
Winfield). Hollander
James :VL :Vlarqmudt (! 906-1996)
Michael B. Ortega January 25, 2005
William A. Redmond
Richard D. Reed
Thomas C. Richardson
:V1ichae! A. Shields
Gregory G. Sr. Arnauld
TO: MUSKEGON MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Re: Proposed First Amendment to Access Rights Agreement
Dear Members:
Enclosed for consideration by your Boards is a proposed First Amendment to the 1970 Access
Rights Agreement This document would amend the Agreement to eliminate all of the "buy-in"
requirements contained in the original document. The actual mechanism is to delete the current
paragraph 2 in its entirety, and replace it with a new provision that repeats the initial language in
that paragraph, but excludes all of the language addressing "buy-in".
You will recall that the 1970 Agreement called for essentially three "buy-in" components,
described in Subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) within Paragraph 2. In recent years, by general
agreement and practice (as opposed to a formal amendment), the (iii) component has not been
applied as part of the "buy-in" calculations_
Please also note that, the separate but related "buy-in" components in the 1989 Capacity
Allocation Contract will be unaffected by this first amendment. Any changes to the "buy-in"
requirements under the Capacity Allocation Contract must be addressed by amending that
contract. Please also recall that legal amendment of any contract requires the written agreement
of all parties to the subject contract.
Please let me know if you or your board members have any questions regarding this proposed
first amendment, or if you would like me to attend a board meeting to answer questions and offer
additional information.
Sincerely,
LEWIS REED & ALLEN P.C-
/) 'd...,_v; ;1 Orkr~1 Jt....,
Michael B. Ortega RECEIVED
MBO:kjn JAN 2 8 2005
Enclosure
cc: Dave Kendrick w/enclosure MUSKEGON
Thoa Du w/enclosure CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
TOWNSHIP OF DALTON TOWNSHIP OF FRUITPORT
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ By: __________________
Its: Its:
----------------- ----------------
Dated: - - - - - - - - - - - Dated:---------------
CITY OF MU.'S. KEG~
CITY OF NORTON SHORES
_
By: ______________ By: &/i! 714-dvt.J
Bill Larson
Its: Its: Vice Mayor
--------------------
Dated: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOWNSHIP OF WHITEHALL CITY OF ROOSEVELT PARK
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Its: ______________ Its:
-------------
Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Dated: ___________
'·
CITY OF WHITEHALL CITY OF MUSKEGON HEIGHTS
By: _________________ By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Its: Its:
------------------- ---------------
Dated:------------- Dated: - - - - - - - - - - -
MUSKEGON CHARTER TOWNSHIP CITY OF NORTH MUSKEGON
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Its: Its:- - - - - - - - - - - -
-----------------
Dated: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
2
TOWNSHIP OF MONTAGUE
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Its:
-----------------------
Dated:
G:\MBO\M M W M C\First Amendment to Access Rights Agreement.wpd
3
FIRST AMENDMENT TO ACCESS RIGHTS AGREEMENT
The December 4, 1970 Access Rights Agreement by and between the COUNTY
OF MUSKEGON and the following municipalities: Cities of Montague, Muskegon,
Muskegon Heights, North Muskegon, Norton Shores, Roosevelt Park, Whitehall and the
Townships of Dalton, Egelston, Fruitport, Laketon, Muskegon, Whitehall and Montague
is amended as follows:
Paragraph 2 of the Access Rights Agreement is deleted in its entirety, and
replaced with the following:
"2. Said System may hereafter be expanded, with the
approval of the Board and the County Board of
Commissioners, to serve areas outside of the Service Area.
Any area so added shall bear the cost of connecting to the
System."
All remaining terms and provisions of the December 4, 1970 Access Rights
Agreement shall remain unchanged by this First Amendment.
COUNTY OF Muskegon County TOWNSHIP OF LAKETON
By its Board of Public Words
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Its: Its:
------------------------- --------------
Dated: --------------------- Dated: ---------------------
CITY OF MONTAGUE TOWNSHIP OF EGELSTON
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Its: Its:
-------------------------- ---------------------------
Dated: --------------------- Dated: -----------------------
FIRST ADDENDUM TO AMENDED SERVICE AGREEMENT
This Addendwn. is entered into by and between the County of Muskegon. Michigan, by
and through its Department of Public Works [hereinafter referred to as the "County], and
Laketon Township. City of Montague. Dalton Township. City of Norton Shores. Whitehall
Township, City of Whitehall, Muskegon Charter Township, City of North Muskegon, Egelston
Township, Fruitport Charter Township. City of Muskegon, City of Roosevelt Park, City of
Muskegon Heights, and Montague Township, [hereinafter referred to as the "Local Units"].
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on July 7, 1998. a Consent Judgment was entered in the case of United
States of America. et al v Countv of Muskegon. et al, Civil Action Number 1:97 CV 486 (WD
Michigan), which Consent Judgment incorporated by reference an "Amended Service
Agreement" between County and Local Units; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of both the Consent Judgment. and incorporated Amended
Service Agreement, was to clarity rights and responsibilities of both the County and Local Units
with respect to the management and operation of the Muskegon County Wastewater
Management System Number 1 [hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "System"]; and,
WHEREAS, the parties are desirous of executing a "First Addendum" to said Amended
Service Agreement in order to provide financial relief to the County's major customer, Sappi
Fine Paper, and,
WHEREAS, both the County and Local Units deem it to be in the public interest, and in
the interest of the customers of the Muskegon County Wastewater System Number, that
financial relief be afforded to Sappi.
G:\MBO\M M W M C\F!RST ADDENDUJ',·I TO Ai\'IENDED SERVICE AGREEMENT-tinal.doc
NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:
I. Effect Upon Existing Amended Service Agreement.
Except as specifically modified or amended below, all terms and conditions as set forth in
Amended Service Agreement shall remain unaltered, and in full force and effect.
II. Provision for Financial Relief to Sappi Fine Paper.
By execution of this "First Addendum", the County and Local Units acknowledge that
they have individually, and collectively, made a determination that it is in the best interest of the
System that the System's primary customer, Sappi Fine Paper, which historically has accounted
for approximately fifty percent (50%) of all flow to System, be afforded financial relief in
accordance with the more specific terms and conditions hereinafter set forth in order to assist
Sappi in maintaining marketplace competitiveness and financial viability. To such end, the
parties more specifically agree as follows:
A. Debt obligation associated with existing S 17 million bond.
Effective October 1, 2003, any industrial User that discharges an annual average
flow of 10 million gallons per day shall be accorded a forty percent (40%)
"volume discount". This translates into a payment factor of .6 on service/debt
charge imposed in connection with the retirement of the S 17 million bond. Any
such industry satisfying such requirement shall, as appropriate, be entitled to a
rebate consistent therewith within sixty (60) days of execution of this First
Addendum by the County and all Local Units. This is in reference to the existing
$17 million bond issue.
B. Debt Obligation Associated with Existing $23 and 52.3 million Bond Issues
Effective October 1, 2003, any industrial User that discharges an annual average
flow of 10 million gallons per day shall be entitled to a forty percent (40%)
C:\WIN9X\TEMP\FIRST ADDENDUM TO AMENDED SERVICE AGREEMENT-finaLdoc 2
"volume discount" on payments which otherwise would be required to be made
pursuant to the Muskegon County Wastewater Management System-No. I
Capacity Allocation Contract, July 27, 1989 version. This translates into a factor
payment of .6 of service/debt imposed in connection with the retirement of such
debt, which would otherwise be payable by any customer. Rebate, as appropriate,
shall be provided within sixty (60) days of execution ofthis First Addendum by
the County and all Local Units. This is in reference to the $23 million and 52.3
million bond issues referenced in Capacity Allocation Contract.
C. Debt Obligation on Future Bond Pavments
Effective upon execution of this First Addendum by the County and all Local
Units, industrial Users discharging an annual average flow of 10 million gallons
per day shall be entitled to a forty percent (40%) "volume discount" in connection
with the service/debt charge associated with any future bond payment. This
translates into a factor payment of .6 of service/debt charge customarily charged.
D. Calculation and Financing of Rebate
· ·-----~---The parties stipulate that Sappi Fine Paper has satisfied the miniiimrri ihieshold
flow requirements for being afforded relief under Sections II A and B of this
Agreement for the period of October l, 2003 through September 30,2004 and
that the rebate for such period is 5549,000. The parties agree that the financing of
such rebate payment shall be as follows:
The rebate amount of 5549,000 shall be paid by the County to Sappi from System
reserves presently existing in the "Equipment Replacement" Fund. County and
Local Units agree that the Equipment Replacement Fund shall be repaid such
C:\WIN9X\TE\ifP\FIRST ADDENDUM TO AMENDED SERVICE AGREEME;.JT-tinal.doc 3
amount, together with interest calculated at the rate of 4% per annum prior to the
expiration of this Agreement.
III. Effectiveness and Duration of Agreement
A. Effectiveness
This Agreement shall be deemed to be in full force and effect following execution
of same by the County and all of the aforementioned Local Units.
In the event any provision of this Addendum Agreement shall be determined to be
unlawful, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, all other
provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
B. Duration
This Agreement shall run concurrent with the Amended Service Agreement
previously entered into between the County and Local Units. Provided, however,
the provisions of Article II of this Agreement, provided for financial relief for
Sappi Fine Paper and/or other large users, shall be deemed to continue through
September 30, 2008 or, upon such date as Sappi Fine Paper annual average
- discharge is reduced below the level of I 0 million gallons per day,-calculated on---- -----
an average aruma! basis, whichever occurs first. The net effect, insofar as Sappi is
concerned is that Sappi shall be eligible for up to five (5) annual reductions and/or
rebates on debt.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, by and through their respective boards and
commissions, have executed this Agreement, effective·as of the _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ __,
2004.
CIWIN9X\TEMP\F!RST ,,DDENDUM TO .-\ME:-JDED SERVICE .-\GREEMENT-tinal.doc
·•
FIRST AMENDMENT TO ACCESS RIGHTS AGREEMENT
The December 4, 1970 Access Rights Agreement by and between the COUNTY
OF MUSKEGON and the following municipalities: Cities of Montague, Muskegon,
Muskegon Heights, North Muskegon, Norton Shores, Roosevelt Park, Whitehall and the
Townships of Dalton, Egelston, Fruitport, Laketon, Muskegon, Whitehall and Montague
is amended as follows:
Paragraph 2 of the AccessRights Agreement is deleted in its entirety, and
replaced with the following:
"2. Said System may hereafter be expanded, with the
approval of the Board and the County Board of
Commissioners, to serve areas outside of the Service Area.
Any area so added shall bear the cost of connecting to the
System."
All remaining terms and provisions of the December 4, 1970 Access Rights
Agreement shall remain unchanged by this First Amendment.
COUNTY OF Muskegon County TOWNSHIP OF LAKETON
By its Board of Public WORKS
~~~\:...::...~fv~\~~:1.---
By:.:..._.·
Lou · c:A•gMcMurray .
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Its:· Chairman Its:
·---------------
Dated: {'A#( j 1 1 ,Z:.CQ $" Dated: - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - -
.CITY OF. MONTAGUE TOWNSHIP OF EGELSTON
BY.~: ____________________ By:. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
Its: Its:
·---~---------------- ·---------------------
Dated: - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - Dated:-------------
FIRST AMENDMENT TO ACCESS RIGHTS AGREEMENT
The December 4, 1970- Access Rights Agreement by and between the COUNTY
OF MUSKEGON and the followinQ-municipalities: Cities of Montague, Muskegon,
Muskegon Heights, North Muskegon, Norton Shores, Roosevelt Park, Whitehall and the
Townships of Dalton, Egelston, Fruitport, Laketon, Muskegon, Whitehall and Montague
is amended as follows:
Paragraph 2 of the Access Rights Agreement is deleted in its entirety, and
replaced with the following:
"2. Said System may hereafter be expanded, with the
approval of the Board and the County Board of
Commissioners, to serve areas outside of the Service Area.
Any area so added shall bear the cost of connecting to the
System."
All remaining terms and provisions of the December 4, 1970 Access Rights
Agreement shall remain unchanged by this First Amendment.
COUNTY OF Muskegon County TOWNSHIP OF LAKETON
By its Board of Public woRKs
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Its: Its:
---------------------- ---------------------------
Dated: Dated:
-----------------------
CITY OF MONTAGUE TOWNSHIP OF EGELSTON
By: -11~, r;_ A.'"Cdl'-f- By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
lts: ·Jo"'-'k>-e. Its:
-----------------
v
Dated: ']-}/--o:::::..~=-'~k~-
Its: Its: City Manager
------------------- -~~-~------------
Dated: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
zl_?_l_os____________
Dated: __
2
r. UJ
TOWNSHIP OF MONTAGUE
By:~
Its: -egp
--~~~--------~----
Dated: ~-j I '3- ~S'
G:\MBO\M M W M C\Fi"'t Amendm•nt tc Access Rights Agraamant.wpd
3
LEWIS REED & ALLEN P.C.
Attorne)'S
W. Fred Allen, Jr. IJ6 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 800 Of Counsel
Stephen M. Denenfeld Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007-3975 Willy Nord wind, Jr.
Robert C. Engels
Anne M. Fries Telephone 269~388-7600 Gould Fox
David A Lewis (1905-2002)
Fax 269-349-3831
Dean S. Lewis
Winfield J. Hollander
James M. Marquardt (I 906-!996)
Michael B. Ortega
William A Redmond
Richard D. Reed May 19, 2005
Thomas C. Richardson
Michael A. Shields
Gregory G. St. Arnauld
TO: MUSKEGON MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND
ALTERNATES
Dear Management Committee Members and Alternates:
I have received a copy of the County's signature on the First Amendment to Access Rights
Agreement.
All of the Local Units have already executed this Amendment. With the County's signature, the First
Amendment is now complete.
A fully executed copy of the Amendment is enclosed with this letter.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
LEWIS REED & ALLEN P.C.
/lt'c/n, 1 K (\ ·lc'; n I )I_.
Michael B. Ortega
MBO:kjn
Enclosure
Date: March 8, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Engineering
RE: Consideration of Bids
Walton Ave., Murphy St. to Emerald St.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The paving as well as underground utility upgrade contract (H-1603) on Walton Ave.
between Murphy St. & Emerald St. be awarded to Schultz Excavating, Inc. out of
Ludington, MI. Schultz Excavating, Inc. was the lowest, see attached bid tabulation,
responsible bidder with a bid price of $141,571.45
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The construction cost $141,571.45 plus engineering cost which is estimated at an
additional15%.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Award the contract to Schultz Excavating, Inc.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
H-1 t:iU3, ::1-t:iUt:i, W-t:i:>3 WAL I UN AVJ::.. MUKHt'Y I U t:.Mt:.KALU
BID TABULATION
DAN HOE EXCAVATING BRENNER EXCAVATING MCCORMICK SAND WEICK BROS., INC
13654 ROCKY'S RD 2B41132ND AVE. 998 S.102ND AVE. 3029 WEICK DR
PAGE1 OF2
H-loU;s, ::S-tiUti, VV·b:>;s VVAL I UN AVt:. MUKHt"'Y I U t:Mt:KALU
BID TABULATION 02/22/05
JACKSON-MERKEY WADEL STABILIZATION
PAGE20F2
CITY OF MUSKEGON
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 8, 2005
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS@ 5:30P.M.
Request to Speak
CITIZEN'S CONCERN FORM
This request must be returned to the City Clerk first before concern(s) can be
brought in front of the Commission. Please state name and address at the
microphone for the record.
Name:
fJ. I ,.,?. j_(/;; ;···-
.(':/?!1/lv ..:;, i 1 c I./ Z..
I
Phone: Z 3' - ~eft>~ '7 I ()S_.
Address: :;-s&.s- c;:t-h
. . /}f. !- f./,o ft/;
Signature: /l?f /CA<~/
(
Description of Concern:
tJ&~£ ~-LAc h; t!:iL,t, a/~7-Ar 7?f.t ?t/u_;--tt/w:l 1
Staff person who you have already contacted:
Request amount of Time 3 minutes t~
10 minutes _ _ (for representing a group)
Request for special equipment (specify):
***Please make sure that all cell phones are turned off during meeting.
Date: March 8, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Gail A. Kundinger, City Clerk
RE: Liquor License Request
GFB, L. L. C.
1920 Lakeshore
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Liquor License transfer request was
approved by the City Commission on June 22, 2004, pending final
inspection. The Liquor Control Commission is requiring an
~~unconditional" resolution in order for this to go forward .
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All departments are recommending
approval.
Date: March 8, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Gail A. Kundinger, City Clerk
RE: Liquor License Request
GFB, L. L. C.
1920 Lakeshore
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Liquor License transfer request was
approved by the City Commission on June 22, 2004, pending final
inspection. The Liquor Control Commission is requiring an
"unconditional" resolution in order for this to go forward.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All departments are recommending
approval with the exception of the Treasurer because morey ($125.08)
is owed to the City. -~~
~(}J
PARMENTER o-TOOLE
Attorneys at Law
175 West Apple Avenue • P.O. Box 786 • Muskegon, Michigan 49443-0786
Phone 231.722.1621 • Fax 231.722.7866or231.728.2206
www.Parmenterlaw.com
February 10, 2005
Ms. Linda Potter
Muskegon City Hall
933 Terrace Street
Muskegon,MI49442
Re: GFB, L.L.C.: Liquor License Transfer
Dear Ms. Potter:
Enclosed please find the following:
1) Copy of correspondence from Tom Thornhill, with attachment, dated October 29, 2004;
2) Copy of correspondence from Tom Thornhill dated February 2, 2005; and
3) Proposed Resolution.
If you would process the request and notify Mr. Thomhill of the intended date the City
Commission would review such, I would appreciate it.
Very truly yours,
John C. Schrier
Direct: 231.722.5401
Fax: 231.728.2206
E-Mail Address: jcs@parmenterlaw.com
Enclosure
C: Bryon Mazade
G:\EDSI\FILES\00100\ 1937\LTR\C06354.DOC
LAGUE, NEWMAN & IRISH
A Professional Corporation
Attorneys at Law
300 Terrace Plaza P.O. Box 389 Muskegon, Michigan 49443
231•725•8148 Fax231•726•3404
David P. Covell William M. Newman
Charyn K. Hain Thomas H. Thornhill
Todd L. Helle, M.D.
Karen L. Kayes* Of Counsel
Richard C. Lague October 29, 2004 Alvin D. Treado
Craig L. Monette
Michael W. Irish-1995
• Also Admincd in Florid:.
Mr. John C. Schrier
Muskegon City Attorney
Parmenter, O'Toole
175 W. Apple Avenue
P. 0. Box 786
Muskegon, MI 49440
Re: Liquor License Transfer/GFB, L.L.C.
Our File 7597-001
Dear John:
I have a somewhat knotty problem with the Michigan Liquor Control Commission that,
hopefully, the City of Muskegon can help us resolve.
I represent George Bailey in a limited liability company we formed on his behalf, GFB,
L.L.C. Earlier this year, GFB, L.L.C. entered into a contract to purchase a Class C liquor
license from Jimmy R. Benson, who formerly operated a bar on Sixth Street in Muskegon
Heights. The license was to be transferred to 1920 Lakeshore Drive (Great Lakes Dock &
Marina), where a new facility was to be established.
Transfer of the license was approved on September 21, as noted by a copy of the
Commission's Order of that date, which I am enclosing. Normally, under the circumstances,
an applicant has a period of one year from the date the Commission approves the transfer to
actually have the license issued. In this case, GFB contemplates construction of a bar on the
Marina premises and the plans and specifications for the building have not yet been prepared.
I am also informed that some DEQ permits will be required, which have not yet been obtained.
It was therefore GFB's intention to not actually have the license issued until sometime next
year after the new facility was built and ready for final inspection.
Unbeknownst to us, however, the former owner, Mr. Benson, had violations outstanding and
the Commission had entered an Order to the effect that the license would be revoked if the
Mithigan Department of Commerce
Liquor Control Commission
October 29, 2004
Page 2
transfer had not been completed by November 1 of this year. This was supposed to have been
noted on the September 21 approval but, because of a Commission error, the notation was
omitted. GFB therefore went ahead and closed with Mr. Benson and paid him for the license
under the belief that it had until September 21, 2005 to actually have the license issued.
I have worked out interim measures with the Commission to prevent the license from being
terminated on November 1. However, on a longer term basis, I have been told by the
Commission that the solution to the situation is for us to apply to actuaJJy have the license
issued but placed into escrow until GFB's facility is completed.
For this to happen, the Commission requires a resolution from the City of Muskegon
requesting issuance of the license. I am told by the supervisor of the Liquor Control
Commission Department I have been dealing with that this resolution needs to be
unconditional, but the City can include a cover Jetter to the Commission making it clear that
the approval is still subject to final inspection when the facility is completed.
I am hoping that the City will assist us with having the license transferred. I am going to be on
vacation next week, but will be back in the office on November 8. In the meantime, however,
I wanted to alert you to the nature of the problem so you would be familiar with it when I
contacted you. I will plan on getting in touch with you shortly after my return.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Very truly yo
~ ILII!.lJ'ffW!/V
Thomas H. Thornhill
Enclosure
T:\7597_I I.Lel/ers\Schr/er-1 02904sg
LAGUE, NEWMAN & IRJSH
I-4
MicL.,;an Department of Labor & Economic l. . .:;wth
. .' Liquor Control Commission ORDER
Page 1
Lice!J:NifERtOFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
Licensing & Enforcement Division
September 21, 2004
Administrative Commissioners DATE
TO
Authorization of Alcoholic Beverages
FROM
IT IS THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE FOLLOWING
SUBJECT: APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS INDICATED:
GFB, LLC., 1920 Lakeshore, Muskegon, Muskegon County. Request transfer ownership
of escrowed 2004 Class C and Specially Designated Merchant licenses with Dance
Permit and Sunday Sales Permit from Jimmy R. Benson; transfer location (governmental
tmit)(MCL 436.1531 (I) from 2805 Sixth, Muskegon Heights, Muskegon County and
request authorization for the outdoor sale, service and consumption of alcoholic
beverages in a 25' x 35' area, enclosed by wooden rail, immediately adjacent to licensed
premises. APPROVED SUBJECT TO FINAL INSPECTION BY THE MUSKEGON
CITY COUNCIL; SUBJECT TO FINAL INSPECTION BY ENFORCEMENT TO
DETERMINE THE TOTAL COST AND METHOD OF FINANCING; TO
DETERMINE THAT DANCE FLOOR MEASURES A MINIMUM OF 100
SQUARE FEET, IS WELL MARKED AND CLEARLY DEFINED; TO
DETERMINE ACTUAL SEATING CAPACITY; TO DETERMINE THE
CORRECT STREET ADDRESS; TO DETERMINE THAT A SIGN HAS BEEN
POSTED INFORMING OF CAPACITY LIMIT; TO DETERMINE THAT
OUTDOOR SERVICE AREA HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED AS PROPOSED AND
THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
MICHIGAN LIQUOR CONTROL CODE AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES;
SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT TO OPERATING AGREEMENT FOR
LANDLORD TO REFLECT MEMBERSHIP INTEREST OF ITS MEMBERS;
SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF ACCEPTABLE, ASSIGNMENT OF PURCHASE
AGREEMENT FROM APPLICANT MEMBER TO APPLICANT LLC, EXECUTED
BY BOTH PARTIES; SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION THAT APPLICANT HAS
RECEIVED A $65,000.00 LOAN FROM LANDLORD; SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF
LETTER OF EXTENSION FROM FIFTH THIRD BANK TO GREAT LAKES
MARINA & STORAGE, L.L.C. RENEWING OR EXTENDING THE "MATURITY
DATE" OF THE NOTE; SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF ACCEPTABLE, EXECUTED
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN GREAT LAKES MARINA & STORAGE, L.L.C.
AND GFB, LLC; SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF ACCEPTABLE, EXECUTED LC-52A;
APPROVED WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE LICENSEE WILL NOT PERMIT
THE SALE, SERVICE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR
OUTDOORS, EXCEPT IN THE DEFINED AREAS; AND APPROVED WITH THE
PROVISO THAT WITHIN 180 DAYS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THE LICENSE TO
GFB, LLC DOCUMENTARY PROOF IS PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSION TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT, AT A MINIMUM, SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL ON
EACH SHIFT AND DURING ALL HOURS IN WHICH ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR IS
LC.?ll*L Rev. 1/04
4880-1040
LAGUE, NEWMAN & IRISH
A Professional Corporation
Attorneys at Law
300 Terrace Plaza P.O. Box 389 Muskegon, Michigan 49443
231 • 725 • 8148 F"' 231 • 726 • 3404
David P. Covell William M. Newman
Charyn K. Hain Thomas H. Thornhill
Todd L. Helle, M.D.
Karen L. Kayes* Of Counsel
Richard C. Lague February 2, 2005 Alvin 0. Treado
Craig L Monette
Michael W lrish-1995
'Also Admitted ill Florida
Mr. John C. Schrier
Muskegon City Attorney
Parmenter, O'Toole
P. 0. Box 786
Muskegon, MI 49443-0786
RE: Liquor License Transfer/GFB, LLC
Dear John:
This letter is a follow-up to my earlier correspondence to you regarding this matter of October 29,
2004.
I am enclosing a proposed Certificate of Resolution to be signed by the City Clerk evidencing the
· City ofMuskegon' s consent and approval to the transfer of a Class C and specially designated
merChant license from Jimmy R. Benson of 2805 Sixth Street, Muskegon Heights, Michigan to
GFB, LLC (George Bailey) of 1920 Lakeshore Drive, Muskegon, Michigan. As I indicated in my
earlier letter, we are requesting this action because the premises in which the licensed business will
operate are not yet complete and Mr. Benson has outstanding violations on the license with the
license being subject to revocation if a transfer is not promptly completed. As a result of all of
this, the Liquor Control Commission has suggested that we request issuance of the license but that
the license be held in escrow until the licensed premises are completed.
I am told that while the resolution needs to be unconditional (as I have made it), the Liquor Control
Commission has no objection if a cover letter be included by the City indicating that the transfer is
still subject to final approval by the City upon final inspection when the facility has been
completed.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter and please let me know when it will be brought to
the attention of the Commission so someone can plan on being in attendance.
Verytru.ly 0 /1. . fM.
~~~
Thomas H. Thornhill
Enclosure
T:\7597_1 \Letters\Schrier020205,jmn
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION
2005-26(d)
The undersigned hereby certifies that the following resolution was duly adopted by the
111
Muskegon City Commission at a Regular Meeting held on the 8 day of March, 2005 at which
time a quorum was present.
RESOLVED, that the City of Muskegon hereby approves transfer of ownership of
2004 Class C and specially designated merchant license with dance permit and
Sunday sales permit from Jimmy R. Benson of 2805 Sixth Street, Muskegon
Heights, Michigan to GFB, LLC of 1920 Lakeshore Drive, Muskegon, Michigan.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the City of Muskegon hereby requests that the
Michigan Liquor Control Commission issue the aforesaid license to GFB, LLC.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that this resolution may be specifically relied upon by
the Michigan Liquor Control Commission.
Dated: March 8, 2005
By: L a l~r
Gall A. Kundmger, MMC
City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
This resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Commission, held on March 8,
2005. The meeting was properly held and noticed pursuant to the Open Meetings Act of the
State of Michigan, Act 267 ofthe Public Acts of 1976.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Gail A. Kundinger, MMC
City Clerk
);J au,; I f~!r l?l!fL
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM NIDA R.SAMONA
GOVERNOR CHAIRPERSON
STATE OF MICHIGAN
LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH
DAVID C. HOLLISTER, DIRECTOR
RECEIVED DATE: March 14, 2005
REQ # 238248
Muskegon City Commission MAR I 6 2005
933 Terrace Street MUSKEGON
PO Box 536 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
Muskegon Ml 49443-0536
Local Governing Body:
This is with reference to GFB, LLC's request to transfer ownership of 2004 Class C licensed
business with Dance Permit, located in escrow at 2805 Sixth, Muskegon Heights Ml 49444,
Muskegon County, from Jimmy R. Benson; transfer location (governmental unit) (MCL
436.1531 (1) to 1920 Lakeshore, Muskegon Ml 49441, Muskegon County.
Please be advised that we have received Certificate of Resolution dated March 8, 2005.
However, the Certificate of Resolution is not acceptable as it does not contain the Yeas and
Nays.
We request that you complete and sign the enclosed resolution and return them to this office
as soon as possible.
Mail your response to:
MICHIGAN LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION
LICENSING DIVISION
P.O. BOX 30005
LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909-7505
If you have any questions, please call the Licensing Division, ON-Premise Section at, (517)
322-1400.
ljt
Enclosure
Michigan Liquor Control Commission
7150 Harris Drive • P.O. Box 30005 • Lansing, Michigan 48909-7505
www.michigan.gov/dleg • (517) 322-1345 Lansing Office
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER & INDUSTRY SERVICES
LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION
7150 Harris Drive
P.O. Box 30005
Lansing, MI 48909-7505
LOCAL APPROVAL NOTICE
(Authorized byMCL436.\50\(2)md MAC \\05(2)(d))
REQ ID#: 238248
March 14, 2005
Muskegon City Connnission
933 Terrace Street
POBox 536
Muskegon MI 49443-0536
Applicant: GFB, LLC
HOME ADDRESS AND PHONE NO:
Local Legislative approval is required for new and transferring On-Premises licenses by MCL 436. 150 I of
the Michigan Liquor Control Code of 1998. Local approval is also required for DANCE,
ENTERTAINMENT, DANCE-ENTERTAINMENT OR TOPLESS ACTIVITY permits by authority of
MCL436.1916.
For your convenience a resolution form is enclosed that includes a description of the licensing
transaction requiring approval. The clerk should complete the resolution certifying that your decision of
approval or disapproval of the application was made at an official meeting. Please return the completed
resolution to the Liquor Control Commission as soon as possible.
If you have any questions, please contact the On-Premise Section of the Licensing Division as (517) 322-
1400.
PLEASE COMPLETE ENCLOSED RESOLUTION AND RETURN
TO THE LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION AT ABOVE ADDRESS
ljt
LC-1305 REV 6/98
4880-1234
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER & INDUSTRY SERVICES
LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION
REQ ID# 238248
RESOLUTION
At a __R_e_g:::.. -u---,
l ::-
a-:r-:--:--::--- - - -- - meeting of the _ _ _c_i_t-::::y:._____,:C
-:-o
-=--
m-:-
rn::::-i_s-:s-:::ci:-o--::n:--:::------
.."I ""11"'< 1~1.: .. "-'kl~t'~"!•J.i;i>>!.HI'"~'"'·'!.'Uw.(/O'nliC.·lri'rt"'ll;v.ot'Jio,r"""'"''-"'"
Commission Meeting Date: March 8, 2005
Date: March 2, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor & City Commission
From: Community and Neighborhood Services
Department
RE: 2005-2006 CDBG/HOME Preliminary Funding
Allocations
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To accept the allocation recommendation of
the City's administration and the Citizen's District Council for the 2005 -
2006 fiscal year.
After accepting the recommended allocations the Commission is
requested to make its preliminary allocation recommendation in order so
the CNS office can continue the Consolidated Plan process.
The CNS office will conduct a public hearing on April 12, 2005. At the
time the Commission will be asked to make their final allocations
decision and to direct staff to submit the required information to the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Will determine the CDBG/HOME allocation for the
2005-2006 fiscal year.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To accept the recommendation of the
City of Muskegon Administration and the Citizen's District Council and
then make the Commissions preliminary allocation decision.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: None
2005 - 2006 CDBG I HOME ACTIVITY
Community Development Block Grant City Commission
Administration Citizen District Council Preliminary City Commissl ... n
Organization Name/Program Title Amount Requested Recommendation Recommendation Recommendation Final Decision
Muskegon Community Heallh Project 5,000 0 0
"Mites for Smile Dental Services"*
2 West Michigan Veterans 5,000 0 5,000
Veterans Assistance*
3 Pioneer Resources 2,500 0 0
Rec for People w/disabilities*
4 HealthCare 6,418 0 5,000
Health screening to low-income*
5 American Red Cross 5,000 0 5,000
Senior Transportation*
6 Legal Aid of Western Michigan 15,000 0 0
Counseling/Legal Education*
7 Neighborhood Invest Corp 9,000 0 0
5th Street Landscape*
8 Child Abuse Council 6,000 0 0
Renovation*
9 Sacred Suds 10,000 0 0
Laundry&Shower Service*
Community Development Block Grant City Commission
Administration Citizen District Council Preliminary City Commission
Organization Name/Program Title Amount Requested Recommendation Recommendation Recommendation Final Decision
10 Community and Neighborhood Services 225,000 171,000 171,000
Siding Program
11 Fire/Inspection 100,000 50,000 50,000
Dangerous Building/Demolition
12 Community and Neighborhood Services 230,000 171,000 171,000
Emergency Rehabilitation
13 Community and Economic Development 20,000 10,000 0
Faqade Improvement
14 Community and Neighborhood Services 197,500 180,000 180,000
CDBG Administration
15 Community and Neighborhood Services 100,000 69,500 69,500
Rehab Service Delivery
16 Engineering I CNS 80,000 55,000 55,000
Street Assessment Relief
17 Leisure Services 92,243 75,000 75,000
Youth recreation*
18 Finance Dept 245,000 245,000 245,000 245,000 245,000
Repayment of Shoreline Dr. Bond
19 City Planning 50,000 30,000 25,000
Lot Clean-up
20 City Planning 45,000 40,000 40,000
Code Enforcement
21 DPW 56,901 40,000 40,000
Senior Transit*
Total CDBG Request 1,505,562 1,136,500 1'136,500
Total CDBG Allocated+ PI (0) 1'137,000 1,137,000 1,137,000
Allocated/Request Difference $ (368,562) $ 500 $ 500
Total Amt of Public Service* 213,062 149,144 149,144
Public Service mandated Amt < or= to 15% 170,550 170,550 170,550
Difference $ (42,512) $ 21,406 $ 21,406
Total Amt of City Administration Request** 197,500 180,000 180,000
Administrative mandated Amt < 20% 227,400 227,400 227,400
Difference $ 29,900 $ 47,400 $ 47,400
HOME City Commission
Administration Citizen District Council Preliminary City Commission
Organization Name/Program Title Amount Requested Recommendation Recommendation Recommendation Final Decision
1 Community and Neighborhood Services 125,000 100,000 100,000
Tax-Reverted Rehabilitation
2 Community and Neighborhood Services 75,000 65,000 65,000
HOME lnfi/1 Program
3 Community and Neighborhood Services 33,700 33,700 33;700
HOME Administration
4 Community and Neighborhood Services 50,000 20,000 20,000
Rental Rehabilitation
5 Neighborhood Investment Corp 95,000 70,000 70,000
Housing Rehab, Neighborhood Imp.
- 6 Habitat For Humanity 50,000 35,000 35,000
Acquisition/Rehab
Total Amt of HOME Request 428,700 323,700 323,700
HOME Allocation 337,000 337,000 337,000
Reprogram Funds
Total Amt Home Available 337,000 337,000 337,000
Total Amt Difference $ (91 ,700) $ 13,300 $ 13,300
Total Amt of HOME Administration~ 33,700 33,700 33,700
Total Amt mandated= 10% 33,700 33,700 33,700
Difference $ $ $
Total amt of HOME CHDO request·- 145,000 105,000 105,000
Total Amt mandated 15% 50 550 50,550 50,550
Difference $ (94,450) (54,450) (54,450)
NOTE
*Public Service, **City CDBG Administration, ***HOME Administration, ****CHDO Request
Q:CNS\Common\Excei\05.06_Act
Date: March 8, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Engineering
RE: Consideration of Proposals for
Construction Engineering Services on:
Shoreline Dr. Phase II (First to Webster)
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Authorize staff to enter into an engineering services agreement with a consulting firm to
provide complete construction engineering services on the second phase of Shoreline
Drive between First & Webster Ave. A recommendation along with backup information
will be presented at or before the work session of March yth_ 2005. this request is being
presented to you in this fashion due to lack available time since construction is scheduled
to begin later this month and approval from MOOT to hire a consulting firm was not
granted until February 25th, 2005.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The cost for the engineering services would be from the MOOT grant
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation will be presented at or before the work session meeting of March 7th.
COMMITIEE RECOMMENDATION:
URS
RECEIVED
_C ITY OF MUSKEGON
March 29, 2005
L MAR 30 2005
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Mohammed S. AI-Shatel, PE
City of Muskegon
Engineering Department
933 Terrace Street
Muskegon, Michigan 49440
Re: Full Construction Engineering Services
Shoreline Drive from Webster Avenue to First Street
Dear Mr. AI-Shatel:
Enclosed is your copy of the executed Professional Services Agreement for the above referenced project
between the City of Muskegon and URS Corporation Great Lakes.
I can be reached at 616.574.8352 if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
URS Corporation
:D~Cl/JL
Diana Coughlin
1
Administrative Assistant
Surface Transportation
Enclosure
Cc: Mike Guter, URS Corporation
URS Corporation
3950 Sparks Drive, SE
Grand Rapids, Ml 49546
Tel: 616.574.8500
Fax: 616.57 4.8542
URS
GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
("Agreement")
This Agreement between City of Muskegon, 933 Terrace Street, Muskegon, Michigan 49440, (231) 724-
6705, ("Client") and URS Corporation Great Lakes ("URS"), a Michigan corporation; 3950 Sparks Drive
SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546 (616) 574-8500 is effective as of March 17, 2005. The parties agree as
follows:
ARTICLE I - Services. URS agrees to perform for Client the professional services ("Services") described in
URS proposal dated March 3, 2005 ("Proposal"), attached and incorporated herein. Because of the
uncertainties inherent in the Services contemplated, time schedules are only estimated schedules and are
subject to revision unless otherwise specifically described in the Proposal. As full consideration for the
performance of Services, Client shall pay to URS the compensation provided for in the Proposal.
ARTICLE II - Payment. Unless otherwise stated in a Work Order, payment shall be on a time and
materials basis under the Schedule of Fees and Charges in effect when the Services are performed.
Client shall pay undisputed portions of each progress invoice within thirty (30) days of the date of the
invoice. If payment is not maintained on a thirty (30) day current basis, URS may suspend further
performance until payments are current. Client shall notify URS of any disputed amou nt within fifteen (15)
days from date of the invoice, give reasons for the objection, and promptly pay the undisputed amount.
Client shall pay an additional charge of one and one-half percent (1 Yz%) per month or the maximum
percentage allowed by law, whichever is the lesser, for any past due amount. In the event of a legal action
for invoice amounts not paid, attorneys' fees, court costs, and other related expenses sha ll be paid to the
prevailing party.
ARTICLE Ill - Professional Responsibility. URS is obligated to comply w ith applicable standards of
professional care in the performance of the Services. Client recognizes th at opin ions relating to
environmental, geologic, and geotechnical conditions are based on limited data and that actual conditions
may vary from those encountered at the times and locations where the data are obtained, despite the use
of due professional care. URS is not responsible for designing or advising on or otherwise taking
measures to prevent or mitigate the effect of any act of terrorism or any action that may be taken in
controlling , preventing, suppressing or in any way relating to an act of terrorism .
ARTICLE IV - Responsibility for Others. URS shall be responsible to Client for URS S ervices and the
services of URS subcontractors. URS shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of other parties
engaged by Client nor for their construction means, methods, techniques, sequences , or procedures, or
their health and safety precautions and programs.
ARTICLE V - Risk Allocation. The liability of URS, its employees , agents and subcontractors (referred to
collectively in this Article as "URS"), for Client's claims of loss, injury, death , damage, or expense,
including, without limitation, Client's claims of contribution and indemnification, express or implied, w ith
respect to third party claims relating to services rendered or obligations imposed under this Agreement,
including all Work Orders, shall not exceed in the aggregate:
(1) The total sum of $100,000 for claims arising out of professional negligence, including
errors, omissions, or other professional acts, and including unintentional breach of contract; or
(2 ) The total sum of $1,000,000 for claims arising out of negligence, breach of contract, or
other causes for which URS has any legal liability, other than as limited by (1) above.
ARTICLE VI - Consequential Damages. Neither Party shall be liable to the other for consequen tial
damages, including, without limitation, loss of use or loss of profits, incurred by one another or their
subsidiaries or successors, regardless of whether such damages are caused by breach of contract, willful
misconduct, negligent act or omission, or other wrongful act of either of them .
PSA-2 (Rev. 1).DOC 30-Aug-04 1 -
ARTICLE VII - Client Responsibility. Client shall: (1) provide URS, in writing, all information relating to
Client's requirements for the project; (2) correctly identify to URS, the location of subsurface structures,
such as pipes, tanks , cables and utilities; (3) notify URS of any potential hazardous substances or other
health and safety hazard or condition known to Client existing on or near the project site; (4) give URS
prompt written notice of any suspected deficiency in the Services; and (5) wi th reasonable promptness ,
provide required approvals and decisions. In the event that URS is requested by Client or is required by
subpoena to produce documents or give testimony in any action or proceeding to which Client is a party
and URS is not a party, Client shall pay URS for any time and expenses required in connection therewith,
including reasonable attorney's fees.
ARTICLE VIII - Force Majeure. An event of "Force Majeure" occurs when an event beyond the control of
the Party claiming Force Majeure prevents such Party from fulfill ing its obligations. An event of Force
Majeure includes, without limitation, acts of God (including floods, hurricanes and other adverse weather),
war, riot, civil disorder, acts of terrorism, disease, epidemic, strikes and labor disputes, actions or inactions of
government or other authorities, law enforcement actions, curfews, closure of transportation systems or other
unusual travel difficulties, or inability to provide a safe working environment for employees.
In the event of Force Majeure, the obligations of URS to perform the Services shall be suspended for the
duration of the event of Force Majeure. In such event, URS shall be equ itably compensated for time
expended and expenses incurred during the event of Force Majeure and the schedule shall be extended
by a like number of days as the event of Force Majeure. If Services are suspended for thirty (30) days or
more, URS may, in its sole discretion, upon 5 days prior written notice, terminate this Agreement or the
affected Work Order, or both. In the case of such termination, in addition to the compensation and time
extension set forth above, URS shall be compensated for all reasonable termin ation expenses .
ARTICLE IX - No Third Party Rights. This Agreement shall not create any rights or benefits to parties
other than Client and URS. No third party shall have the right to rely on URS opinions rendered in
connection with the Services without URS written consent and the third party's agreement to be bound to
the same conditions and limitations as Client.
THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE that there has been an opportunity to negotiate the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and agree to be bound accordingly.
City of Muskegon
·~
J?t,~H/ 3 ~ 2 2-ll)-
Signature
Mohammed AI-Shatel, PE Theresa S. Petko, AICPNP/Surface Transportation Mgr.
Typed Name/Title Typed Name/Title
J -22 .oc OS/St:Jit1~
Date of Signature Date of Signature
f ~\IV\., Y"'" ss \o" f\c.. tr a,,
5- ~ -D-f,.
PSA-2 (Rev. 1).DOC 30-Aug-04 2 -
••
URS
March 3, 2005
Mohammed S. AI-Shatel, PE
City of Muskegon
Engineering Department
933 Terrace Street
Muskegon, Michigan 49440
RE: Proposal
Full Construction Engineering Services
Shoreline Drive from Webster Avenue to First Street
Dear Mr. AI-Shatel:
We are pleased to present the enclosed Proposal (three copies) for your consideration and are excited to have this
opportunity to help you deliver a quality transportation improvement for the City of Muskegon. Our team will
communicate and coordinate all issues of concem directly with you throughout the construction season.
Communication is the cornerstone of our services and will be vitally important in making sure you are getting the
services that you expect.
We understand the importance of the Shoreline Drive project to the City of Muskegon. The corridor must be complete
for the very important Muskegon Summer Celebration beginning on June 30. We will work with the City and Jackson-
Merkey Contractors to complete this project prior to the completion date of June 24. Some of the notable qualities of
our team include:
• A very experienced senior technician that will be fully dedicated to your project.
• Extensive experience working with road and bridge plans and MOOT specifications.
• Experience working on projects with expedited schedules.
• Efficient teamwork and low overhead rate that provide a great value for construction engineering services.
If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please feel free to contact me at 616-574-8356. We appreciate
your time to review our proposal and thank you for considering our team for these services.
Sincerely,
URS Corporation· Great Lakes
Theresa Petko, Vice President
Surface Transportation Division Manager
URS Corporation
3950 Sparks Drive, SE
Grand Rapids, Ml 49546
Tel: 616.574.8500
Fax: 616.57 4.8542
' .
PROPOSAL
for
City of Muskegon
PROJECT LOCATION:
Shoreline Drive
Webster Avenue to First Street
March 3, 2005
1JRS
3950 Sparks Drive SE • Grand Rilpids. i\fichig;m • 616.57~.8500
. ))
7
URS
March 3, 2005
Mohammed S. AI-Shatel, PE
City of Muskegon
Engineering Department
933 Terrace Street
Muskegon, Michigan 49440
RE: Proposal
Full Construction Engineering Services
Shoreline Drive from Webster Avenue to First Street
Dear Mr. AI-Shatel:
We are pleased to present the enclosed Proposal (three copies) for your consideration and are excited to have this
opportunity to help you deliver a quality transportation improvement for the City of Muskegon. Our team will
communicate and coordinate all issues of concern directly with you throughout the construction season.
Communication is the cornerstone of our services and will be vitally important in making sure you are getting the
services that you expect.
We understand the importance of the Shoreline Drive project to the City of Muskegon. The corridor must be complete
for the very important Muskegon Summer Celebration beginning on June 30. We will work with the City and Jackson-
Merkey Contractors to complete this project prior to the completion date of June 24. Some of the notable qualities of
our team include:
• A very experienced senior technician that will be fully dedicated to your project.
• Extensive experience working with road and bridge plans and MDOT specifications.
• Experience working on projects with expedited schedules.
• Efficient teamwork and low overhead rate that provide a great value for construction engineering services.
If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please feel free to contact me at 616-574-8356. We appreciate
your time to review our proposal and thank you for considering our team for these services.
Sincerely,
URS Corporation· Great Lakes
Theresa Petko, Vice President
Surface Transportation Division Manager
URS Corporation
3950 Sparks Drive, SE
Grand Rapids, Ml 49546
Tel: 6t6.574.8500
Fax: 616.574.8542
Table of Contents
Page Number
Organizational Chart 2
Structure of Project Team 3-4
Rate Table 5
Estimated Cost 6
Resumes 7-20
Construction Engineering Project Experience 21-24
SME Proposal 25-30
•
ORGANIZATION CHART
City of Muskegon
Proposed Shoreline Drive
URS Corporation
Brian Seykora
Phil Yartey
Ins ection I Office Team
Contact Person:
Mike Guter, PE (Project Manager)
3950 Sparks Dr., S.E.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546
616-574-8500
616-57 4-854 2 Fax
Email: mike_guter@urscorp.com
2
STRUCTURE OF PROJECT TEAM
Our team consists of experienced professionals who are ready to help the City of Muskegon obtain its
goals for this project. The role of each key staff member that will be assigned to the project is as follows:
Mike Guier, PE will serve as the project manager. He will insure that the proper resources are dedicated to
the project and that communication between the project stakeholders is maintained. Mr. Guier will be
responsible for coordinating our service delivery, provide oversight for the project engineering, monitor the
overall progress of the project and provide quality assurance. Mr. Guier will pay particular attention to the
project progress as it compares to the project schedule and proactively work with Jackson-Merkey
Contractors to make sure the completion date is met. Mr. Guier will be the primary contract for Mr. AI-
Shatel, will directly communicate with him regards contractual and project issues and will carbon copy all
project correspondence to him. Mr. Guier is an experienced negotiator and will lead cost, schedule or other
negotiations as they are required with Jackson-Merkey.
Nate VanDrunen, PE will serve as the project engineer. Mr. VanDrunenwill proactively work with the City
of Muskegon, Jackson-Merkey Contractors and the inspectors to ensure that the Shoreline Drive
improvement project minimizes impacts to the motoring public, plans and specifications are followed, and
the project stays on schedule and within budget. Mr. VanDrunen will:
• Assist Mike Guter in leading the bi-weekly progress meetings and distributing meeting minutes.
• Be intimately involved with the project at the field level.
• Set up the contract in Field Manager and operate FieldManager.
• Submit pay estimates to the City of Muskegon.
• Process contract changes and prepare contract modifications.
• Monitor material testing and requirements.
• Provide technical support for the inspection staff.
• Coordinate with Bob Van Sickle .on addressing and resolving project issues.
• Responsible for keeping an updated set of "as-built" plans.
Mr. Guter and Mr. VanDrunen will review the proposed schedule and discuss with the Contractor.
Drainage, aggregate base protection, sand base protection and traffic maintenance issues will be
considered, specifically for the period of time between removal of existing pavement and it's replacement.
The schedule as it pertains to maintaining traffic on a hard surface along Th'lrd and Fourth Streets will also
be reviewed. Material removal, specifically excavation, will be closely monitored to insure that proper
testing and handling of contaminated material is perfomed if it is determined to be required. As project
issues arise, Mr. Guier and Mr. VanDrunen will investigate and determine the cause of the problem and the
impacts to the construction schedule and budget. We will coordinate with Jackson-Merkey to formulate
resolutions for each problem. The possible resolutions will be presented to Mr. AI-Shatel with a
recommendation prior to taking action. We will understand the project issues, the potential resolutions and
schedule and cost ramifications so that well-informed decisions can be made.
Bob Van Sickle will serve as the senior inspector. Mr. Van Sickle has over 38 years of experience on
MOOT construction projects. He is an expert in all aspects of road construction and has completed several
projects similar to this one. He has the knowledge and experience to handle all of the issues that will come
up on this Shoreline Drive project. He will
• Be on the project full-time from the beginning to the end.
• Be the primary UPS contact on-site.
-'" URS
• Document the contractor's daily activities (lOR's).
• Perform inspection and documentation during all phases of the project.
• Perform as the NPDES and stormwater operator inspector.
• Maintain and submit weekly NPDES reports and after significant rainfall events.
• Perform density testing on embankment, existing material and drainage course if he is available.
• Coordinate and schedule the material testing and verification survey.
In addition to the construction activities, Mr. Van Sickle will focus on traffic controls and the detour routes so
that motorists will continue to have safe travel around and through lhe project site throughout the
construction period.
This project will be on a fast pace schedule and we expect that Jackson-Merkey will work long days and
weeks. Brian Seykora will serve as an inspector. He will be available to assist Bob Van Sickle when an
additional inspector is required and in the evenings and on weekends when the days and weeks are long.
He has over 13 years of experience in construction inspection and material testing. Mr Seykora will perform
all necessary inspection, documentation, density testing and concrete testing that is required to fully
support Mr. Van Sickle. Philip Yartey will serve as a junior engineer. He may assist with inspection,
maintaining the project files and performing Field Manager duties as needed throughout the course of this
project.
Hank Mulder, PS will serve as our surveyor on this project. He is prepared to provide horizontal and
vertical control staking that is necessary to get the contractor staker underway. He will also provide survey
verification per the contract specifications and determined by Mr. Van Sickle during the construction
process.
Soils & Materials Engineers, Inc. (SME) will serve as a subconsultant and perform all necessary
aggregate testing and concrete cylinder breaks. They will assist with concrete and density testing on this
project. We anticipate needing help when Bob Van Sickle and/or Brian Seykora cannot perform their
inspection responsibilities and the material testing because of multiple construction activities happening at
once. SME will have technicians in the Muskegon area on a daily basis while this construction project is
ongoing, therefore, their inspection and testing services will be coordinated to maximize the efficiency of
our service. Lou Northouse, PE will serve as the subconsultant project manager and will provide quality
assurance. A copy of the SME Fee Schedule Personnel and Expenses is attached.
URS
URS Corporation
Rate Table for Construction Engineering Services
For January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005
Classification Hourly Rate
Project Manager $ 90.00
Senior Engineer $ 90.00
Engineer $ 68.00
Junior Engineer $ 52.00
Survey Crew $ 120.00
Senior Inspector $ 65.00
Inspector $ 52.00
Inspector OT $ 62.00
Administrative I Clerical $ 45.00
Direct Expenses Rate
Transportation Charge ... per mile $ 0.405
Nuclear Density Gauge ... per day $ 50.00
Express Mailing ... per mailing $ 20.00
5
Estimated Cost Proposal for City of Muskegon
Project Description:
Plan & Profile of Proposed Shoreline Drive, Webster Ave. to First St.
Prime Consultant. URS Corporation Great Lakes
Classification Person Hours X Hourly Rate = Labor Costs
Project Manager 80 $ 90.00 $ 7,200.00
Project Engineer 305 $ 68.00 $ 20,740.00
Junior Engineer 150 $ 52.00 $ 7,800.00
Survey Crew 56 $ 120.00 $ 6,720.00
Senior Inspector 720 $ 65.00 $ 46,800.00
Inspector 452 $ 52.00 $ 23,504.00
Total $ 112,764.00
Direct Expenses Rate = Costs
Transportation Charge (150 roundtrips from GR to Muskegon + jobsite} 18,000 mi. $ 0.405 $ 7,290.00
Nuclear Density Gauge 35 days $ 50.00 $ 1,750.00
Express Mailing 6 ea. $ 20.00 $ 120.00
Total $ 9,160.00
SubConsultant Rate = Costs
Soils & Materials Engineers $ 8,000.00
Total Estimate Construction Engineering Cost $ 129,924.00 *
• for estimating purposes only
6
URS
Michael S. Guter, PE
Project Manager
Overview
Surface transportation engineering including construction engineering and
design and plan production for structures and roads.
Project Specific Experience
Surface Transportation
Areas of Expertise
M-6 from 1-96 to 1-196, Kent County, Michigan
Transportation Engineering
Assistant Project Engineer responsible for assisting the l:v1DOT Grand
Years of Experience Rapids TSC Project Engineer and supervising URS inspection staff The
\\'ith URS: 6 Years project .involves concrete paving and restoration, drainage, guardrail,
\X1ith Other Finns: 7 Years permanent signs, ITS, and pavement markings along 20 miles of new
Education freeway.
BS/ 199 3/Civil Engineering/ Calvin
M-6 at US-131 Interchange, Kent County, Michigan
College
Project Engineer responsible for managing the project and supervising
Registration/Certification and coordinating client relationship, UR..c; staff and subconsultant staff.
1997 /Professional URS was selected by ivillOT to provide full constmction engineering
Enginecr/l'vlichigan N oA 3131 services for this $140 million, four-year construction project 1he project
2000/Profession~lEngineer/New involves building a new M-6 South Beltline freeway cloverleaf interchange
Mexico No, 14854 with the US-131 freeway, located south of Grand Rapids. The services
include road, bridge, electrical and ITS inspection, QA surveying/testing
and project documentation for building 2.5 miles of new freeway,
reconstructing 4 miles of existing freeway, 28 new bridges, 18 retaining
walls, sound walls, and placement and g1:ading of more than 5 million
cubic meters of earthwork. This is a high impact project effecting
thousands of motorists each day, as well as the many businesses within
the construction influence area.
US-131 S-Curve, City of Grand Rapids, Michigan
Staff Coordinator responsible for assigning, managing, and providing
direct oversight of constmction inspectors and surveyors. The
consttuction inspectors performed inspection for the removal and
replacement of 5 bridge structures totaling 850 meters in lengcl1 and the
construction of 790 meters of MSE walls, The surveyors provided quality
assurance of the contractor staking. The US-131 S-Curve includes two
directions of 4 to 5 lanes and full interior and exterior shoulders. The
project construction cost was approximately $115 million and was open to
NB and SB traffic within 10 months of beginning work. Assistance was
7
URS
also provided throughout the project to the lv1ichigan Department of
Transportation in identi~ring and solving construction issues and
problems.
M-3 at Quinn and Masonic, Macomb County, Mlchigan
Project Manager responsible for providing and managing construction
inspection and testing for this cold milling and resurfacing project. 111e
project improved safety at the Quinn and lvfasonic intersections with 1{-3,
also known as Gratiot Avenue.
1-196 in Kent County, Michigan
Project 1'vfanagcr responsible for the inspection and testing of permanent
sign installations along I-196 in Kent County. The project was 13.9 miles
in length, included 1,100 permanent signs with 25 overhead sign
structures and had a construction cost of $1.6 million.
Structures over I-96 Bridge Scoping, Detroit, Michigan
Project Engineer. Performed detailed onsite .inspections to evaluate the
condition of nine existing steel girder structures. A report was generated
recommending economical rehabilitation strategies based upon the field
investigation and life cycle cost analyses.
I-375 East Riverfront Area Access Improvement, Detroit, MI
Value Engineering Team Member for this $60 million project to provide
I-375 traffic with direct access to the Detroit Riverfront Area through a
gateway corridor which includes aesthetic clements to enhance the
downtown architecture. Included in project are 8 new or reconstructed
bridges, over 2000 feet of retaining wall, a couple mile;s of roadway
reconstruction, and multiple soil and utilit)' issues.
I-96 Interchange at Beck Road, Oaldand County, Michigan
Quality Assurance Reviewer responsible for plan review of a Single Point
Urban Interchange (SPUI). The project is a interchange expansion project
that included road, bridge, maintaining traffic, pavement markings,
signing, and side street improvements.
M-37 over Muskegon River, Newaygo County, Michigan
Project Engineer responsible for the design and preparation of
specifications for the rehabilitation of an existing 169m, five span steel
girder br1dge. TI1e project includes the design of a concrete deck
replacement, approach improvements, and utility conflict resolution.
8
URS
US-31 B R from Montague to US-31, Muskegon County, Michigan
Structural Engineer responsible for the design and preparation of
specifications for a retaining wall along 150 meters of roadway. A soldier
pile wall was designed alongside a cemetery in a "cut" section.
Scotten Avenue over US-12, City of Detroit, Michigan
Project Engineer responsible for the design and preparation of
specifications for the rehabilitation of an existing 42 meter, two-span steel
girder bridge. The project included the design of concrete deck
replacement, placement of an aesthetic facade on the existing
substmcturc, removal of existing stairwells, replacement of the bridge
railings, and approach improvements.
US-31BR from Montague to US-31, Muskegon County, Michigan
Structural Engineer responsible for the design and preparation of
specifications for retaining walls along 180 meters of roadway. The
project included the design of a retaining wall alongside a cemetery in a
cut section and a retaining wall alongside a ravine in a fill section.
I-196 Westbound from Chicago Drive to M-11, Grandville, Michigan
Project Engineer responsible for designing and preparation of
specifications for the addition of a 1200-meter merge/\veave lane. The
project included design for widening of the l-196 Westbound structure
over Buck Creek that required both a hydraulic analysis and a scour
analysis. Also, floodplain and wetland associated with the Grand River
was impacted. This required a hydraulic analysis and preparation of
impact information for lv!DEQ and 1\rmy Corps of Engineers permits.
Curtis Road over Tittabawassee River, Midland County, Michigan
Constmct:ion Engineer responsible for the inspection of the replacement
of an existing 92 meter five span bridge with a proposed 97 meter three
span bridge. Also prepared the project documentation and performed
required project management, including coordination with materials
testing consultant.
120th Street over the Black River, Ottawa County, Michigan
Construction Engineer responsible for the inspection of the substmcture
·widening and superstructure replacement of an existing 38 meter three
span bridge. Also prepared the project documentation and performed
required project management, including coordination with materials
testing consultant and the Ottawa Countyr Road Commission, who
perfo11ned the roadway inspection.
9
URS
Leonard Street over Deer Creek, Ottawa County, Michigan
Construction Engineer responsible for the inspection of the replacement
of an existing 18m steel stringer bridge with a proposed 27m concrete
bridge and the improvement of 0.5 km of approach roadway. Also
prepared the project documentation and performed required project
management, including coordination with materials te::;ting consultant.
Jordan Lake Road, Ionia County, Michigan
Construction Engineer responsible for the inspection and the
rehabilitation of 10 km of county roadway. The project included
pavement reconstruction, culvert replacements, and geotextile support
treatment on poor soils. Prepared the required project documentation and
coordinated with the Ionia County Road Commission, who performed
the QA/QC of over 45,000 metric tons of bituminous mixtures.
Tuttle Hill Road over Paint Creek, Washtenaw County, Michigan
Construction Engineer responsible for the inspection of the replacement
of an existing 18 meter truss bridge with a proposed 27 meter concrete
bridge. Also prepared the project documentation and performed required
project management, including coordination -with materials testing
consultant.
Professional Societies/Affiliates
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Concrete Institute
Continuing Education
Project Management Certification, URS, 2004
Construction l:Vfanagcment, American Institute for Professional Training
and Development, 2000
Project Management, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1999
Practical Concrete I\1aterials, American Concrete Institute, 1999
Troubleshoo6ng Concrete Construction, American Concrete Institute,
1998
Slabs on Grade, American Concrete Institute, 1997
Bridge Inspection Workshop, Michigan Department Of Transportation,
1995
10
URS
Nathan M. VanDrunen, PE
Senior Civil/ Highway Engineer
Project Specific Experience
D Avenue over the Kalamazoo River, Kalamazoo County, MI, 2004
Project Engineer responsible for managing the project in coordination
with the K.alamazoo County Engineer. Duties included supervising the
inspection staff and sub-consultants, supervising and performing the
Areas of Expertise construction staking, NPDES reports and FieldManager. This $2.8
·rransporrat.ion Engineenng million project involved the removal of the old four span steel structure
Years of Experience and t\vin culvert, construction of a 3-span concrete I -beam structure, and
With URS: 8 Years the construction of a 24' x 11' pre-cast box culvert. 1l1e project also
\\-'ith Other Firms: n Years included I-HviA paving, stonn sewer installation, guardrail improvements,
Education non-hazardous contaminated material testing, dewatering and bridge
BS/ 1998/Engineering/ approach construction.
Cakin College
Registration/Certification State Street Crush & Shape, Fife Lake, Michigan, 2004
2002/Registcred Professional Assistant Project Engineer. Responsibilities included supervising and
Engineer/Mil 6201049258 training the inspection staff, initial project set-up, supervising traffic
2004/ATTSA. Cerritied Traffic control and detour set-up and determining removal limits for curb &
Control Supervisor gutter removal and H1v[A_ crush & shape operations. This project
2000/Certified Storm water included 2 miles of HlvfA crush and shape, box culvert replacement and
:t\Ianagemcnt Operator stonn sewer improvements.
1999 /Certified Railroad Worker
Safety M-6 South Beltline & US-131 Interchange, Wyoming, MI, 2001-2004
Professional Societies Assistant Project Engineer. Responsibilities included supervising
American Society of Civil inspection staff, sub-consultant coordination, project work orders,
Engineers (;\SCE) contract modifications and field documentation. Responsibility for
Specialized Training specific items of work included expansion joint replacements, backwall
Construction .i\dministration for repairs, deck patching, substructure and superstructure concrete patching
Engineers/ ,\SCE and bridge approach constniCtion. The services for this $140 million
Concrete Paving lnspcelion/ project included QA surveying, material testing and project
MDOT documentation for 2.5 miles of new concrete freeway ,·vith Hlv{A
CPM Training /1\UJOT shoulders, reconstructing 4 miles of existing concrete freeway, 28 new
bridges, 18 retaining walls, sound walls, and placement and grading of
more than 5 million cubic meters of earthwork.
II
URS
US-131 "S-Curve" Bridges, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000-2001
Inspector. Project involved the total reconstruction of 7 bridges and the
partial reconstruction of 2 other bridges in downtown Grand Rapids.
1bis is a fast track project, which included the demolition of all existing
structures and the construction of new structures, four lanes in each
direction . .t\hin duties included \Vriting Inspector Daily Reports (IDR),
making field measurements, recording quantities, and making sure the job
is built according to the design plan and follows I'viDOT specifications.
M-44 (Plainfield Avenue) over 1-96, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1999
Inspector. Project involved the part-width reconstruction of a S-lane
bridge over I-96 and the resurfacing of 5 miles of Plainfield Avenue.
Duties included inspection and documentation of bridge reconstruction~
traffic signal replacement, coldrnilling, pavement joint repair, and fUv1A
resurfacing to ensure the job was completed according to plan and \vithin
MDOT specifications.
BS-196 Chicago Drive Reconstruction, Wyoming, Michigan, 1998
Inspector. Project involved the total reconstruction of a four-lane
highway facility through an industrial area. Primary duties included
inspection, measurement and documentation of aggregate base, HtvfA
pavement, HI\·1A drive\vays, concrete curb & gutter and restoration.
M-21 Main Street Repaving, Lowell, Michigan, 1998
Inspector. The surface of the old composite pavement of :t\:f-21 through
Lmvell was milled off and then overlaid with new bituminous. Duties
included inspection, measurement and documentation of milling
operations, Hl:viA pavement, concrete curb & gutter repairs.
Pedestrian Bridge over 1-355, Lombard, Illinois, 1996
Inspector. The project included the construction of a two span bridge
over I-355 carrying pedestrian walkway/ bike path and the consttuction
of two 30-foot tall MSE retaining walls. Duties included surveying path
cross-sections, field measurements, inspection, and \vriting Inspector
Daily Reports for various stages of construction.
12
URS
Robert E. Van Sickle
Senior Road I Bridge Construction Inspector
Overview
Over 38 years of experience as a construction inspector and as a survey
tech. Senred one year as an office technician checking reports and posting
all project documentation, and 17 \vinters working with the Grand Rapids
Design Sguad.
Project Specific Experience
Areas of Expertise
Surface Transportation/ Quality M-6 (1-196 to M-37), Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2004
Control Senior Inspector on 2 restoration projects for iviDOT. Primary
responsibilities included all pay items for the topsoil, seeding and mulch
Years of Experience
operations, guardrail items and soil erosion items. NPDES inspector
With URS: 7 Years
filing a tninimum of one report a week, more during significant periods of
w·id1 MDOT: 32 Years
rainfall. Assisted !\{DOT's Senior Technician with project oversight as
Education was necessary.
Specialized Training/Part 91. Soil
Erosion & Sedimentation US-131 & M-6 Interchange, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2001- 2004
Control (Exp. 8.21.08)/MDEQ Senior Inspector. Provided project oversight on the largest job let to
Specialized Training/ Certified date in the State of l'vfichigan (three years~ $144 million). It \Vas a joint
Water Operator (Exp. 7.1.11)/ venture between two consultants, URS Corporation & FTCH. There
DNR were as many as 24 inspectors working all phases of this job, earthwor~
Specialized Training/Surveying I 28 bridges, retaining walls, drainage, and retention / detention ponds.
and II/MOOT Assisted the PE with damage claims, complaints and personnel
Specialized Training/Driven Pile coordination. Also, collected accident reports from the policing agencies
Foundations - Construction for the project files. Helped preside over bi-weekly progress meetings
lv!onitoring/N HI between the three prime contractors, :tvlDOT and che consultants.
Certiticate/Michigan .-\ggrega le Provided QA / QC checking of the !DR's as needed and was d1e NPDES
Technician (Exp. 5.31.05)/ inspector filing a minimum of one report a week.
MDOT
M-45, Allendale, Michigan, 2004
Senior Inspector. Provided project inspection and oversight for an
enhancement project on M-45 in the City of Allendale. The project
involved landscaping with sprinklers and light poles placed along M-45, as
well as in the median. Sidewalk locations were staked as well as the new
pedestrian bridges.
13
URS
M-44 (Plainfield Ave.) Bridge Over I-96, Grand Rapids, MI, 1999
Senior Inspector/Lead Worker responsible for collecting and checking
daily reports and supporting documentation from the inspectors on the
project. Filed NPDES reports, bi-weekly progress reports, daily concrete
reports, and made sure the sub-consultants filed all testing reports on the
project. Provided project oversight for all paperwork and inspection
phases, including the coldmilling, joint repair, and resurfacing of 5 miles
of Plainfield 1\ve. Helped maintain the project files, wrote work orders,
generated contract modifications, and checked bi-weekly pay estimates for
our field manager program.
US-131 "S-Curve", Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000
Senior Inspector/Lead Worker responsible for as many as 12 bridge
inspectors working on five different bridges. Collected all daily reports
(!DR's) and supporting documentation for QA/QC checks before
subrnitting it to l'viDOT for their field manager processing. Provided
project oversight and helped to train the younger inspectors.
Chicago Drive, BS I-196, Wyoming, Michigan, 1998
Senior Inspector/Lead \Vorker on this project \vith as many as five
Inspectors. Responsible for collecting all daily reports, including testing
reports, and keeping track of all pay items. Also worked very closely \\rith
the city of\XIyom.ing's Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Inspectors. Acted
as liaison between the contractors, City of\\fyoming Engineering
Department and the property owners and business people on the project.
Completely reconstructed 1.74 miles of Chicago Drive, upgrading the
storm sewer, sanitary sewer and watermain. Placed concrete curb and
gutter the entire length of the job. The project was done in several stages,
which required the maintaining and upgrading of all drives and
intersections. A new traffic sig-nal was also added at Burlingame Avenue.
M-45 Resurfacing, US-31 to Eastmam~lle, Michigan
Senior Inspector on joint repair and resurfacing o[ 6 miles of M-45.
Also, shoulder work and guardrail upgrading.
M-120 (Muskegon Causeway), Muskegon, Michigan
Bituminous Paving Inspector on one mile of dual lane roadway. Also,
did bituminous paving density.
14
URS
I-96 (US-131 to Marne), Michigan
Bituminous Paving Inspector on eight miles of"fast-u·ack'' project.
Also, resurfaced the Marne rest area. Provided oversight on super
corrections on this project.
l-96 Cold Mill Resurfacing and Yellowbook Work, Muskegon to
Fruitport, !Yfichigan
Senior Inspector on 8 bridge deck overlays from I\{uskegon to Fruitport,
including all testing, steel replacement, yield checks and texturizing. This
project also included cold milling and resurfacing five miles of I-96,
several ramp widenings and extension and guardrail upgrading.
M-46 (Apple Avenue), Muskegon, Michigan
Inspector on one mile of reconstruction of Apple Avenue. Responsible
for sanitary sewer, water main, density on backfill, curb and gutter and
bituminous paving.
Broadmoor Avenue (M-37), Grand Rapids, Michigan
Senior Survey Technician on M-37 from 29th Street to 60th Street.
Responsible for all grade books, slope stake notes, row staking; subgrade,
sand grade and finish grade stakes; locating, staking and grading
undercuts; staking and grading retention ponds; staking and grading a
wetland; all water main, sanitary sewer and curb -and gutter stakes.
Provided oversight on all final measurements, drawings and earthwork
computations.
US-31, Montague and Whitehall, Michigan
Paint Inspector on six bridges on US-31. Inspected sandblasting,
checked different paint thickness and inspected all traffic control devices.
US-31 Construction, Ludington, Michigan
Sur·vey Technician in charge of survey crew staking subgtade, sand, gravel
and paving stakes on 10 miles of US-31 freeway south of Ludington.
Lakewood Boulevard at US-31, HoUand, Michigan
Inspector on the grade of four ramps at the new interchange. Also,
density inspector, curb and gutter, concrete paving, bit1m1inous shoulders
and bitunllnous street on Lakewood Boulevard. Responsible for concrete
testing (air, slump, etc).
15
URS
I-96 7" Concrete Overlay, Portland to Ionia, Michigan
Inspector on r concrete overlay over existing roadway. Laid out new 41 1
joint spacing so no new joint was constructed directly above an existing
one, oversaw the 111 bituminous bond breaker over existing road and
inspected all new drainage along shoulders of roadway. Took all guality
control concrete checks, monitored steel placement and collected tickets
for peld checks.
M-21, Saranac, to Ionia, to Pewamo, Michigan
Inspector on Bituminous overlay and yellowbook upgrading of 12 miles
of !vf-21. Extended all drajnage to newly cleaned out ditche.s, widened
shoulders and upgraded guardraiL
US-131, Wyoming, Michigan
Inspector on bridge widenings at 36th and 44th Streets mrer US-131.
Responsible for concrete quality control testing on bridge footings,
columns, piercaps and bridge decks. Also, chained in all anchor bolts and
inspected the placement of bridge beams (Red Iron).
US-31, Grand Haven, Michigan
Inspector on the upgrading of the approach to the Bascule Bridge on
US-31. Included widening to six lanes, all grading, fast set joint patching,
new curb and gutter, and bit paving. Also, bridge deck overlays and
replacement of the NB Bridge deck over the sough channel of the Grand
River.
US-31, Saugatuck, Michigan
Inspector on rest area site. Responsible for grade and density inspection
on ramps entering and leaving new rest area as well as the parking lots.
Served as bituminous Paving Inspector as well. Also, Inspector on rest
area building checking plans, shop drawings and inspection of all
side\valks, curb and gutter, plumbing, electrical, water testing, and picnic
tables.
M-120 Bridge Replacement, North Muskegon, Michigan
Inspector on br1dge over railroad at the old Zephyr Oil Company site.
Removed bridge and constructed a new one. Responsible for line and
grade on bridge, aU concrete testing, measure in anchor bolts, check steel
placement, setting steel beams and placing of bridge deck. Also,
constructed approaches. Responsible for density testing, sand and gravel
staking, and bituminous paving inspection.
16
URS
Brian D. Seykora
Senior Inspector I Material Testing
Project Specific Experience
M-3 (Gratiot Avenue)@ Masonic Road Resurfacing, Macornb
County, Michigan, 2004
Sc;;nior Inspector responsible for all project inspection. This $350,000
project involved HI\L\ coldmilling, joint repairs, resurfacing, curb and
Areas of Expertise gutter removal and replacement, drainage improvements and intersection
Inspection / T('sting improvements.
Years of Experience
Permanent Signing Inspection & Testing, I-196, Kent County, 2004
\\'ith L' RS: 4 Ycars
Senior Inspector. Responsibilities included inspection and
\\'ith Other Finl1s: 10 '(ears
documentation of 25 overhead sign structures, maintenance of traffic,
Education restoration and concrete testing. 1l1is $1.6 million project also involved
B,V1990/Biologr/Univcrsity of 1100 permanent signs over a length of 13_9 miles,
Chicago
Pre-Med/1985-1986/r<:alamazoo US-31 Overhead Sign Trusses and Cantilever Replacement,
College Muskegon, Mason and Ottawa Counties, Michigan (2 projects)
Continuing Education Senior Inspector. Duties included concrete foundation inspection,
1991- Present/Grand Valley State concrete testing, removal and replacement of overhead sign trusses and
University, ,\llcndale, MI cantilevers, traffic control inspection, excavation and backfill .inspection,
Registration/Certification and restoration. These projects totaled a combined $2.0 million.
Certified Concrete Technician/
J\lichigan Concrete Association/ M-6/US-131 Interchange, Kent County, Michigan
Level 1 Inspector. Primary responsibilities included concrete pavement
Certified Radiological Safety and inspection, Hlv1A inspection, earthwork inspection, and various bridge
Nuclear Gauge Operation inspection. This $140 million project involves building a new M-6 South
Bdtline freeway cloverleaf interchange with the US-131 freeway, located
south of Grand Rapids. The services include road and bridge inspection,
QA surveying/testing and project documentation for building 25 miles of
new freeway, reconstmcting 4 miles of existing freeway, 28 new bridges,
18 retaining walls, sound walls, and placement and grading o[ more than
five million cubic meters of earthwork.
17
URS
US-131 S-Curve, City of Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000
Inspector working for STS. Performed inspection for the structural
steel installation, structural steel painting, concrete surface sealer and lvfSE
wall constmction. The project included removal and replacement of five
bridge structures totaling 850 meters in length and the construction of 790
meters of MSE walls. The surveyors provided quality assurance o[ the
con tractor staking. The project construction cost was approximately $115
million and \Vas open to northbound and southbound traffic within ten
months of beginning worlc
Chicago Drive, BS 1-196, Wyoming, Michigan, 1998
Senior Field Technician for Hopper/Sheeran/Frank.
Responsibilities included all density testing on the project. Completely
reconsllucted 1.8 miles of Chicago Drive, upgrading the storm sewer,
sanitary se\ver and watermain. Placed concrete curb and gutter the entire
length of the job. The project was done in several stages, which required
the maintaining and upgrading of all drives and intersections.
Hopper/Sheeran/Frank, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan
Senior Field Technician responsible for concrete inspection and testing,
and soils inspection and testing on various construction projects,
including schools, commercial and industrial buildings.
Amway Corporation, Ada, Michigan
Lab Technician- evaluated the quality of finished products with organic
and general chemical techniques within the Liquids Quality Assurance
Department. Frequently utilized IR spectroscopy, gas chromatography,
titration, specific gravity, and reactive index to analyze products.
18
URS
Philip Tetteh Yartey
Construction Inspector I Office Engineer
Project Specific Experience
D Avenue Bridge over the Kalamazoo River, Kalamazoo, MI, 2004
Inspector. Responsibilities included inspection and documentaLion of
guardrail installation, I LMA paving, fence installation and restoration.
This $2.8 million project also includeJ storm sewer installation, non-
Areas of Expertise hazardous contaminated material testing, dewatering and bridge approach
C:onstrucunn Inspection construction.
Years of Experience
Permanent Signing Inspection & Testing, I-196, Kent County, 2004
With URS: 1 Y car
\\fith Other Firms: I Year Inspector. Responsibilities included inspection and documentation of 25
overhead sign structures, maintenance of traffic, and restoration. _Also
Education
recorded contractoes progress and pay items for the As~ Built records.
BS/2004/Engineering/Cakin
College, Grand Rapids, Ml Tills $1.6 million project also involved 1100 pennanent signs over a
length of 13.9 miles.
Professional Societies
,-\merican SocietY of Ci,,il
US-31 Overhead Sign Trusses and Cantilever Replacement,
Engineers (_-\SCE)
Muskegon, Mason and Ottawa Counties, Michigan (2 projects)
Inspector. Duties included conctete foundation inspection, concrete
testing, removal and replacement of overhead sign trusses and cantilevers,
traffic control inspection, excavation and backfill inspection, and
restoration. These projects totaled a combined $2.0 million.
M-6/US-131 Interchange, Kent County, Michigan, 2004
Inspector. Primary duties included assisting \vith Fieldh1anager work and
project documentation, inspection of pavement markings, and assisting
with fmal project punchlist work. This $140 million project involves
building a new lvl-6 South Beltline freeway cloverleaf interchange with the
US-131 freeway, located south of Grand Rapids. The services included
road and bridge inspection, QA surveying/testing and project
documentation for building 2.5 miles of new freeway, reconstructing 4
miles of existing freeway, 28 new bridges, 18 retaining \valls, sound walls,
and placement and grading of more than 5 million cubic meters of
earthwork.
19
•
URS
Soil and Materials Engineers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2003
Intem. Duties included inspecting and surveying concrete and H:Ni.A
pavements. Rated the pavements based on their condition and classified
distresses.
Soil and Materials Engineers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2002
Intem. Duties included inspecting and smYeying concrete and HJ\1A
pavements. Rated the pavements based on their condition and classified
distresses. ~-\ssisted in perfom1ing concrete testing.
20
•
Construction Engineering Project Experience
D Avenue over the Kalamazoo River, Construction Engineering
Location: Kalamazoo County, Ml
Reference: Tom Hohm, PE
269-381-3171
Role: Prime
Construction Cost: $2.8 million
Construction Start: February 16, 2004
Construction Completion: August4, 2004
URS was selected by the Kalamazoo County Road Commission to provide full design and construction engineering services
for this $2.8 million construction project. The project involved the removal of the old four span steel structure and twin culvert,
construction of a 3-span concrete I-beam structure, and the construction of a 24' x 11' pre-cast box culvert. The project also
included HMA paving, storm sewer installation, guardrail improvements, non-hazardous contaminated material testing,
dewatering and bridge approach construction .. The services included road construction inspection, bridge construction
inspection, construction staking, material testing and project documentation.
M·44, East of Belding, Construction Engineering
Location: Ionia County, Ml
Reference: Kevin McReynolds, PE
231-937-7780
Role: Prime
Construction Cost: $1.8 million
Construction Start: August 2003
Construction Completion: November 2003
URS was selected by MDOT to provide full construction engineering services for this $1.8 million construction project. The
project involved 5 miles of HMA crushing and shaping and resurfacing on M-44 east of Belding to M-66. The services
included road construction inspection, OA surveying-testing and project documentation.
M-50, Bridge Replacement, Construction Engineering
Location: Ionia County, Ml
Reference: Kevin McReynolds, PE
231-937-7780
Role: Prime
Construction Cost: $640,000
Construction Start: April2003
Construction Completion: Substantial Completion July 2003
URS was selected by MDOT to provide full construction engineering services for this $640,000 expedited construction project.
The project consisted of the removal and replacement of 1 bridge structure. The existing structure was replaced with a precast
Hy-Span culvert. The project included 200 feet of concrete and HMA approach work on each side of the structure and a 12-
mile detour route. The services included bridge and road construction inspection, OA surveying-testing and project
documentation.
21
Construction Engineering Project Experience
Riley Street Pedestrian Underpass, Construction Engineering
Location: Zeeland, Ml
Reference: Tom Palarz, PE, Ottawa County Road Commission
616-850-7221
Role: Prime
Construction Cost: $835,000
Construction Start: June 2002
Construction Completion: September 2003
URS provided full construction engineering services for the Ottawa County Road Commission on this $840,000 construction
project. A Con Span Precast Arch Culvert was installed to act as a pedestrian underpass beneath Riley Street in the City of
Zeeland. The project also consisted of the total reconstruction and profile change of 0.33 miles of Riley Street to
accommodate the Culvert.
Permanent Signing Inspection & Testing on 1-196
Location: Kent County, Ml
Reference: Erick Kind
616-451-3091
Role: Prime
Construction Cost: $1.6 million
Construction Start: April2004
Construction Completion: November 2004
URS was selected by MOOT to provide "as needed" construction engineering services for this $1.6 million construction
project The project involved the removal and replacement of 25 overhead sign structures and 1100 permanent signs over a
length of 13.9 miles. The services included inspection, testing, OA survey and project documentation.
US-31 Overhead Sign Trusses and Cantilever Replacement (2 projects)
Location: Muskegon County & Mason County, Ml
Reference: Chris Swenski
231-777-3451
Role: Prime
Construction Cost: $2.0 million
Construction Start: September 2003
Construction Completion: May 2004
URS was selected by MOOT to provide full construction engineering services for these 2 projects totaling $2.0 million. The
services included inspection, testing, OA survey and project documentation.
22
Construction Engineering Project Experience
M·6/US·131 Interchange Construction Engineering
Location: Kent County, Ml
Reference: Erick Kind, PE
616-451-3091
Role: Prime
Construction Cost: $140 million
Construction Start: February 2001
Construction Completion: Substantial Completion: November 2003, & Final Completion: June 1, 2004
URS was selected by MDOT to provide full construction engineering services for this $140 million, four-year construction
project. The project involves building a new M-6 South Beltline freeway cloverleaf interchange with the US-131 freeway,
located south of Grand Rapids. The services include road and bridge construction inspection, QA surveying-testing and
project documentation for building 2.5 miles of new freeway, reconstructing 4 miles of existing freeway, 28 new bridges, ·18
retaining walls, sound walls, and placement and grading of more than 5 million cubic meters of earthwork. This is a high
impact project effecting thousands of motorists each day, as well as the many businesses within the construction influence
area.
US-131 S·Curve Construction Inspection
Location: Grand Rapids, Ml
Reference: Suzette Peplinski, PE
616-451-3091
Role: Prime
Construction Cost: $115 million
Construction Start: January 2000
Construction Completion: Substantial Completion: November 2000
URS was selected by MDOT to provide bridge and wall construction inspection for this $115 million, one-year expedited
construction project. The project consisted of the removal and replacement of 5 bridge structures totaling 850 meters in length
and the construction of 790 meters of MSE walls. The US-131 S-Curve includes two directions of 4 to 5 lanes and full interior
and exterior shoulders. The project was open to NB traffic within 7 months and SB traffic within 10 months of beginning work.
Assistance was also provided throughout the project to the Michigan Department of Transportation in identifying and solving
construction issues and problems.
Plainfield Ave. over 1·96, Construction Engineering
Location: Grand Rapids, Ml
Reference: Suzette Peplinski, PE
616-451-3091
Role: Prime
Construction Cost: $3 Million
Construction Start: April 1999
Construction Completion: September 2000
URS was selected by MDOT to provide full construction engineering services for this $3 million construction project. The
project consisted of the removal and replacement of a 4 span bridge over the freeway. The project also included 5 miles of
coldmilling and resurfacing. The services included bridge and road construction inspection, QA surveying-testing and project
documentation.
23
•
•
Construction Engineering Project Experience
M-66 Construction Engineering
Location: Ionia, Ml
Reference: Karl Koivisto, PE
231-937-7780
Role: Prime
Construction Cost: $1 Million
Construction Start: April1999
Construction Completion: September 1999
URS was selected by MOOT to provide full construction engineering services for this $1 million construction project. The
project consisted of 3 miles of HMA road reconstruction and drainage improvements on M-66 through the city of Ionia. The
services included road construction inspection, OA surveying-testing and project documentation.
BL-196 Chicago Drive Construction Engineering
Location: Grand Rapids, Ml
Reference: Suzette Peplinski, PE
616-451-3091
Role: Prime
Construction Cost: $2 Million
Construction Start: April1999
Construction Completion: December 1999
URS was selected by MDOT to provide full construction engineering services for this $2 million construction project. The
project consisted of 3 miles of HMA road reconstruction and drainage improvements on a section of Chicago Drive that runs
through an industrial area of Grand Rapids. The services included road construction inspection, QA surveying-testing and
project documentation.
M-21 Construction Engineering
Location: Lowell, Ml
Reference: Karl Koivisto, PE
231-937-7780
Role: Prime
Construction Cost: $1 Million
Construction Start: May 1999
Construction Completion: September 1999
URS was selected by MDOT to provide full construction engineering services for this $1 million construction project. The
project consisted of 3 miles of HMA road coldmilling, resurfacing and curb and gutter improvements on M-21 through the city
of Lowell. The services included road construction inspection, QA surveying-testing and project documentation.
24
•
March 2, 2005
Soil and Materials Engineers, Inc.
88 54th Street SW, Suite 102
Grand Rapids, M! 49548-5683
tet (616)406-1756
fax (616) 406-1749
Mr. Mike Guter, PE
www.sme-usa.com
URS Corporation
3950 Sparks Drive SE
Kenneth W. Kramer, PE Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546
Chairman Emeritus
Mark K. Kramer, PE
Frank A. Henderson, PG
Timothy H. Bedenis, PE
RE: Proposal for Construction Materials Setvices
Gerald M. Belian, PE Shoreline Drive 1"' Street to Seaway Drive
Larry P. Jedele, PE
Muskegon, Michigan
Starr D. Kohn, PhD, PE
EdwardS. Lindow, PE
Gerard P. Madej, PE
Robert C. Rabeler, PE
Dear Mike:
J. William Coberly, CET
Sheryl K. Fountain
Chuck A. Gemayel, PE
Soil and Materials Engineers, Inc. (SME) would be pleased to team with
Davie J. Hurlburt, PE you on this project As we discussed, we have already provided a significant
Cheryl Kehres-Dietrich, CGWP
Jeffery M. Krusinga, PE, GE
amount of services for this project We have performed three geotechnical
James M. Less, CIH evaluations for both the design engineer (Earthtech) and MDOT and also
Michael S. Meddock, PE provided constmction materials services as a subconsultant for Fleis and
Timothy J. Mitchell, PE
Daniel 0. Roeser, PG Vandenbrink Engineering on a previous phase of this project Therefore, we
John C. Zarzecki, CWI, COT are well suited to continue our services for this project
We understand this phase of the project extends from !"' Street to Seaway
Drive. The portion between 1'' Street and 4th Street will be a total
reconstmction with Portland cement concrete pavement The other portion
of the project will be constmcted with Asphalt concrete pavement
We understand URS will perform some of the constmction materials
services and we will be requested to perform gradation analyses and test the
compressive strength of the concrete cylinder specimens. As we discussed,
we currently have two projects in the Muskegon area and would strive to
efficiently make delivety of samples to our office. We understand MDOT
will provide the bituminous plant inspection services.
If requested, we would be pleased to provide field density and concrete
testing services with certified personneL
Plymouth
Bay City
Gr3nd Rapids
Kalamazoo
Lansing © 2005 soil and materials engineers, inc.
Shelby Township
Toledo consultants in the geosciences materials, and the envimnment
• Proposal for Construction Materials Se!Vices
Shoreline Drive 1" Street to Seaway Drive, Muskegon, Michigan March 2, 2005 -Page 2
INVESTMENT
Services will be provided on a unit fee basis, using the schedule of fees attached. If you need a
budget established for these services, we would be pleased to discuss the scope of services with
you to develop this budget.
AUTHORIZATION AND TERMS
We are prepared to serve you following authorization to proceed. A copy of our General
Conditions, which govern our services, is attached. Please sign in the space indicated, including
billing address, and return for our records.
SCHEDULING
Regarding scheduling, please contact Mr. Lou Northouse by 3:00p.m. to schedule services for
the following day.
We look forward to the oppottunity to serve you. Please call if you have questions or concerns
regarding this proposal. ·
Very truly yours,
Project Engineer Regional Manager
Attachments: Fee Schedule FS:O (1/04)
Fee Schedule FS:4 (1/04)
General Conditions (1/04)
Enclosure: 1 PC
T:\Proposals\2005
© 2005 soil and materials engineers, inc.
•
Soil/Aggregates (Continued)
Organic Impurities.. ................ . ..Each ...................... 50.00
Organic Content ............................ . ..... Each ..... .45.00
Unit Weight of Fine or Coarse Aggregate .. Each.............. ................ 50.00
Soundness of Aggregate (5 cycle) .. Each........ ................... 200.00
Crushed Content .............. . ...... Each.......................... ... 50.00
Deleterious Pick ... Each .............. 50.00
Atterberg Limits (LL + PL) .............. . ...... Each....... ..... 100.00
Hydrometer Analysis ....................... . ..Each......... .................. 100.00
Permeability Test of Liner Sample .... . ........ Each.. ..250.00
Pem1eability Test of Compacted Sample .. ..... Each ................................. 275.00
Bituminous
Bituminous J\1ix Design-3 Point lVIarshall Method ............................ . ..... Each .. ................ 650.00
One~ Point Mix Verification ...... . ........ Each .................................... 320.00
Marshall Stability and Flow Test (molded samples) ................. . ....... Per Sample . .... 80.00
MOOT Submittal for Marshall Design.. ........................... . ........ Each .. . .. 1.950.00
Density of Compacted Asphalt Sample............. ............................................ Per Sample ................. 40.00
Extraction/Gradation ofBHuminous Concrete ................. ... Each .................. . ..150.00
Asphalt Cement Content Only ....................................................... . ....... Each. .................. 75.00
Penetration of Bituminous Material........ ................ . ..... Each .. ........ 75.00
Abson Recovered Penetration with exh·action!gradation. ........ Each ... 275.00
Abson Recovered Penetration without extraction/gradation ....... Each ... 200.00
Concrete Masonry Units
Compressive Strength- Gross Area/Net .. 3 Block Set .. .. 200.00
Absorption ... ........ 3 Block Set ..... 150.00
Dimensional Re·view .. ........ 3 Block Set ... .......... 125.00
Linear Shrinkage.. ............................................................... . ....... 3 Block Set. .. ............. .400.00
Compressive Strength of Prism- Hollow.. ........ Each prism .. . ..200.00
-Solid (Grouted) ............................................... Each prism ... . .275.00
Compressive Strength ................ " ....... .. ........ 5 Brick Set .. . ............... 225.00
Modulus of Rupture for Paving Brick .. ....... 5 Brick Set... ................. 250.00
Absorption- Basic .............................. . ....... 5 Brick Set.. .......... 100.00
-Saturation Coefficient ...... . ....... 5 Brick Set. ......... 100.00
-Initial Rate (Lab method) ... 5 Brick Set .. ..100.00
Efflorescence ............ .. .. 5 Brick Set. .......... 200.00
Dimensional Review ... ..... 10 Brick Set. . .... 150.00
Gront/l'rlortar
Compressive Strength- 2" x 2" Cubes. .... Each .. . .. 30.00
- 3" x 3" x 6" Specimen ...... Each .. ..40.00
Splitting Tensile- 3" x 6" Cylinders .. ...... Each .. . .. .40.00
Roofing
Built-up RooC!'est Cut Analysis (ASTM D-2829) with aggregate .. ... Each ................. . ..... 275.00
Built-up Roof Test Cut Analysis (ASTM D-3617) without aggregate .. ........ Each .. . .... 200.00
Them1allnsulation Compressive Strength (ASTM D-1621) ...... Each .. ................. 75.00
Thennallnsulation Density (ASTM D-1622) .. ................. . ....... Each ....... 60.00
FS:4 (01/04) Page 2 of3 Effective Datelanua1y l, 2004 through December 3!, 2004
consultants in the ~wosciences, materials, and the environment
-.
•
Roofing (Continued)
Softening Point of Bitumen- Ring and Ball (ASTM D-36) ................................ Each .................................... 120.00
Measuring Voids in Roofing Membrane (ASTM D-5076).. .... Each .................................... 120.00
Fireproofing
Adhesion/Cohesion Bond Equipment ............ Per Test ....................... . .... 30.00
Density Laboratory Test ....... . .......................... Each ...................... . ..60.00
FS:4 (01/04) Page 3 of3 Effective Date January!, 2004 through December 31,2004
consultants in the geosciences, materials, and the environment
SMEPROJECTNAME: ____________________________
• '• SME PROJECT N U M B E R : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SME GENERAL CONDITIONS
I. In this Agreement, the party agreeing to have the services performed is governing SME's services and the relationship between the parties.
the "Client." The Client's client shall be refen·ed to as the "Owner". Such acceptance based on other-than-written authorization is effective
Unless expressly stated otherwise, Soil and Materials Engineers, Inc., its except for those provisions that Client objects to in writing within 7
employees, agents, subconsultants and subcontractors, are collectively days following the other-than-written authorization.
refened to as "SME."
11. SME and its staff are protected by worker's compensation insurance and
2. SME will submit invoices to Client monthly and a final bill upon SME has coverage under General Liability and Professional Liability
completion of services. insurance policies. SME will provide Client with evidence of such
policies upon written request. SME is not responsible for any loss,
3. Payment is due upon presentation of invoice to the Client and is past damage or liability arising from acts of Client, its agents, staff, and
due 30 days from date of the invoice. Client agrees to pay a scn'ice other consultants employed by Client.
charge of 1-1/2% per month, or the maximum rate allowed by law,
whichever is greater, on past due accounts. 12. In consideration for Sl\'IE's undertaking to perform .~ervices at the
rates set forth on the Fee Schedule attached to SME's proposal or
4. All reports, field data, field notes, laboratory test data, ca!culations, the lump sum fee provided, Client agrees to limit all potential
estimates, and other documents prepared by SME in connection with liability of SME to Client, its employees, agents, successors and
this Project shall be considered instruments of service, and shall remain assigns, for any and all claims, losses, breaches, damages or
the property of SME. SME grants Client and Owner a limited license to expenses arising from, or relating to SME's performance of
use such instruments of service for the purpose of designing, services on this Project, such that SME's total aggregate liability to
constructing, maintaining or repairing work that is part of this Project. Client, its employees, agents, successors and assigns shall not exceed
Any reuse of SME's instruments of service for any purpose other than $50,000 or SME's total fee for the services rendered on the project,
the limited license granted herein is prohibited and SME shall have no whichever is greater. The Client understands that it may negotiate
responsibility to Client, Owner or third parties for unauthorized usc of a higher limit of liability in exchange for an appropriate increase in
it's instruments of services. SME's fee.
5. Client agrees that all reports and other work furnished to the Client or its a) Client further agrees that it will require all of its contractors and
agents, which arc not paid for, will be retumcd upon demand and will consultants on this project and their respective subcontractors and
not be used by the Client for any purpose whatsoever. subconsultants, be bound by an identical limitation of SME's
aggregate liability in their agreements for work on this project.
6. SME will retain pertinent records relating to the services perfom1ed for b) Client further agrees that it will require all of its contractors and
Client for a period of time consistent with SME's File Management subcontractors defend and indemnify Client and SME from any
Plan, a copy of which will be provided to Client upon request. During and all loss or damage, including bodily injury or death, arising
that period, the records will be made available to the Client at from contractor or subcontractors perfonnance of work on this
reasonable times. At the end of the retention period indicated in SME's project, regardless of whether or not such claim, damage, loss or
File Management Plan, SME may, in its sole discretion, dispose of a11 expense is caused in part by SME; provided however, that this
such records obligation shall not apply to claims, damage, loss or expense
7. SME MAKES NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH caused by the sole negligence or fault ofSME.
REGARDS TO ITS SERVICES. 13. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Client shall detCnd and
8. Either party may tenninate this Agreement upon at least 7 days \\1itten indemnify SME from and against all claims, damages, losses and
notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in expense, including reasonable attomey fees, arising out of the work or
accordance with the tenns hereof. Such temtination will not be materials of any contractor, subcontractor, supplier or consultant, or
effective if that substantial failure is remedied before expiration of the anyone employed by them, relating to the Project regardless of whether
period specified in the written notice. Tltis Agreement shall also be or not such claim, damage, loss or expense is caused in part by SME;
automatically terminated upon a suspension of the project for more than provided however, that this obligation sha11 not apply to claims,
3 months. In the event oftem1ination, Client will pay SME for services damage, loss or expense to the extent caused by the negligence of SME.
performed to the termination notice date plus reasonable termination
expenses. In the event of tennination, or suspension, prior to 14. lf SME provides services at the request of Client, in addition to those
completion of a11 reports contemplated by this Agreement, SME may described in the scope of work contained in SME's proposal, Client
complete such analyses and records as are necessary to complete the agrees that these general conditions including the general notes on the
files and may also complete a report on the services performed to the fee schedules shall apply to all such additional services.
date of notice of termination or suspension. The expenses of 15. In the event any provision of this Agreement is held invalid or
tem1ination or suspension include all direct costs of completing such unenforceable, the other provisions \viii remain in full force and effect,
analyses, records, and reports. and binding upon the parties. All obligations arising prior to the
9. If any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or its breach, termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement
is not settled through direct discussions, the parties agree that as a allocating responsibility or liability between Client and SME will
condition precedent to litigation, they will endeavor for 30 days survive the completion of the services and the tennination of this
follo\ving written notice by one party to the other of a dispute or breach, Agreement. 1l1is Agreement cannot be assigned by either party without
to settle the dispute by mediation with the assistance of a neutral the written consent of the other party. This Agreement includes SME's
mediator. In any litigation or arbitration, if applicable, the parties agree Fee Schedulc(s), and any notes thereon, these General Conditions and
that the prevailing party is entitled to recover all reasonable costs other documents incorporated herein. This Agreement constitutes the
incurred in defense or prosecution of the claim, including its staff time, entire Agreement between the parties and cannot be changed except by a
court costs, attomey's fees, and other claim-related expenses. written instrument signed by both parties. All preprinted Terms and
Notwithstanding, SME has no obligation to mediate with Client prior to Conditions on Client's Purchase Order(s) or acknowledgement forms
litigation when collecting fees 1ega11y owed by Client. arc inapplicable to this Agreement. The parties agree that this
Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the Jaws of the State of
10. If Client gives SME other-than-written authorization to proceed with Michigan.
services after receiving SME's written proposal, Client agrees to accept
the proposal, including these Genera! Conditions, as the A~:,rreement
PROPOSAL ACCEPTED BY: BILLING ADDRESS
Signature Date Street
Printed Name Title City I State
Company Zio-Codc
SME General Conditions (1/04)
consultants in the geosciences, materials, and the environment
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails