View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 27, 2001
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS@ 5:30 P.M.
AGENDA
• CALL TO ORDER:
• PRAYER:
• PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
• ROLL CALL:
• HONORS AND AWARDS:
• PRESENTATIONS:
• CONSENT AGENDA:
a. Approval of Minutes. CITY CLERK
b. Sale of Vacant Buildable Lot in Jackson Hill. PLANNING &
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
c. FIRST READING. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to permit only one
sign for home occupation business. PLANNING & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
d. Post Office Lease, Terrace Street Lots. PLANNING & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
e. Purchase of house and property at 1938 Hoyt. COMMUNITY AND
NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
f. Request for Encroachment Agreement at 1476 Getty.
ENGINEERING
• PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a. Resolution for Development District On Premise Liquor License for
1050 W. Western Ave. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
• COMMUNICATIONS:
• CITY MANAGER'S REPORT:
• UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
• NEW BUSINESS:
a. Engineering/Design Consultant for Water Filtration Plant Project.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS & WATER FILTRATION
b. Flag flying Policv. CITY MANAGER
c. Flag Flving Request, Rolling Thunder. CITY MANAGER
d. FIRST READING, Zoning Ordinance Amendment to change front
setback requirement. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
e. FIRST READING. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow
secondhand stores in the B-2 Convenience and Comparison
Business District. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
f. FIRST READING: Amendments to the Animal Control Ordinance.
CITY MANAGER
• ANY OTHER BUSINESS:
• PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
• CLOSED SESSION:
• Reminder: Individuals who would like to address the City Commission shall do the following:
• 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 O minutes if previously registered with City Clerk.)
• ADJOURNMENT:
ADA POLICY: THE CITY OF MUSKEGON WILL PROVIDE NECESSARY AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS WHO WANT TO
ATTEND THE MEETING UPON TWENTY FOUR HOUR NOTICE TO THE CITY OF MUSKEGON. PLEASE CONTACT GAIL A. KUNDINGER,
CITY CLERK, 933 TERRACE STREET, MUSMI 49440 OR BY CALLING (231) 724-6705 OR TDD: (231) 724-4172.
Date: November 27, 2001
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, November 13, 2001.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the minutes.
ITV OF MUSKEGON
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 27,2001
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS@ 5:30 P.M.
MINUTES
The Regular Commission Meeting of the City of Muskegon was held at City
Hall, 933 Terrace Street, Muskegon, Michigan at 5:30pm, Tuesday, November 27,
2001.
Mayor Nielsen opened the meeting with a prayer from Reverend Jeff Sumner
of Bible Methodist Church after which members of the City Commission and
members of the public joined in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL FOR THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING:
Present: Mayor Fred J. Nielsen; Vice-Mayor Clara Shepherd; Commissioners
Robert Schweifler, Lawrence Spataro, John Aslakson, and Jone Wortelboer-
Benedict; City Manager Bryon Mazade; City Attorney John Schrier and City
Clerk Gail Kundinger. Absent: Commissioner Karen Buie (excused).
2001-137 CONSENT AGENDA: Items listed under the Consent Agenda have
been considered to be routine in nature and will be enacted in one motion. No
separate discussion will be held on these items. If discussion is required, it will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and be considered separately.
a. Approval of Minutes. CITY CLERK
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To approve the minutes of the Regular Commission
Meeting that was held on Tuesday, November 13, 2001.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the minutes.
b. Sale of Vacant Buildable Lot in Jackson Hill. PLANNING &
ECONOMIC DEVELQPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: A city-owned lot in the Jackson Hill neighborhood
was advertised on November 4, 200 l, for bid on the 131h of November. The City
did not receive other bids except from Ms. Carolyn Williams in the amount of
$3,000. The buyer understands the conditions and requirements of the purchase
agreement which includes construction of a single-family resident within 18
months, and existing trees shall not be cleared except to accommodate the
structure and driveway. Ms. Williams will build a 1647 sq. ft. house with an
attached 2-stall garage. Other property sale policies and incentives will also
apply.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval to sell the property to
Ms. Carol Williams for $3,000.
c. FIRST READING, Zoning Ordinance Amendment to permit only
one sign for home occupation businesses. PLANNING &
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request to amend Section 2334 (Signs) of Article XXIII
of the City's Zoning Ordinance to permit only one sign for home occupation
businesses.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends amendment of the Zoning
Ordinance to change the proposed language in the article and section
described above.
(Requires second reading)
d. Post Office Lease, Terrace Street Lots. PLANNING &
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To approve the lease between the City of Muskegon
and the United States Postal Service for parking purposes on the Terrace Street
Lots. The lease is temporary and will expire on April 1, 2002. The purpose of the
lease is to allow the Post Office to provide parking to their employees, who have
few parking options since the Mall parking has been fenced off.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the lease and direct the Mayor and
City Clerk to sign the lease.
e. Purchase of house and property at 1938 Hoyt. COMMUNITY
AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Community and Neighborhood Services
department would like to purchase the structure at 1938 Hoyt from the present
owners Mr. And Mrs. Bryan Carlson. After taking ownership of the property, the
Community and Neighborhood Services department will demolish the existing
structure and land bank the parcel to be used in the City's Infill New
Construction program. The department intends to build a house on the site in
the coming year to be sold to a qualified family. The house and site will be
purchased from the Carlson's for the price of $1.00 (one dollar).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve this request.
f. Request for Encroachment Agreement@ 1476 Getty.
ENGINEERING
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: ESP, business owner, at 147 6 Getty has submitted an
encroachment agreement form requesting your permission to install a 5' by 4'
internally light sign on top of an existing pole in front of the aforementioned
address.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the encroachment.
Motion by Commissioner Schweifler, second by Commissioner Benedict to
approve the Consent Agenda.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Nielsen, Schweifler, Shepherd, Spataro, Aslakson,
Benedict
Nays: None
MOTION PASSED
2001-138 PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a. Resolution for Development District On Premise Liquor License
for 1050 W. Western Avenue. PLANNING & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To hold a public hearing on the request for a Class C
Liquor License for Theodore C. Fricano and approve the resolution. The request
is necessary due to a lack of available liquor licenses in the City of Muskegon.
The Liquor Control Code allows for additional liquor licenses within Downtown
Development Authority Districts under certain conditions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Approval of the liquor license will allow for a new
restaurant in the downtown area of Muskegon, which will ultimately result in
increased revenue for the City.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To hold a public hearing and approve the
resolution.
The public hearing opened at 5:38pm to hear and consider any comments
from the public.
Motion by Commissioner Aslakson, second by Commissioner Benedict to
close the public hearing at 5:43pm and approve the resolution.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Schweifler, Shepherd, Spataro, Aslakson, Benedict,
Nielsen.
Nays: None
MOTION PASSED
2001-139 NEW BUSINESS:
a. Engineering/Design consultant for Water Filtration Plant
Project. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS & WATER FILTRATION
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To enter into an engineering/design and construction
oversight contract with Tetra Tech MPS for Water Filtration Plant improvements.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The project cost, including construction oversight, is
$717,000.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: Engineering/Design costs to be paid through
existing water revenue bonds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the Mayor and City Commission
endorse and enter into an engineering/design and construction oversight
contract with TetraTech MPS for the Water Filtration Plant.
Motion by Commissioner Spataro, second by Commissioner Aslakson to
endorse the contract with TetraTech MPS.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Shepherd, Spataro, Aslakson, Benedict, Nielsen,
Schweifler.
Nays: None
MOTION PASSED
b. Flag Flying Policy. CITY MANAGER
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To approve a policy for the consideration of requests
to fly flags on City property
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the policy.
Motion by Commissioner Spataro, second by Commissioner Schweifler to
approve the policy.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Spataro, Aslakson, Benedict, Nielsen, Schweifler,
Shepherd.
Nays: None
MOTION PASSED
c. Flag Flying Request. Rolling Thunder. CITY MANAGER
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To consider a request from Rolling Thunder to fly the
MIA/POW flag.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the resolution granting permission to
Rolling Thunder to fly the MIA/POW flag.
Motion by Vice-Mayor Shepherd, second by Commissioner Benedict to
approve the resolution.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Aslakson, Benedict, Nielsen, Schweifler, Shepherd,
Spataro.
Nays: None
MOTION PASSED
d. FIRST READING. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to change
front setback requirement. PLANNING & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance to
change the front setback landscaping requirements for all multi-family, business
and industrial districts.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends amendment of the Zoning
Ordinance to change the proposed language in the articles and sections
described.
Motion by Commissioner Spataro, second by Commissioner Schweifler to
approve the amendment.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Benedict, Nielsen, Schweifler, Shepherd, Spataro,
Aslakson.
Nays: None
MOTION PASSED (Requires second reading)
e. FIRST READING. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow
secondhand stores in the B-2. Convenience and Comparison
Business District. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request to amend Section 1101 (Special Land Uses
Permitted) of Article XI (B-2, Convenience and Comparison Business) of the
City's Zoning Ordinance to allow secondhand stores, under certain conditions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends amendment of the Zoning
Ordinance to change the proposed language in the articles and sections
described.
Motion by Commissioner Schweifler, second by Commissioner Spataro to
approve the amendment.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Schweifler, Shepherd, Spataro, Aslakson, Benedict.
Nays: Nielsen
MOTION PASSED (Requires second reading)
f. FIRST READING. Amendments to the Animal Control
Ordinance. CITY MANAGER
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Approve the Ordinance to amend the Animal
Control Ordinance to regulate cats in the City.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Total administrative costs for the entire program that will
result from this ordinance is approximately $32,000, FY 2002. Cat licensing fees
will partially offset this cost (est. $2,000).
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: Some of the resources are already budgeted. A
budget adjustment will have to be made for Animal Control Services, which will
be billed quarterly.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Benedict, second by Vice-Mayor Shepherd to
approve the ordinance.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Nielsen, Schweifler, Shepherd, Spataro, Aslakson,
Benedict.
Nays: None
MOTION PASSED (Requires second reading)
2001-140 ANY OTHER BUSINESS:
Commissioner Spataro presented a petition from the Marsh Field
Association.
2001-141 CLOSED SESSION:
Motion by Commissioner Asla kson, second by Commissioner Benedict to go
into closed session at 7: 10pm.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Shepherd, Spataro, Aslakson, Benedict, Nielsen.
Nays: None
Not Present: Schweifler
MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Commissioner Benedict, second by Commissioner Spataro to
return to open session at 8:26pm.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Shepherd, Spataro, Aslakson, Benedict, Nielsen,
Sc hweifler.
Nays: None
MOTION PASSED.
Motion by Commissioner Aslakson, second by Commissioner Benedict to
concur with the attorney.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Spataro, Aslakson, Benedict, Nielsen, Schweifler,
Shepherd.
Nays: None
MOTION PASSED.
ADJOURNMENT: The Regular Commission Meeting for the City of Muskegon was
adjourned at 8:30pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Gail Kundinger, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
Commission Meeting Date: November 27, 2001
Date: November 19, 2001
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Planning & Economic Development ~
RE: Sale of a Buildable Lot
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
A city-owned lot in Jackson Hill neighborhood was advertised on November 4, 2001 for
bid on the 13th of November. The City did not receive other bids except from Ms.
Carolyn Williams in the amount of $3,000. The buyer understands the conditions and
requirements of the purchase agreement which includes construction of a single-family
residential within 18 months, arid existing trees shall not be cleared except to
accommodate the structure and driveway. Ms. Williams will build a 1647 sq. ft. house
with an attached 2-stall garage. Other property sale policies and incentives will also
apply.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval to sell the property to Ms. Carolyn Williams for $3,000.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
None.
11/19/2001
Resolution No. 2001- 137 ( b)
MUSKEGON CITY COMMISSION
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SALE OF A BUILDABLE LOT IN JACKSON I-IlLL
NEIGHBORHOOD FOR $3,000.
WHEREAS, Ms. Carolyn Williams has placed a $400 deposit for the parcel designated as parcel number
24-205-154-0003-00 located on Yuba Street;
WHEREAS, Ms. Williams' bid of $3,000 for the parcel designated as parcel numbers 24-205-154-0003-
00, located on Yuba Street, is the only bid received;
WHEREAS, these parcels will be joined as one whole parcel after the sale has been approved and
purchase agreement has been signed;
WHEREAS, Ms. Williams intends to construct a 1647 square foot house with 2-stall attached garage,
thereby, relieving the City of fmther maintenance costs and generate additional tax revenue for the City;
WHEREAS, the sale is consistent with City policy regarding the disposition of buildable lots;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that parcel number 24-205-154-0003-00, located on Yuba
Street be sold to the above-mentioned buyer, with legal descriptions as:
S ½ Lot 2 & All Lot 3 Blk 154, Revised Plat of 1903, City of Muskegon
Adopted this .21th day of November, 2001
Ayes: Nielsen, Schweifler, Shepherd, Spataro, Aslakson, Benedict
Nays: None
Absent Buie (excused)
CERTIFICATION
I hearby certify that the foregoing constitutes a true and complete copy of a resolution adopted by the City .
Commission of the City of Muskegon, County of Muskegon, Michigan at a regular meeting held on
November 27, 2001.
-~=~-=-
--=~ i[_________ J
-=-:::r----i---=-_-=---
-=--- - )__ - I_
---- --- 0 ---------
<{ -----------
, ~
:rs-s- 1110<,,\L',
Prepared by:
John C. Schrier
Parmenter O'Toole
175 W. Apple Avenue
P.O. Box 786
Muskegon,MI49443-0786
Telephone: 231/722-5413
G:\EDSI\F1LES\00100\3\RPA-RESl\9R4032.DOC
Date: November 27, 2001
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Engineering
RE: Request for Encroachment@ 1476 Getty
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
ESP, business owner, at 1476 Getty has submitted the attached encroachment agreement
form requesting your permission to install a 5' by 4' internally light sign on top of an existing
pole in front of the aforementioned address.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To approve the encroachment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
\ 1. ',,
Artistic Neon & Signs Inc '\I
181 S. Getty St. Suite B
Muskegon, Ml 49442 OCT 19 2001
(231) 722-6959
Muhammed/Engineering Dept.
City Of Muskegon
993 Terrace st.
Muskegon,MI
49440
October 18,2001
Muhammed,
1. Ihave enclosed per your request, a signed copy of the
encroachment agreement.(The entire agreement should be on file in your
office).
2. A copy of the insurance for ESP Wireless, naming City of Muskegon a
certified holder and cancellation clause.
3. Check #1415 for $100 is enclosed for the processing fee.
4. Drawing to show where sign will be located.
I believe this is what you need to review this encroachment agreement
and to get approvalfor ESP to install their sign.
If anything additional is required please issue in writing to my
office. Thank-you.
Sincerely,
Tonya/J<-eam
' / /,t>/ (" ✓,
',,
/ jL.-- . " VL,,,................._,,,_
(
_J_oo) - /3 7 (I)
1
.
. CITY OF WSJ
'·
1
0
l-
-;; j .
J
/
- ;__r_; O -
P
~:. .-,i ;
\ o;
. Bs :;
'
I .
.,_ _L ,,; 7
(} .,! . .. i t:-•, . .
... . , . ), ...
~
c~
C=:J
11 .
r, ~ -~ 0!Ji)
Ii ~ ij
r
~
8 I I
•
I
C:=J I
!
Gj I I
I
' i
:•,
~
~i
@ i
\·
~
~
~.
i ! f.
l
ARTISTIC NEON & SIGNS 10-00
74-1170/724
056614
1415
PH. 231-722-6959
181 S. GETIY SUITE B ('].,.,,,,,..,-'/~-~1£~rlm/
DA~,:_;.
6141- /VI
MUSKEGON, Ml 49442
'!~ PAYTOTHE
ORDER OF
{.J_
~ ._,
/v:l/L,, 5§<)4
$ Jro ·-
I
l
0.N Zi,d,,-£-/1,d-< eel · A
ooLLARs W =.-
- .....
Ii. S5B
•:•
SHELBY SD\TE BANK
MEMO _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
?2t.1a1a?aa,: 1,1,1,s
&~
11•osi;,i;,1,1,11•
w
Commission Meeting Date: November 27, 2001
Date: November 19, 2001
To: Honorable Mayor & City Commission
From: Planning & Economic Development Department C foC..,
RE: Public Hearing for Resolution for Class C Liquor
License for Theodore C. Fricano
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To hold a public hearing on the request for
a Class C Liquor License for Theodore C. Fricano and approve the
attached resolution. The request is necessary due to a lack of available
liquor licenses in the City of Muskegon. The Liquor Control Code allows
for additional liquor licenses within Downtown Development Authority
Districts under certain conditions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Approval of the liquor license will allow for a new
restaurant in the downtown area of Muskegon, which will ultimately
result in increased revenue for the City.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To hold a public hearing and approve the
attached resolution.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Downtown Development
Authority will hold a public hearing on this issue on November 20, 2001
and will forward a recommendation to the City Commission.
CITY OF !VfUSKJEGON
MUSKEGON OOUNTY, ll'IlCHIGAN
RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 138 (a I
A resolutiollii com:erllli11g the issmmce of a Deveiopme11t District On P,·emise lLiqmir License
plllrn1mnt to Sectimi 521 of the Liqnor Contrni Code oif 1991!.
The City Commission of the City of Muskegon hereby RESOLVES:
Recitals
1. Theodore C. Fricano has applied for a Development District On Premise liquor license
for the premises at 1050 WI. Western Avenue, !mown as the Hartshorn Building, formerly
knovvn as Waterfront Centre.
2. It is required that the Downtovm Development Authority and the City Commission
approve the issuance of such license before application may be made to the Michigan
Liquor Control Commission.
3. A hearing was held on Noyember 20, 2001, at a regular meeting of the DDA, and the said
hearing was publicly noticed in The IVIuskegon Chronicle, and mailed to the
neighborhood association involved, as well as the applicant. Public notice was
detennined by tl1e DDit to be suft1c-ient.
4. A hearing was held November 27, 2001, at the regular meeting of the City Co1m11ission.
Notice was mailed and published and is deemed satisfactory.
DDA Fin:u:inngs
The DDA found the following fR.cts to be true ba3ed upon the application and the n:1aterial.s
1
placed before the DDA in the public hearing:
I. The business shail be a fuil service restaurant, which prepares food on the premises, and
shall be open to the pubiic.
2. The business will be open for food service not less than ten (10) hours per day five (5)
days per week.
3. At least 50% of the gross receipts of the business will be derived from the sale of food for
consumption on the premises. "Food" does not include beer or wine.
4. The business has dining facilities that 'Nil! seat more than twenty-fiye (25) persons.
C:\OOCUME~1\KUNDIN~ l\LOCALS~1\Temp\9V2400.OOC
5. The business is located in the Downtown Development Authority's Development District,
which has a popuiation ofless than 50,000. The Districr is duly established under 1975
PA 197.
6. The DD.A.., after hearing, has found that the issuance of the license will prevent further
deterioration within the Development District and will promote economic gro~11:h within
the Development District.
7. The DDA, after public hearing, held after notice on November 20, 2001, has approved
the issuance of the said Development District On Premise Liquor license.
NO'N, THEREFORE, THE CITY CONirvllSSION RESOLVES:
The City Commission hus reviewed the findings of the DDA and held its own hearing,
and concurs with all the findings of the Downtown Development Authority, and
approves, in concun-ence with die Authority, that the license shouid be issued to the
applicant at 1050 W. Western Avenue, the premi~es known as the Hartshorn Centre,
formerly known as Waterfront Centre. The City Commission recommends to the Liquor
Control Commission the issuance of the said requested license.
This resolution passed.
Ayes Schweifler, Shepherd, Spataro, Aslakson, Benedict, Nielsen
Nays None
CITY OF MUSKEC~N/
By ~ 0, ~~
Gail A Kundinger, City Clerk 0
CERTIFICATE
This resolution was adopted. at a meeting of the City Commission., hdd on
November 27 , 2001. The meeting was properly held and noticed pursuant to the Open
Meetings Act of the State oflVlichlgan, Act 267 of the Public Acts of 1976.
C:\DOCUME~111it the issuance of a Specially Designated Merchant license,
a specially Designated Distributor license or any other licenae
that allows the sale of alcoholic liquor for consumption off the
pr• mises. Act 440 of the Pul:)lic Acts of 1996 further expanded the
definition of a Brewpub license to allow the beer produced at tha
premi••• to be sold for consl.UllPtion off the premises • Therefore,
the provisions of 436;1521(4) of the Michigan compiled Laws
prohibit the issuance of a BrewpUb license in conjunction with an
on pr-ises license issued under this section 1521(1).
Liconses issued under the provisions of 436.1521(1) of the Michigan
C0111piled Laws may transfex- ownerahip ana may transfer location
within the development district in which ""originally issued. 'l'he
sue conditions and procedures outlined above will be applicable to
a transfer location of licenses issued under 436.1521 01! the
Michigan Compiled Laws within the development district.
If you have any further questions, please contact the Escrow/Quota
unit of the Licensing Division at (517)-322-1400.
A:\DEVDLIC2.Bl.7
436.1521 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES LIQU1
(7) The commission may issue the licenses under this section without regard alcohc
to the order in which the applications ror the licenses are received. them
t;
(8) The commission shall annually report to the legislature the names of the any le
; I
businesses issued licenses under this section and their locations. sched1
not be
(9) As used in this section:
tion ti
(a) "Development district" means any of the following: facilit:
(i) An authority district established under the tax increment finance authority (2) .
act, 1980 PA 450, MCL 125.180 I to 125.1830. renew
(ii) An authority district established under the local development financing admin
act, 1986 PA 281, MCL 125.2151 to 125.2174. $600.(
(iii) A downtown district established under l 975 PA 197, MCL 125.165 l to (3) '
125.1681. licens,
(iv) A principal shopping district established under 1961 PA 120, MCL sion s
125. 98 I to 125.987, before January I, 1996. (a),
(b) "Escrowed license" means a license in which the rights of the licensee in that ti
the license or to the renewal of the license are still in existence and are subject genen
to renewal and activation in the manner provided for in R 436.1107 of the (b) ,
Michigan administrative code.
gross
(c) "Readily available" means available under a standard of economic feasi- nonalc
bility, as applied to the specific circumstances of the applicant, that includes,
(4) -
but is not limited to, the following:
provid
(i) The fair market value of the license, if determinable. public
(ii) The size and scope of the proposed operation. . prerni~
(iii) The existence of mandatory contractual restrictions or inclusions at- health
tached to the sale of the license. (5) '.
P.A.1998, No. 58, § 521, Imd. Eff. April 14, 1998. Amended by P.A.1998, No. 282, Imd. is app,
Eff. July 27, 1998. unit of
Historical and Statutory Notes P.A.19!
P.A.1998, No. 282. in subsec. (1), in the intro- secs. (3) to (5), respectively; in subsec. (4),
by P.A.
ductory paragraph, inserted "and resort eco- added the second sentence; inserted subsecs.
nomic development"; deleted subsec. ( I )(0, (6) and (8); and redesignated former subsecs.
which read: (5) and (6) as subsecs. (7) and (9), respectively. P.A.!\
"The business demonstrates to the commis- "$600.0•
sion that an escrowed license is not readily Prior Laws:
available in any local unit of government in
P.A.1933, Ex.Sess., No. 8, § 17k.
which the development district is located."
C.L.1979, § 436.17k.
P.A.1998, No.,-282, also, inserted subsec. (2); In taxi
redesignated former subsecs. (2) to (4) as sub- P.A. I 996, No. 440, § I. WES1
C.J.S.
Library References
Intoxicating Liquors <1?57. l. 436.1
WESTLAW Topic No. 223.
C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors§ 104. Sec.
n1cnt c
436.1522. Banquet facility permits; issuance to on-premise licensees penal
Sec. 522. (1) The commission may issue 1 banquet facility permit to an on• ordina
premise licensee, as an extension of that on-premise license, for the serving of dcfcns,
214
septeiaber 19, 2001
RECEIVED
S~I? 18 2001
MUaKICION
Clllf IIAIAGU'I
FRCK1 KICHXGAH LIQUOR CONTROL COJDlISSION omca
. SOIJICT: . OEVELOPD!l'l' DISTRICT ON PRDISBS LICENSBS
This ia infoll:lllation relative to the new type of on pr•lli.•u licen••
created i,y Act No. 440 of the Public Acta ot 1996, bllini;i section
1!121 of the Michiqan Liquor Control Cod• of 1998, being HCL
436,1!121(1) (formerly known as (f/)t/a) Saotion 436,17k(l).
436.1521(1) or th• Michigan complied La- prov1de11 that in addition
to on pr-is•• quot:a l.ioenc- and op premises raaort licensaa, the
CCJlllDisaion may i•su• not 11ore thll.n 50 Tavern or Claee c licens- to
persons operating certain qualifying businesses located in
development districts.
Development districts are defined in subsection (6)(a) of section
436.1!121 of the Michigan Compiled Laws as follows:
"• • • (i) An authority dietrict established under the tax
inc:r-ent fine.nee authority act, Aot No. 4!50 of the PuJ:>lie
Acts of 1980, being sections 125. 1801 to 12!5 .1830 of the
Michigan Co11Piled Laws."
(ii) An authority district . established under the loc:al
development financing act, Act No. 281 · of the PUblic Acts of
1986, being section 12!5.21!51 to l.25.2174 of the Michigan
Compiled Lawa. "
V'eiii) A downtown district established under Act No. 197 of the
Public Acts of l.975, being sections 125,1651 to 125.1681 of
the Michigan Compiled r.aws. 11
(iv) A principal shopping district established under Act No.
120 of the Public Acts of 1961, being sections 125,981 to
125.987 of the Michigan compiled Laws, before January l.,
1996."
1'he conditions that must be met prior to tha issuance of a
development district license contained in subsection (l) of
436.1521 of the Michigan Compiled Laws are as follows:
"• • • (a) The business is a full service restaurant, is open
to the public, and prepares food on the premises."
(b) The bUtSiness is open for food service not l.ass than 1.0
ho~s per. day, B day • per week."
h.ge 2
saptellbar 1g, 2001
DBVel.opment Diatrict On Pruiises Licensaa
(c) At laa• t !lot ot the gross receipta of th• buainess an
derived from the eale of food for conaU11ption on th• premi.••••
excluding bear and wine."
(d) 'l'b.e business haa dininq faciliti•• to saat not less than
2!5 persons.
(e) The business 1• located in a develop11ent district with a
population Pf not; more than so,ooo in which the authority,
attv a public h1arinq. has found tbat th.a iaauance of the
license would prevent further deterioration with.in the
development district and pro1110te eoonoaic growth within~
development district. Th• C01Dll1-ion .1boll not l • aue th•
license unless th• local unit of govemaant within which the
authority is located, after holding a public hearing,
a raaalution concurrinq in the find.in;• of the authority.
pa••••
( f) The business demonstrates to the Co1D111ission that an
escrowed licana• is not readily available in any local unit of
government in which the developlllmlt district is located."
Initial applications for on premises lioe1111.. under the provisions
of 436.15~1(1) of th• Michigan Compiled Laws will be made to the
davelopnent district where the proposed business is to be located
and not to the Liquor control co-1.ssion otfices. Th• Liquor
Control Commission will not maintain lists of interested applicants
nor submit names of the applicants to the development districts for
consideration. ·
In order for the Liquor control co11111ission to implem11nt the
licensing inveatigation procesa for applications under -t:.he
provisions of 436.1521(1) of the Michigan c011plied Laws,· the
following doCU111ents must be received:
(1) Written verification from th• · development authority
identifying tho st~tutory proviaiona undor whioh ~t - •
estaJ:>lished and certification that its population is not
more than 50,000.
A copy of the notice of public hearing held by the
developaent district.
{3) A copy of written findings of the development district
which state that the issuance of the license to the
;IP»licant at a specific location would prevent turther
deterioro.tion within the development district and. promote
economic growth.
(4) A oopl( of! th• noti.ca. o~ puh1ic htion oft the premises. Therefore,
the provisions o:f 436,1521(4) of the Michigan compiled Laws
prohibit the issuancca of a srewptlll license in conjunction with an
on premisea license issued under thia section 152l(l).
Lioanses issued under the provisions of 436.1521(1) of the Michigan
C0111piled Laws -Y transfex- ownership aM 111ay transrar location
within the development district in which "originally issued. 'l'he
sue conditions and procedures outlined above will be applical:)le to
a transfer location or licenses issued under 436.1521 or. th•
Michigan Compiled Laws within the development district,
If you have any further questions, please oontact the Escrow/Quota
Unit of the Licensing Division at (517)-322-1400.
A:\DEVDLIC2.B17
436.1519 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
P.A. 1952, No. 150, § I. P.A. 1980, No. 6, § I.
P.A.1955, No. 42, § I. P.A.1980, No. 185, § I.
P.A.1955, No. 126, § I. P.A. I 980, No. 302, § I.
P.A.1957, No. 275, § I. P.A.1981, No. 187, § I.
P.A.1960, No. 151. § I. P.A.1983, No. 21, § I.
P.A.1962, No. 35, § I. P.A.1983, No. 81, § I.
P.A.1964, No. 172. § I. P.A.1985, No. 123, § I.
P.A. 1965, No. 39, § I. P.A. 1986, No. 7, § I.
P.A.1966, No. 196, § I.
P.A.1987, No. 191, § I.
C.L. 1970, § 436. 17.
P.A.1976, No. 416, § I. P.A.1988, No. 207, § I.
P.A.1976, No. 417, § I. P.A.1989, No. 118, § I.
P.A.1976, No. 418, § I. P.A.1992, No. 136, § I.
P.A.1977, No. 2, § I. P.A.1994, No. 185, § I.
P.A.1978, No. 6, § I. P.A.1995, No. 113, § I.
P.A.1979, No. 74, § I. P.A.1995, No. 138, § I.
C.L.1979, § 436.17. P.A.1996,No. 71,§ I.
American Law Reports
Construction of provision precluding sale of intoxicating liquors within specified distance from
another establishment selling such liquors, 7 ALR3d 809.
Revocation or suspension of liquor license because of drinking or drunkenness on part of licensee
or business associates, 36 ALR3d 130 l.
Validity and construction of statute or ordinance respecting employment of women in places where
intoxicating liquors are sold, 46 ALR3d 369.
Security interests in liquor licenses, 56 ALR4th 1131.
Law Review and Journal Commentaries
First amendment freedoms: Annual survey of
Michigan law 1975. Peter M. Alter, Ellen J.
Alter, 22 Wayne L.Rev. 365 (1976).
Library References
Intoxicating Liquors 57. I. 436.1
WESTLAW Topic No. 223.
C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors§ 104. Sec.
mcnt,
436.1522. Banquet facility permits; issuance to on-premise licensees penal
Sec. 522. (1) The commission may issue 1 banquet facility permit to an on• ordinz
premise licensee, as an extension of that on-premise license, for the serving of dcfcns
214
Date: November 13, 2001
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
From: DPW - Water Filtration
RE: Engineering/Design consultant for Water Filtration
Plant project
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
To enter into an engineering/design and construction oversight contract
with TetraTech MPS for Water Filtration Plant improvements.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The project cost, including construction oversight, is $717,000.
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
Engineering/Design costs to be paid through existing water revenue
bonds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend the Mayor and City Commission endorse and enter into an
engineering/design and construction oversight contract with Tetra Tech
MPS for the Water Filtration Plant.
MEMORANDUM
11/6/01
TO: ROBERT KUHN, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: ROBERT VENEKLASEN, WATER FILTRATION SUPERVISOR
RE: ENGINEERING/DESIGN SOLICITATION- FILTRATION PLANT
Engineering/Design qualifications and proposal statements were requested for
the remaining projects identified in the 1991 Reliability Study. I have included a
copy of the solicitation document.
PROJECTS IDENTIFIED
The solicitation identified six projects of differing scope and construction
oversight. The projects and a brief description of each follows:
• Door replacement - install corrosion resistant aluminum and/or fiberglass
reinforced plastic (FRP) doors to replace existing steel doors.
• High and Low Service pumps - installation of pumps in the intake-shorewell
and the 1972 high service station. This is to complete the transition begun in
the 1970's to eliminate the use of the 1928 old pumphouse as it is vulnerable
to ground water.
• Rehabilitation of 1O filters - The filters have not undergone underdrain
evaluation and media replacement since 1964. Media replacement is
recommended every thirty years.
• Rehabilitation of the Sedimentation Basins - these units have been in service
since 1937. The mixers and flocculators are not functioning properly and are
in need of replacement.
• Reliability Study - This study is required by MDEQ every ten years. This
document is the tool used to plan short and long term capitol improvements.
• Discharge elimination - This project is mandated by MDEQ to end treatment
process discharges to Lake Michigan by 4/1/2005.
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/PROPOSALS (RFQ/P)
Six engineering/design firms expressed interest in this project with three of those
firms submitting proposals. Those being: 1) Consoer Townsend Environdyne
Engineers, Inc. of Flint, Ml, 2) Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber of Grand
Rapids, Ml, 3) TetraTech MPS of Grand Rapids, Ml.
The proposals submitted are as follows:
Firm Proposal cost Solids Handling (additional cost)
1 . Consoer Townsend Environdyne $840,000 Included in original proposal
2. Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber $949,285 $292,600
3. TetraTech MPS $582,000 $135,000
Total engineering fees are:
1. Consoer Townsend Environdyne (GTE) $840,000
2. Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber (FTC&H) $1,241,885
3. TetraTech MPS (TTMPS) $717,000
The initial proposals were reviewed and a request for additional information
regarding treatment residuals solids handling was made of the three firms. The
three firms were then requested to participate in an interview. The interview
included an introduction of the firm's staff involved in the project, a presentation
of their understanding and approach to the project, and a short question/answer
period. The interviews were attended by the City Manager, the Director of Public
Works, the City Engineer, and Water Plant Supervisor, Chief Operator, and
Maintenance Operator.
Following the interviews the City team evaluated the qualifications, proposals,
and presentations.
RECOMMENDATION
TetraTech MPS was formerly known as McNamee, Porter & Seeley, Inc. prior to
joining with TetraTech in 2000. In their capacity as McNamee, Porter, & Seeley
they were selected to perform the 1991 Reliability Study, the 1993
Instrumentation & Control Project, and the 1998 Multi-Purpose Building Projects
at the Water Filtration Plant.
Tetra Tech MPS was the firm chosen by the City staff to perform the
engineering/design and construction oversight for this project.
Based on their past experience, the City Staff's selection, and the attractive cost
submitted; it is my recommendation the Mayor and City Commission endorse
and enter into a contract for engineering/design for the Water Filtration Plant
projects identified at a cost of $717,000.
City of Muskegon
Water Filtration Plant
1900 Beach Street
Muskegon, Ml 49441
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/PROPOSALS
The City of Muskegon is seeking a consultant to perform engineering/design
services for the rehabilitation of the conventional sedimentation basins, rapid
sand filters, and low and high service pumps at the Water Filtration Plant.
Included is a request for qualifications (RFQ) and proposals (RFP) for
engineering design services for door replacement, high and low service pumping,
rehabilitation of 1O rapid sand filters, rehabilitation of two conventional
sedimentation basins, reliability study, washwater discharge elimination,
construction oversight and project funding evaluation and alternatives.
If you have any questions regarding this request please contact Robert
Veneklasen at (231) 724-4106, or submit them in writing to the following
addresses:
City of Muskegon
Water Filtration Plant
1900 Beach Street
Muskegon, Ml 49441
or
bob.veneklasen@postman.org
Please have all questions submitted no later than July 11, 2001. A pre-proposal
meeting will be held at the Plant on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 at 2:00 PM.
If you are interested in providing engineering/design services; a statement of
your professional qualifications accompanied by a cost proposal is requested.
All qualifications and proposals submitted pursuant to this request must be in the
City Clerks Office prior to 2:00 PM on Tuesday, July 31, 2001.
Please provide a minimum of three copies of all materials submitted for review
and evaluation.
1
PROJECT SCOPE
The services required are detailed engineering, design, construction oversight
and funding for:
• Door replacement
• High and low service pumping
• Rehabilitation of 10 rapid sand filters
• Rehabilitation of two conventional sedimentation basins
• Reliability study
• Discharge elimination
The following items, as minimum, must be considered as part of the services.
DOORS
Door replacement in the following locations
1. Clairifier Building - E & W double exterior entrances
½ light
2. Headworks -
exterior
E double entrance
full light
W double entrance
full light
Loading dock - door
½ light
interior
both lab entrances
full light
3. New Filters - E exterior double entrance
½ light
Stairway - install existing window frame & glazing - remove louver
4. New Pumphouse passage - W exterior entrances (2)
½ light
5. New Pumphouse - N exterior entrance
½ light
Double, panel-type, equipment doors
6. Intake Passageway- N and S exterior entrances
½ light
2
7. Intake Building - N exterior entrance incl. Windows & S exterior entrance
N door - full light
S door - ½ light
Double, panel-type, equipment doors
8. Old Pumphouse passage
W doors (2)- ½ light
E door - ½ light
9. Attic - S doors for roof access (2)
½ light
Doors to be constructed of Aluminum and/or Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic -
frame and door with insulated glass in all lights. Install all locksets & key to
existing. Install closers on all exterior doors with stops & hooks where
appropriate. Install handicap opener on existing barrier free entrance.
PUMPS - low and high service
1. LOW SERVICE
Evaluate needs and make recommendation
Number of pumps - 4 possible
Firm capacity and redundancy
Valves - check
Evaluate existing and make recommendation
Vibration Monitoring - interface with control system
2. HIGH SERVICE
Evaluate needs and make recommendation
Number of pumps - 2 possible
Firm capacity and redundancy
Valves
Operators - existing, evaluate and make recommendation
Checks Isolation - new and existing
Retrofit existing piping to accommodate
C. Discharge piping
Looping of discharge header
FILTERS - Ten total, 6-old (1937) and 4-new (1964)
1. MEDIA
Replacement
Appropriate to underdrain system
Achieve maximum capacity rating - desire 4.0 gpm/sqft
3
2. UNDERDRAINS
Replacement - 6 old
Air-Water wash-evaluate alternatives and include recommendation
and design
Existing lateral pipe type
Evaluate - 4 new
Air-Water wash-evaluate alternatives and include recommendation
and design
Make recommendation
3. SURFACE WASHES
Replace - 6 old
Evaluate and upgrade as necessary - 4 new
Replace supply piping as necessary
Include operation flags (rotation confirmation)
4. VALVES & ACTUATORS
Evaluate actuators - all pneumatic
Recommend
Replacement or rebuild
Pneumatic or electric
Evaluate valve seats - butterfly
Make recommendation
include all associated valves (raw & settled)
5. PROTECTIVE COATING
Remove existing from all surfaces (filter boxes & decks)
Interior and exterior
Apply appropriate coatings
6. STRUCTURAL
Repair any cracking or spalled concrete
Filters & walkways
Replace all steel grating with fiberglass (FRP)
Filter and Pipe galleries
7. CONTROLS
Interface all control requirements with existing system
8. RAILINGS
Refurbish to original or replace with alternate of same design
4
9. SETTLED WATER CHANNEL/CONDUIT
Filter Influent
Repair all cracks & leaks
Re-construct/Repair where filter influent pipe intersects channel
10. OPERATION
All work is to be performed to insure no interruption of treatment
processes or degradation of water supply or quality. Systems can be
isolated dependent upon seasonal water demands.
SEDIMENTATION BASINS - 2 conventional
1. RAPID MIX
Evaluate mixer effectiveness - make compatible with new equipment
Identify alternative mixers - recommend
Tracer study - short circuiting
2. FLOCCULATION EQUIPMENT
Perform cost effectiveness analysis of equipment and/or baffles
Remove all existing and replace
3. SETTLING EQUIPMENT
Perform cost effectiveness analysis of settling equipment
Inclined plate, tube, or other
Capacity increase - detention/contact time (pretreatment)
MDEQ evaluation and quantification
4. BASIN FLOW & PIPING (WIERS)- influent and effluent
Evaluate for short circuiting and make recommendation
Tracer study
5. DRAINS
Evaluate drain valves - operators and seats
6. STRUCTURAL
Repair cracks and spalling
Special attention to common wall with old filters (1937)
7. ENTRANCES -- 4
Access Hatchways and valve vaults
Replace
Evaluate need for small removable gantry for equipment movement
Replace all fixed ladders
Replacement ladders in house - evaluate and install
5
8. 36" RAW WATER LINE
Inspect all joints (leaded}
Protective coating - remove & replace or cover
9. SLUDGE REMOVAL
Evaluate for feasible, cost effective method
Mechanical versus manual
10. VALVING
Influent & Effluent - evaluate & make recommendation
RELIABILITY STUDY
The services required are for a Reliability Study for the Water Filtration Plant and
distributions system with consideration of present and future expansions. The
most recent study was performed in 1990. This information is available for
review at the Water Filtration Plant.
The following items, as minimum, must be considered as part of the services:
1. Unit Operations
raw water intake
evaluate HOPE chemical application line
cost effective evaluation of cladding crib structure in copper
low service pumps and metering
flocculation and clairification (pretreatment)
filtration
disinfection
high service pumps and metering
chemical storage, transfer and application
hydraulic model of Plant and remote sites
2. System Storage - elevated and reservoir
City of Muskegon
Nims St.
Roberts St.
Marshall St.
altitude and supply valving
evaluate vault structures
evaluation of antenna systems and wire locations
Muskegon Township
evaluate need for second elevated storage tank
distribution piping modifications necessary to operate tank(s)
Interaction with wholesale customer systems
North Muskegon - study performed
County Northside & Southside - study performed
6
Roosevelt Park
3. Booster Stations - Harvey & Keating
Harvey
Capacity - well & pumping
Auxiliary Power
Piping
vault piping and valving
by-pass valve operation
Keating
evaluate structure and equipment
identify functionality/needs/cost effectiveness
4. Distribution Systems
Generate model of distribution system for 12" and above pipe - field verify
Update existing hydraulic model
Identify deficiencies and/or inadequacies
Create water demand projections (average, maximum and peak)- 20
year plan
Provide system map including wholesale customer systems
incorporate existing location and sizes as can be provided by adjacent
systems
Submit reports in bound form and on WaterCad 4.5 or most recent release
Coordinate report to include latest ISO reports/data
Evaluate installation of pipeline from Plant grounds North with river crossing
second supply to North portion of distribution system
5. Evaluate compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act Requirements
Compliance with Capacity requirements
Technical
Managerial
Financial
6. Power and Energy Consumption
7. Staffing - levels and recommended changes
personnel roles and general job descriptions
8. Structures
evaluate condition of structures
brick and mortar
roofing
limestone lentils, sills and artistic reliefs
concrete grade beams/foundations
7
9. Unattended or remote operation - winter months
feasibility or operating Plant
pumping only
overnight - remote
alarm conditions
auto-dial - report
Iifl stations
10. Explore future options of digital connections to City Hall and Public Works
Server computers
This report is intended to be the basis for both short and long-term capitol
improvements plans.
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
Identify the best alternative to eliminate all waste discharges from Plant to the
watershed via the outfall. Cost effective evaluation, recommendation, and design
to eliminate the following, and any other, discharges.
Filter drain
Filter surface wash
Filter backwash
Filter-to-waste
Clairifier drain
Sedimentation Basin drain
Plant floor drains
And any others that may be identified
1. Use of existing structures - as recommended in 1990 Reliability Study
Old Pumphouse conversion
Old Intake - use or demolish - make site reparations
Must meet the "filter backwash recycling rule"
2. Evaluate alternatives - sanitary sewer
Pipe availability & capacity
Effluent limits - discharge constituents
Cost of treatment - wastewater charge per MG
3. Combination of: sanitary sewer, holding tank, treated discharge
Meeting new permit requirements - dechlorination of discharge
Compliance with final effluent limitations in Part I.A.4
4. Solids handling
Sludge produced by filter backwash
Sludge produced by cleaning of Clairifiers and Sed. Basins
Lagoons - capacity evaluation
Mechanical dewatering - disposal
8
5. New discharge connection to 36" line (S. of Old Pumphouse)
Must meet all requirements as stipulated by MDEQ Surface Water Quality
Division and Drinking Water and Radiological Protection Division.
Contacts: Grand Rapids Offices
MDEQ-SWQD - Thomas Berdinski
MDEQ-DWRP - David Timm
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration of this proposal.
QUALIFICATIONS
The consultant shall list and describe their expertise in the areas of the requested
service. Include similar projects with a brief description and a client contact
person. Staff that will be utilized on the project, if selected, must be identified
along with their specific qualificationsand professional certifications as required
by Michigan law.
Extra consideration will be given to those firms that submit copies of prior studies
for similar facilities.
EVALUATION
The owner will review the Qualifications and evaluate them based on the
requested information and information provided. The City reserves the right to
accept or reject any, and all, submittals.
CONSULTANT REQUIREMENTS
1. Provide Schedule
A. Engineering and design
1. Twenty-six (26) weeks
B. Project schedule
1. bidding
2. construction
3. project oversight
a. number of visits
1. written progress reporting
a. quality of work
b. recommendation of payment
1. thirty (30) day minimum
2. Bidding and Selection Recommendations
A. Provide advertisement
1. costs incurred by consultant
9
B. Bid evaluation and recommendation
1. in accordance with City policies
3. Pre-Bid Meeting attendance
A. Provide minutes of meeting
1. minutes to become addenda to contract
2. answer contractors questions/concerns
3. Training and O & M Manuals
a. identify whether "off-the-shelf' or "customized"
1. include both as part of project
4. Project Finalization
A. "As Built" prints
1. provided by design professional (consultant)
a. both reproducible and magnetic media
B. Staff training and start-up
1. Consultant reviews and monitors
a. assure adequate level of service provided
DETAILS TO BE IDENTIFIED
1. Services to be provided including any others that may be needed
2. Project leader or contact person, and staff or sub-consultants to be used with
related staff experience (not that of firm) including position or role on the
project.
3. Cost estimate, including:
A. Projected man-hours by position for each task.
B. Hourly rates for each position to identify direct labor costs for each task.
C. Indirect labor cost using your firms multiplier (as determined by most
recent audit for a similar project) and subcontracts compiled in the same
manner.
D. Fixed Fee (profit) and expenses anticipated to determine a cost "not to
exceed" for services to be provided.
TIME FRAMES, DELAYS, AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Final plans and specifications for the project as defined must be submitted, in
complete form, within the time frame indicated from the date of the contract
execution. Include twenty-five (25) copies of the design (work to be performed)
for contract preparation and bidding.
If the work is not completed within the stipulated time frame, the consultant may
be liable for a sum of $100.00 for each calendar day, for delays beyond the fixed
time schedule. This will commence from the time stipulated for satisfactory
completion until such work is satisfactorily completed and accepted. Any
extensions of time required must be submitted to the City as the need occurs.
Extensions of time may be granted for major changes in scope or for additional
studies required outside the original scope of work.
10
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT
Consultant must submit their firms Equal Opportunity Employment (EOE) plan
which must meet or exceed the requirements of the City of Muskegon.
Questions should be directed t the City's Affirmative Action Director, Mr. Ken
James, who can be reached at: 231.724.6703.
EVALUATION
The owner will review the proposals and evaluate them based on the requested
information and the information provided. The City reserves the right to accept or
reject any, and all, proposals.
PERTINENT DATES
Proposals will be received at the City Clerks Office, c/o Gail Kundinger, City
Clerk, City Hall, 933 Terrace Street, PO Box 36, Muskegon, Ml 49443-0536, on,
or before, Tuesday, July 31, 2001, no later than 2:00 PM, and clearly marked,
"Water Filtration Plant Improvements Proposal".
REQUIRED INSURANCE
The consultant, if selected, shall furnish the City a certificate of insurance
evidencing the following coverages:
The Consultant will be required to comply with the following insurance and
indemnity requirements:
1. Hold Harmless Agreements: To the fullest extent permitted
by law,CONSULTANT agrees to defend, pay in behalf of,
indemnify, and hold harmless the CITY, its elected and
appointed officials, employees, volunteers and others working
on behalf of the CITY against any and all claims, demands,
suits, or loss, including any costs connected therewith, and
for any damages which may be asserted, claimed or
recovered against or from the CITY, its elected and appointed
officials, employees, volunteers, or others working on behalf
of the CITY, by reason of personal injury, including bodily
injury and death, property damage, including loss of use
thereof, and/or the effects of or release of toxic and/or
hazardous material which arises out of or is in any way
connected or associated with this contract. The obligation to
defend and hold harmless extends to CONSULTANT'S
employees, agents, subcontractors, assigns and successors.
11
2. Consultant Insurance Requirements: CONSUL TANT shall
not commence work under this contract until obtaining the
insurance required under this paragraph. All coverage shall be with
insurance companies licensed and admitted to do business in the
State of Michigan and Best Rated A VIII. All coverage shall be with
insurance carriers acceptable to the CITY.
3. Workers' Compensation Insurance: The CONSUL TANT shall
procure and maintain during the life of this contract, Workers'
Compensation Insurance, including Employer's Liability coverage,
in accordance with all applicable Statutes of the State of Michigan.
4. General Liability Insurance: The CONSULTANT shall
procure and maintain during the life of this contract, commercial
General Liability Insurance on an "Occurrence Basis" with limits of
liability not less than $500,000 per occurrence and/or aggregate
combined single limit, Personal Injury, Bodily Injury and Property
Damage. Coverage shall include the following extensions: (a)
Contractual Liability; (b) Products and Completed Operations; (c)
Independent Contractor's Coverage; (d) Broad Form General
Liability Extensions or equivalent.
5. Motor Vehicle Liability: The CONSUL TANT shall procure and
maintain during the life of this contract Motor Vehicle Liability
Insurance, including Michigan no-fault coverage, with limits of
liability of not less than $500,000 per occurrence or combined
single limit Bodily Injury and Property Damage. Coverage shall
include all owned vehicles, all non-owned vehicles and all hired
vehicles.
6. Professional Liability Insurance: The CONSUL TANT shall
procure and maintain during the life of this contract and during the
performance of all services Professional Liability Insurance
covering all performances from the beginning of the consultant's
services on a "claims made basis" and shall maintain coverage
from commencement of this contract until six (6) months following
completion of the consultant's work with limits of liability not less
than $500,000 per claim.
7. Additional Insured: Commercial General Liability and Motor
Vehicle Liability Insurance, as described above, shall include an
endorsement stating the following shall be "Additional Insured":
The CITY OF MUSKEGON, all elected and appointed officials, all
employees and volunteers, all boards, commissions and/or
authorities and board members, including employees and
volunteers thereof.
12
8. Cancellation Notice: Workers' Compensation Insurance,
General Liability Insurance, Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance, and
Professional Liability Insurance, as described above, shall include
an endorsement stating the following: "It is understood and agreed
that Thirty (30) Days Advance Written Notice of Cancellation, Non-
Renewal, Reduction and/or Material Change shall be sent to: CITY
OF MUSKEGON ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
9. Proof of Insurance Coverage: The CONSUL TANT shall
provide the CITY at the time the contracts are returned by him for
execution, certificates and policies as listed below:
a. Two (2) copies of Certificate oflnsurance for Workers'
Compensation Insurance
b. Two (2) copies of Certificate oflnsurance for Commercial
General Liability Insurance
C. Two (2) copies of Certificate of Insurance for Vehicle
Liability Insurance
d. Two (2) copies of Certificate oflnsurance for Professional
Liability Insurance
e. If so requested, certified copies of all policies mentioned
above will be furnished.
If any of the above coverage expires during the term of this
contract, the CONSUL TANT shall deliver renewal certificates
and/or policies to the CITY at least ten (10) days prior to the
expiration date.
13
3"1('-)
:;_oo/- 1
CITY OF MUSKEGON
CONSULTING ENGINEERING AGREEMENT
WATER FILTRATION PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NAME
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of this ,;?4/lj day of
? ) ~ 2001, A.D., by and between Tetra Tech MPS, Consulting Engineers, of 3949
Sparks Drive SE, Suite 101, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546, hereinafter referred to as the
"CONSULTANT", And the City of Muskegon, a Public Body Corporation, hereinafter
referred to as the CITY.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the CITY desires to engage the professional services of the
CONSULTANT to perform certain engineeting and other related services required in
connection with the project as defined by the Work Plan Outline referred to as the
"PROJECT".
WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT is willing to render the services desired by the
CITY for the consideration hereinafter expressed; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto have reached an understanding regarding the
performance of the PROJECT work and desire to set forth this understanding in the form
of a written agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the parties
hereto that:
I. THE CONSULTANT SHALL, perform professional services in connection with the
PROJECT as hereinafter stated.
THE CONSULTANT SHALL, serve as the CITY'S Professional Representative
in all of the Phases of the PROJECT, and will give consultation and advice to the CITY
during the performance of his services as follows:
WORK PLAN OUTLINE
The work will consist of the following steps:
scope of Services study. If a significant item is recommended, it will be
included within a future capital improvement plan.
STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING In addition, the RFP includes a Discharge Elimination
Study that is necessary to identify the most
We understand that the City of Muskegon desires to
appropriate alternative for reduction or elimination of
implement improvements to the Water Filtration Plant.
the plant discharges in order to comply with
The plant improvement project outlined in the Request
anticipated discharge permit limitations. It is
For Proposals including: Door and Window
anticipated that the improvements identified within
Replacements; Filter Rehabilitation; High and Low
this study will be incorporated into the plant
Service Pumping Improvements; and Conventional
improvements project and that design and construction
Sedimentation Basin Improvements will include
phase engineering services will be included. Our
Preliminary and Final Design and Construction Phase
budget for engineering services for the design and
Engineering Services. These improvements are as
construction phase services of this portion of the
originally envisioned during the Reliability Study
project assumes that the alternative involving
performed in 1990.
demolition of the 1928 Pump Station and conversion
into a reservoir and pump station with solids removal
In addition, the City has requested that a new
to the sanitary sewer and liquid decanting to the lake
Reliability Study be performed to assess the adequacy
will be utilized. It is assumed that these improvements
and reliability of the current system. This study will
. will be included in a single construction contract along
involve utilization of the existing
with the plant improvements discussed in the first
transmission/distribution system model that was
paragraph above.
originally developed by Tetra Tech MPS and has been
expanded by the City Engineering Department. This
PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
study will investigate all water mains within the
system approximately 8-inches and larger. In In response to the Request For Proposals, the plant
addition, the remote plant storage and pumping improvement project includes design and construction,
facilities will be investigated to outline a long-term phase engineering services for the following scope:
capital improvement plan. As part of the reliability
study, the plant processes will be investigated to Door and Window Replacements
determine any specific vulnerabilities not already The following doors and windows will be replaced as
anticipated as part of the current improvement part of the plant improvement program. We anticipate
program. If minor plant improvements are obtaining pertinent information regarding each of the
recommended during the reliability study, these will doors indicated below and providing this information
be included in the current improvement program. It is as part of the contract bidding documents. Specific
not anticipated that any major improvements to the aspects of each of the doors will be included in the
plant will be recommended as part of the reliability contract documents. We will perform research on the
appropriate type of door replacement for each of the
Muskegon Water Filtration Plant Improvements, July 2001 • Page 3
doors and provide a reconnnendation for consideration Low Service Pumping
prior to preparation of the contract documents. The We understand that it is the intent to provide firm low
following doors are included within the proposed service pumping capacity for the entire plant within
construction program: the existing low service pump station at the shore
well. It is anticipated that the 1928 pump station will
1. Clarifier Building eventually be abandoned.
E & W double exterior entrances (1/2 light)
2. Headworks As part of this task, the existing pumping capacity will
Exterior be determined and new pumping units will be
E double entrance (Full light) specified so that the pump station will have finn
W double entrance (Full light) capacity to pump through the treatment process. It
Loading dock- door (1/2 light) will be determined whether replacement of the
Interior existing isolation and check valves is required. The
Both lab. entrances (Full light) proposed pumping units will be equipped with pump
3. New Filters isolation and check valves as required.
E exterior double entrance (1/2 light)
Stairway - install window frame & glazing, New pumping will be equipped with vibration
remove louver monitoring equipment and an appropriate type will be
4. High Service Pump Passage specified as part of the project improvement. Any
W exterior entrances (2) (1/2 light) . permanently mounted vibration sensors will be
5. High Service Pump Building connected to the plant SCADA system. The present
N exterior entrance (1/2 light) SCADA system contains a processor input/output
Double, panel-type, equipment doors (I/O) panel in the low service pump station. During
6. Intake Passageway the original SCADA design, inputs and outputs were
N aud S exterior entrances (1/2 light) provided for future incorporation of four (4) additional
7. Intake Building low service pumps. I/O points in this panel were
N exterior entrance including wired to terminal strips for ease of installation of
Windows S exterior entrance future pumps and associated signals.
N door - full light
S door - 1/2 light The electrical system will need to be revised in the
Double, panel-type, equipment doors station to accommodate additional pumps. Additional
8. Old Pumphouse passage motor control centers and associated switchgear may
W doors (2) - 1/2 light need to be added to provide for this equipment as well
E door - 1/2 light as providing for redundancy and incorporation of the
9. Attic recently installed medium voltage generator for
S doors for roof access (2) (1/2 light) feeding power to low service pump station equipment.
Muskegon Water Filtration Plant Improvements, July 2001 • Page 4
As a point of information, during the original SCADA specified as part of the project improvement. Any
design, communication cables were installed from the permanently mounted vibration sensors will be
main processor panel in the laboratory to the control connected to the plant SCADA system. The existing
panel in the 1928 pump station, then to the control SCADA 1/0 panel in the high service pump station
panel in the 1963 low service pump station. In was designed to incorporate the addition of two
addition, a spare cable was installed directly to the additional medium voltage high service pumps. 1/0
control panel in the 63 pump station from the main points were included in this panel and pre-wired to
processor panel in anticipation of the 28 pump station terminal strips for future incorporation of new
and control panel being demolished. Reconnection of pumping equipment and associated signals.
the communication link between the main processor
panel and the 63 low service control panel will result Presently, two 2400V feeders from the existing
in near zero down time when this 28 pump station outdoor switchgear feed the existing starters inside the
panel is demolished. high service pump station. Each feeder supplies power
to three pumps (two pumps are existing, and one pump
High Service Pumping is future (typical for each feeder). The existing
The project also includes equipping the 1973 High switchgear inside the pump station includes provisions
Service Pump Station with up to two additional for addition of two additional high service pump
pumps. The number and capacity of pumps will be as starters. New 2400v starters will be required as well
recommended in the system reliability study as controls, motor protection, and vibration
(described later). In addition, we understand that it is equipment.
desired to provide isolation valves for each of the
existing high service pumps and to potentially loop the The feeder and bus sizes will need to be reviewed and
discharge header so as to provide more flexibility in associated protective relaying settings reviewed to
the piping system at the high service pump station. accommodate the addition of two high service pumps.
In addition, an additional high service discharge main FILTER REHABILITATION
connection is desirable to connect with the existing Rehabilitation of the filters will include removal and
dual 24-inch discharge mains from the 1928 Pump replacement of the existing header and lateral
Station. underdrains or the older (1936) filters. The existing
header and lateral system will need to be completely
Replacement of the existing valve operators will be removed and recommendation will be provided for a
evaluated to determine whether replacement or replacement of the underdrain system.
refurbishing is necessary. The proposed valves will be
equipped with similar types of actuators as are The City of Muskegon will benefit from experience
selected for the other valves in the station. gained at several water treatment plants regarding the
installation of Integral Media Support (IMS) type
New pumping will be equipped with vibration underdrain systems. Several failures of this type of
monitoring equipment and an appropriate type will be system have occurred which has resulted in an
Muskegon Water Filtration Plant Improvements, July 2001 • Page 5
expanded knowledge of the appropriate installation replacement and/or modification. It may be possible
details of this type of system. The primary problem to reutilize the existing valves and replace only the
that now has been addressed is the means of valve actuators. In any event, the need for potential
anchorage of the drains near the collection gullet to seat replacement due to age and/or wear will be
prevent uplift during backwash. considered.
Installation of an IMS type underdrain system will In addition, the valves and actuators associated with
have a positive benefit in that additional media depth the raw water lines between the low service pump
could be provided and the potential for head loss due station and the clarifiers and rapid mix rising wells
to air binding is significantly reduced. A filtering rate will be evaluated for potential replacement and/or
of 4.0 gpm per square foot has been accomplished at rehabilitation.
several facilities using this type of underdrain and this
rate has been approved by the Michigan Department Filter Box Protective Coating
of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The existing filter boxes will be evaluated and the
need for any concrete rehabilitation or crack repair
The new filters will require an evaluation of the need will be assessed. In addition, the existing chlorinated
for replacement or modification of the underdrain rubber coating will be removed and an approved
system. Evaluation of air-water or water-surface wash protective coating for the filter box concrete walls and
type systems will be included. all surfaces above the media will be recommended.
. Conditions for application of the protective coatings
In addition to media replacement, the need for an air- will be considered when selecting appropriate filter
water wash system will be evaluated. The air water box coatings. In addition, all filter box coatings would
wash has the benefit of generating less backwash need to be approved by the National Sanitation
water per wash. However, the cost of an air-water Foundation (NSF) for contact with potable water.
wash system needs to be balanced with the cost of the
additional wash water that would need to be treated Filter Structural Rehabilitation
from a water wash/surface wash system. The condition of the existing filter boxes and settled
water distribution flume will be evaluated and
If an air-water wash is not utilized, replacement of the recommendations will be provided for resurfacing
existing surface wash system would need to be and/or crack filling. The existing stress cracks at the
considered. All surface wash piping internal to the outlet pipes from the settled water conduit to each of
filter would need to be replaced and the system would the filters have also been seen at other water treatment
need to be equipped with rotational flags to indicate plants of similar design. Repair procedures for
positive rotation of the surface wash system. correcting this leaking crack will be evaluated and
measures may include structural rehabilitation coupled
Filter Valves and Actuators with lining and/or crack sealing.
The existing valves and actuators associated with all
ten filters will be evaluated to determine the need for
Muskegon Water Filtration Plant Improvements, July 2001 • Page 6
As part of this program, all existing steel gratings will SEDIMENTATION BASINS
be removed and replaced with fiberglass gratings so as
to minimize future maintenance associated with the We understand that the plant desires to upgrade the
gratings. Modifications to the filters as a result of this existing conventional sedimentation basins. Upgrades
program will be interfaced with the existing filter will involve the following components:
controls and SCADA system. Changes to existing
programs and/or screen details will be performed Rapid Mixers
during the construction phase of the project under a The existing rapid mixing equipment will be reviewed
separate contract allowance. to determine its effectiveness. Newer rapid mix
equipment currently available on the market will be
.,1,
Filter Railings compared to determine whether Tplacement of the
Railings around the filter tanks will be replaced as current rapid mixers would provide better treatment.
required. Detailing of the railings to match the A tracer study will be performed across both the rapid
original style in the plant will be included. mix tanks and sedimentation basins in order to
determine the effectiveness of the rapid mixing and
Settled Water Channel/Conduit the potential for short-circuiting within the existing
The existing settled water conduit has exhibited a sedimentation basins.
variety of cracks and leaks. The cracks that have been
exhibited are typical of types observed at other water This tracer study can be performed by measuring the
treatment plants of similar design. It is likely that . rate of disappearance of fluoride ion if the fluoride
structural rehabilitation will be required in addition to feed is temporarily relocated upstream of the rapid
crack sealing and/or crack repair in order to provide an mixers and then is abruptly turned off. By measuring
effective solution to these leaks since they are the rate of change of the fluoride ion concentration,
occurring at a location of high structural stress. the rate of short-circuiting through the sedimentation
basins can be determined.
Operation
A detailed sequence of construction will be developed Flocculation Equipment
for all improvements anticipated under this program. The existing flocculation equipment m the
This detailed sequence of construction is necessary so sedimentation basins has been inoperable for many
that the contractor will be required to follow a years. Also, the existing wooden baffles between the
prescribed order of improvements so that these various sections of the tank utilized for flocculation
improvements can be constructed without interference are quite old and rotting. Several types of flocculation
with the existing process operation. The portions of equipment currently available on the market will be
the plant that are subject disruption iu operation will evaluated. Specific types of flocculation equipment
need to be controlled and be dependent upon the that may be of potential use include:
particular seasonal demand so that an appropriate • Horizontal chain-driven paddle
portion of the plant is kept in operation at all times to flocculators
meet system demands. • Vertical paddle driven flocculators
Muskegon Water Filtration Plant Improvements, July 2001 • Page 7
• Walking beam flocculators plates or tubes coupled with collection launders and a
Specific types of flocculation equipment will need to baffle.
be compatible with the existing equipment openings or
be compatible with equipment openings that can be Drain Valves
constructed in locations conveniently accessible for The existing drain valves and operators on the
maintenance. In addition, concerns for maintenance sedimentation basins will be evaluated to determine
of submerged bearings and chain drives will need to whether replacement is necessary.
be considered.
Structural Rehabilitation
Settling Equipment The condition of the existing sedimentation basin
In order to enhance the settling efficiency within the structure will be reviewed to assess the condition of
sedimentation basins, inclined plate or inclined tube the walls and potential rehabilitation that may be
type settling equipment will be evaluated. The necessary. Previous inspection of the basin walls in
specific type of inclined plate or tube will need to be I 990 revealed minor cracks, with little or no
evaluated in consideration of potential operation significant active leaking. The existing wall adjacent
and/or maintenance concerns (solids removal and to the older filters will be carefully reviewed to assess
accumulation). Based on experience at other facilities the need for potential rehabilitation or lining.
utilizing inclined plates or tubes, the settling
efficiency has increased and sedimentation basins can Entranceways
typically be re-rated to provide for increased capacity. . The existing active hatchways will be reviewed to
Specific input from the Michigan Department of assess the appropriate type of replacement equipment.
Enviromnental Quality will be required to assess the The original hatchways are quite deteriorated and in
differential capacity increase that would be allowable. need of replacement. New waterproof-type access
Specific TTMPS experience at New Baltimore Water hatch doors will be provided at these locations to
Treatment Plant and St. Clair Water Treatment Plant facilitate ease of access. Replacement with portable
have allowed for capacity increases of approximately or fixed ladders will be considered for each of the
25 percent over a basin without tube settlers. hatchways. Also, the potential installation of an
access gantry crane for removal of equipment from the
Basin Flow & Piping sedimentation basins will be considered.
Installation of inclined plates or tubes will require that
a baffle be installed and that collection launders 36-lnch Raw Water Line
(weirs) be installed above the inclined plates to The existing raw water line through the sedimentation
unifonnly collect the flow above the inclined plates or basin will be considered for joint rehabilitation. In
tubes. The tracer study discussed previously will areas where the exterior of the pipe and leaded joints
indicate the degree of short-circuiting that is currently are exposed to the process water, alternative means of
occurring and experience with tubes settlers and providing a seal around the joints can be accomplished
collection launders will indicate the potential capacity to minimize the exposure of the process water to the
increase that can be accomplished utilizing inclined leaded joints.
Muskegon Water Filtration Plant Improvements, July 2001 • Page 8
Sludge Removal questions and issue addenda as required during
An economic comparison will be performed to assess the bid phase.
the cost-effectiveness of installation of automatic
sludge collection equipment. The cost of this 4. We will prepare a bid tabulation and
equipment will be compared with continued manual recommendation for contract award.
removal of the sludge collected in the sedimentation
basins. A portion of this evaluation will assess CONSTRUCTION PHASE
whether the continued means of disposal of residuals
from the treatment process is appropriate and cost 1. We will organize and conduct the pre-
effective as opposed to discharged to the County- construction meeting.
Owned Wastewater Treatment Facility.
2. We will conduct construction administration
Valving including periodic site visits by the Design
The existing influent and effluent valves will be Engineer; processing of any required changes
considered for rehabilitation and/or replacement. orders, and processing pay requests from
Reliance on these valves for process control will be contractors on any additional related work. All
considered in the performance of this evaluation. documents will conform to City of Muskegon
requirements.
FINAL DESIGN/BIDDING PHASE
3. We will provide full-time review of construction
l. We will prepare the final contract documents for activities during intense activities and part time
the recommended plant improvement project. A review during times when the contractor's work
detailed survey to supplement preliminary force has been lessened or is minimal in order to
information will be prepared at this time. enforce compliance with the plans and
specifications. Our resident project
2. We will prepare and submit contract documents representative (RPR) will coordinate all review
for review and approval to appropriate agencies of construction activities. We will prepare
and obtain permission to bid the project. We inspection reports and provide copies of the
assume that the City of Muskegon will likely reports to the City.
finance this project utilizing water system
revenues, and that outside agency funding is not 4. It is assumed that a soils consultant will be
anticipated for this project. retained by the City as necessary to conduct soil
density and compaction testing at our direction.
3. It is assumed that the consultant will print and The soils consultant will provide certified
distribute contract documents to bidders, testing technicians to perform all testing
charging an appropriate fee to bidders to offset required for this project. The testing consultant
costs. We will respond to answer Contractor's will prepare testing reports; we will review and
provide copies of reports to the City. The fee
Muskegon Water Filtration Plant Improvements, July 2001 • Page 9
for this work has not been identified, since the
scope of the project has not been determined. It
is assumed that the budget for these services can
be established at the beginning of the
construction phase and should be relatively
minor since the amount of underground work is
anticipated to be fairly minimal.
5. We will provide drawings that conform to
construction records. We will use information
acquired by the resident project representative,
modify the design plans to reflect as-built
conditions, and provide a copy in both ink jet
Mylar and electronic format (AutoCAD) to the
City.
Muskegon Water Filtration Plant Improvements, July 2001 • Page 10
RELIABILITY STUDY a maximum day basis can best be accomplished
utilizing Extended Period Simulation (BPS)
It is desired to provide an updated reliability study for associated with a water distribution system
the treatment plant and water transmission system. computer model. As part of the reliability study,
The existing reliability study prepared in 1990 will be an BPS will be performed for the entire
utilized as a foundation for this analysis. However, all Muskegon water transmission and distribution
unit processes will be evaluated for the appropriate system. BPS can provide a continuous plot of the
treatment capacity that currently can be provided. water level at each of the reservoirs. This is the
most effective and efficient way to evaluate the
Unit Operations appropriateness of the existing system storage
This evaluation will be considered to determine capacity. In addition to evaluating the quantity
whether "bottlenecks" exist along various processes. and effectiveness of existing system storage, the
The following unit processes will be evaluated: following items will be evaluated:
Raw Water Intake Nims Street, Roberts Street, Marshall Street and
• Determine effect of HDPE chemical application Roosevelt Park Elevated Storage Tanks
line on capacity
• Determine cost and usefulness of cladding the • The altitude and supply valving will be evaluated
existing intake with copper to discourage zebra to detennine whether additional valves are
mussel attachment. necessary.
Low Service Pumps and Metering • The vault structures will be evaluated.
Flocculation and Clarification • The antenna systems and wire locations for radio
Filtration telemetry system evaluated.
Disinfection
High Service Pumps and Metering Muskegon Township Elevated Tank
Chemical Storage, Transfer and Application
Hydraulic Model of Plant - • Evaluate need for second elevated storage tank.
• We propose to develop a spreadsheet-type model This evaluation will be performed in conjunction
of flow through the Water Filtration Plant. with the overall system computer model BPS. If
the existing storage is marginal,
System Storage recommendations for additional storage may be
• The existing system storage consists of the clear made to estimate the reliability of the system.
wells at the Water Filtration Plant, plus the • The size of the distribution mains within the
Harvey Street Reservoir and all of the elevated Muskegon Township system will be evaluated to
storage tanks. The storage quantity and location detennine whether additional mains would be
will be evaluated to detennine its full capacity recommended to reduce operating pressures
and reliability. The overall effectiveness of associated with this system.
system storage for equalizing diurnal demands on
Muskegon Water Filtration Plant Improvements, July 2001 • Page 11
• The existing reliability studies performed for the Muskegon. This alternative was discussed in the early
North Muskegon and Muskegon County reliability study as a means by which to provide
Northside and Southside systems will be additional transmission capacity around the north side
reviewed to evaluate the effect on the City of of Muskegon Lake. The WaterCad Model can
Muskegon water system. relatively easily demonstrate the impacts that this
additional main will provide.
Booster Stations
The existing Harvey and Keating Booster Stations will The model will be calibrated using existing system
be reviewed to determine the available storage and parameters. Each of the high service and booster
pumping capacity. The availability of auxiliary power pump curves will be set up within the model to enable
for operation of these booster pumping facilities will evaluation of a variety of combinations. The model
also be reviewed. The existing vault piping and needs to reflect the demands, pumping and storage
valving and by-pass valve operation at the Harvey facilities that withdraw water from the transmission
Street Reservoir will be reviewed to determine system. A variety of pumping/demand conditions will
effectiveness and whether any changes would be be analyzed so that seasonal variations that result in
recommended. different flow combinations can be analyzed.
The existing Keating Booster Station will be evaluated Evaluate compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act
to determine the condition of the existing structure and Requirements (SDWA)
equipment and whether the station is needed for long-
term reliable service. We will review the current technical, managerial and
financial capabilities of the system with regard to
Transmission and Distribution System Model SDWA guidelines. A comparison of staffing levels
The existing hydraulic model of the transmission and with the AWWA Water Industry Database will be
distribution system will be updated to add all water performed. This database provides a good comparison
maius of recent construction 12-inch or larger. The of the staffing levels and financial capabilities of the
system will be utilized to create an Extended Period Muskegon system as it compares with other utilities
Simulation (ESP) of the Muskegon water system. As within .USEPA Region 5 (Great Lakes Region).
described earlier, this will be a useful tool in assessing
the capacity of the existing storage facilities to provide Power and Energy Consumption
adequate water on a maximum day basis. In addition, We will review the average power consumption per
the effectiveness of the system to provide fire flow at unit of water treated. This data will also be compared
various locations in the system can also be evaluated. with the AWWA Water Industry Database as a
We will review the currently available ISO fire comparison of the effectiveness of the Muskegon
hydrant test data and utilize these reports to provide Water System.
further calibration of model. As requested, the model
will also include an evaluation of the north loop
around the northern portion of the lake to North
Muskegon Water Filtration Plant Improvements, July 2001 • Page 12
Staffing Unattended Operation
The current plant and system staffing will be We will review the potential for unattended or remote
compared to the AWWA Water Industry Database. operation during lower demand periods. It 1s
Once again, this database provides a good comparison anticipated that unattended or remote operation is
of how the Muskegon Water System compares with a feasible only in the winter months when the plant is
variety of utilities throughout the Great Lakes region. capable of operating solely with the sedimentation
basins. Periodic stmtup and shutdown of the up flow
Structures clarifiers is not feasible based on past experience.
As part of the reliability study, the general condition Unattended or remote operation of the filtration plant
of all plant structures will be reviewed. Part of this will allow plant management the opportunity to assign
review will include a summary task maintenance the operating staff to perform other tasks. We will
effort and projection of when future maintenance evaluate the type and frequency of alarms that occur
might be necessary. In addition, a rating system will on a daily basis to make recommendations for
be developed for the overall appearance of masonry unattended or remote operation of the plant and
structures and including an approximation of the pumping systems. The proximity and availability of
amount of routine tuck jointing and other joint operators on call to respond to the alarm conditions
maintenance that may be necessary based on the will be an important element of this evaluation.
condition of the structure.
Muskegon Water Filtration Plant Improvements, July 2001 • Page 13
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION STUDY New regulations regarding the quality of water
Several of the current plant water discharges currently returned to the treatment process may make this
go to the lake. It is anticipated that discharge alternative not feasible. Other alternatives that
limitations may be imposed upon these discharges in include treatment of the wash water prior to discharge
the future. Therefore, it may not be feasible to to the lake need to be evaluated. Additionally, it may
continue to send all of these discharges to the lake be necessary to discharge a portion of the water
through the existing plant drain. The discharges of (settled solids) to the sanitary sewer. As part of this
concern are as follows: task the overall quantity of water to be handled and
• Filter drain treated will be assessed and the unit cost of treatment
• Filter surface wash will be developed. For each alternative, the expected
• Filter backwash discharge limits and cost will be developed. The
• Filter-to-waste following discharge alternatives will be evaluated:
• Clarifier drain • Continue untreated discharge to the lake.
• Sedimentation Basin drain • Discharge to sanitary sewer.
• Plant floor drains • Discharge to the existing 36-inch line
As part of the reliability study prepared in 1990, south of 1928 Pump Station.
consideration was given to the potential of converting • Partial treatment and discharge to the lake
the existing 1928 Pump Station structure into a • Complete treatment to meet SDWA
holding tank for plant discharges. The intent was to standard and recycle
utilize the structure as a holding tank and, thereby,
settle the wash water content and return the clarified Our budget for engineering services for the design and
water to the treatment process. construction phase services of this portion of the
project assumes that the alternative involving
demolition of the 1928 Pump Station and conversion
into a reservoir and pump station with solids removal
to the sanitary sewer and liquid decanting to the lake
will be utilized. It is assumed that these improvements
will be included in a single construction contract along
with the plant improvements discussed under the Plant
hnprovement Project.
Muskegon Water Filtration Plant Improvements, July 2001 • Page 14
September 20, 2001
Mr. Robert J. Veneklasen
Water Plant Supervisor
City of Muskegon
Water Filtration Plant
1900 Beach Street
Muskegon,MI49441
Re: Request for Additional Proposal Information
Dear Mr. Veneklasen:
We are in receipt of your letter request for additional proposal information dated September 7,
200 I. With regard to the request for information, we respond as follows:
1. As we discussed recently, there is no single project that is exactly similar to the
requested project at the Muskegon Water Filtration Plant. However, we have
provided the original and final engineering fees, as well as the bid and final
construction costs for a number of projects as outlined in the table below. Please let
us know if any additional information is required.
, ·. > i 'J'roi~cl;>·• >• ,;i·, > Eruiineenn!!J1ef •·
,',
' Constn1ction :Cost ' ··
'"'"' ';:·,, ,. ·. :;,· •;i,. : >,..'. i ' , OrigiriaL , ,\ 'Final '·'' :Bid.!• t >'Firial '
North Chicago, IL WTP $117,000 $117,000 $1,102,000 $1,124,748
Filter Rebuild
Frenchtown Twp, WTP $715,000 $725,000 $6,764,000 $6,887,905
Traverse Citv WTP $199,100 . $199,100 $1,700,000 $1,700,000
DWSD Lake Huron WTP $830,000 $902,500 $7,420,000 $7,420,000
Filters*
Mount Clemens WTP $65,000 $65,000 $1,500,000 $1,686,000
Plate Settlers
Hillsdale WTP** $185,000 $229,400 $2,392,000 $2,495,249
MHOGWTP $535,000 $632,000*** $4,623,000 $4,735,000
New Baltimore WTP $394,518 $418,818 $2,417,000 $2,480,000
(Plate Settlers, Filters)
*Projected amount of completIOn at end of 2001
**Change in scope due to Bulk Sodium hypochlorite conversion
***Additional cost due to added off-site work and project extended due to contractor delay
Mr. RobertJ. Veneklasen
Re: Request for Additional Proposal Information
September 20, 2001
Page2
2. We apologize for any misunderstanding regarding the solids handling portion of the
project. Our assumption in the preparation of the proposal was that the alternative
involving conversion of the existing 1928 pump station structure into a backwash
holding basin would be implemented into the final design. As such, we have
included costs within our design to handle the conversion of this structure. However,
as you have explained, this alone will not address the solids handling and disposal.
Our initial assumption for the conversion of the 1928 pump station was that a solids
collection device would be installed. The method of handling of the solids beyond
the removal from the backwash water storage tank would be determined as part of the
discharge elimination study. We envision potential options including
• Discharge of the solids stream to the Muskegon County Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
• Continued on-site drying of the solids with manual removal and disposal as
is currently practiced.
• Dewatering by some mechanical means with disposal to a landfill.
Concerns regarding heavy metals in the wastewater flow may prohibit discharge to
the sanitary sewer. Therefore, this is not considered to be a viable option.
If continued use of the drying beds is the recommended course of action in the
discharge elimination study, we propose to include the additional costs to design
modifications to the existing drying beds that become necessary as a result of on-site
recirculation of backwash water and return of the solids stream to the drying beds as
well as associated construction phase services.
If, during the discharge elimination study, it is determined that the continued use of
the drying beds for removing solids from the settled wash water stream is not
feasible, then an alternative involving mechanical removal of the solids will likely be
the most cost-effective option. Most water plants have utilized centrifuges for this
purpose.
If centrifuges are utilized for concentration of the solids from the wash water system,
it may also be prudent to include the concentration of solids from the clarifier blow
down, as well as sedimentation basin sludge removal. This may require the addition
of a holding tank for solids prior to dewatering. If this is desirable, it could possibly
be incorporated in the design of the proposed centrifuge building.
For the purpose of this proposal amendment, we offer alternative fees for the design
and construction phase services for either:
i) Design and construction phase services for modification of the existing
sludge drying beds to handle the additional solids from the wash water
drain system;
Mr. Robert J. Veneklasen
Re: Request for Additional Proposal Information
September 20, 2001
Page3
ii) Design and construction phase services for a solids handling facility
including mechanical dewatering with centrifuges, pins a truck or
dumpster loading station.
The proposed additional fees for the design and construction phase services for these
two alternatives are as outlined below:
Proiect DesilmFee Construction Fee
Sludiw Drvine: Bed Modifications $31,000 $9,000
Solids Dewaterine: Facilitv $95,000 $40,000
Our initial assumption is that the water removed from the waste washwater storage tank can be
discharged to the Lake or the wastewater treatment plant under permit. This will be detennined
as part of the discharge elimination study.
If discharge to one of these locations is not feasible, then returning the decanted water to the plant
influent may be the preferred option. It is likely that additional pretreatment of the backwash
water would be necessary if it is intended to reintroduce this flow into the plant flow stream.
Most likely, the barrier that can be utilized to prevent potential reintroduction of cryptosporidium
cysts and other microscopic contaminants into the flow stream would be to implement some form
of microfiltration membrane treatment of the wash water prior to reintroduction to the plant flow
stream. This could potentially be accommodated within the old pump station structure. We did
not originally anticipated the cost to provide design and construction phase services for an
additional membrane pretreatment device and associated building. The additional engineering fee
to provide design and constmction phase services for a membrane treatment unit would be
$52,000 and $28,000 respectively.
We hope that the above information satisfactorily responds to your concerns. We look forward to
this project and to continue being of service to the City of Muskegon. If there is any additional
concerns or if you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Benoit, P.E.
Senior Vice President
/jbc
P:\0482000\WFP Improvements 2001\Veneklasen Ltr Request For Add.I Info.doc
Schedule
A project schedule has been prepared to show all
phases of the plant improvement project, reliability
study and discharge elimination study. It is assumed
that the recommended alternative from the discharge
eliminatiou study will be included within the plant
improvement project and that any minor plant
improvements identified during the reliability study
will also be included within the plant improvement
project. Overall, we anticipate that the plant
improvement project will take approximately 14
months but could be prolonged if filter valve delivery
dates cannot be timed so that one half of the filters can
be removed from service.
Muskegon Water Filtration Plant Improvements, July 2001 • Page 15
[-
CITY OF MUSKEGON
WATER FILTRATION PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT SCHEDULE
~Dr:;;:,
i~J~:~
'RELIABILrtY STIJ])Y
1. Unit Operation Review
'2. System Storage EvaluationComputer Modeliru!
3. Booster Station Evaluation
4. Misc. Review SDWA,Staffing, Operations,_ Etc.
5. Prepare Cost Opinions
6. Report Preparation
7. Review Meetin~s 41
!DISCHARGE ELIMINATION STUDY
I. Quantification
2. Alternatives Development/Evaluation
3. Prepare Cost Opinions
14. R"l'_ort Preparation
5. Review Meetings t
,PRELIMINARY DESIGN/ENGINEERING
I. Door Replacement
2. L.S. PumpNalve Evaluation
3. H.S. PumpNalve Evaluation
4. Filter Rehabilitation Evaluation
,5. Sedimentation Basin Evaluation I-+-
6. Cost ()pinions I-+-
7. Report Preparation
8. Review Meetin~s
;FINAL DESIGN ENGINEERING
I
• I•
•
I. Design Drawings
12. Detail Drawin_ES f---1---
3. Specification Development
,....,....
4. Revise Cost Opinions >-
5. Review with City
6. MDEQ Review
•1•
7. fucorporate Revisions2 pevelop _Final Documents ,....,....
8. Prebid Meeting
9. Review Bids Received
• ,_
IO. Award Recommendation
l
•
ff
~·
CITY OF MUSKEGON
WATER FILTRATION PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT SCHEDULE
l$r,,~111!r, r'!"'1!\lll''l+i'!+MflAr'
.lf:f:::,:• --
ill~
+ !'MfY:P~ l"-~!;;:1A.y~~:'l,f'l°'fl'f 11!?Vl 'fl':;J'N'l~TM~:
0 111 0
QA/QC - 1- 1- 1- ,_ I"" f- +- +- f- f- -+ -+ -,. -j -, -1 .. _,
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/INSPECTIN PHASE
I. Preconstruction Conference
12. Progress Meetings
3. Shop Drawing Review
!4. On Site fuspection
5. Process Construction Documentation I
• -• I 4 • I. I. I• ' 4
• It I • I 4 itl4
-1-1-1-1-1-1-
6. Record Drawing Preparation
~
Professional Fees
As requested, the project fees have been broken down
for the purpose of assessing the relative cost of each
portion of the project. The breakdown of fees for each
of the project phases is shown on the following page.
Our fees for Resident Project Representative services
include 32 weeks at full time, 20 weeks at
approximately half time and an additional 24 days for
follow up on punch list and other completion items
Onr not-to-exceed professional fees for the following
project components are as follows:
Proiect Studv Desie:u Construction
Plant Improvements NIA $275,000 $257,000
Reliability Study $35,000 * *
Discharge Elimination Study $15,000 ** **
Sub Totals $50,000 $275,000 $257,000
TOTAL FEE $582,000
*It is recognized that minor plant improvements may be identified during the reliability study and would be included within the
overall scope of the Plant Improvements project. Distribution system improvements and major plant improvements would be
included in a Capital Improvement program and implemented at a later date.
** For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that the original alternative of developing the 1928 pump station into a holding cell with
recirculation pump station would be included in the Plant hnprovements project.
It is to be understood that the total fee will not be exceeded unless there are changes in scope or additional studies
are required outside of the scope of services proposed. Tetra Tech MPS reserves the opportunity to transfer fees
between phases of he work provided the total fee of $582,000 is not exc~eded for the total project as proposed.
Muskegon Water Filtration Plant Improvements, July 2001 • Page 18
COST BREAKDOWN OF SERVICES
Muskegon Water Filtration Plant Improvements
Reliability/Dischg. Elim. Study Plant Improvements Design Construction
Avg. Rate Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amoum
Direct Labor Cost
Corporate Officer $58.00 39 $2,262 !32 $1.656 46 $2.668
Staff Manager 556.00 12 $672 70 $3,920 4 $224
Project Manager $39.00 92 $3,588 290 $11,310 0 $0
Engineer 5 $35.00 88 $3,080 608 $2!,280 452 $15,820
Engineer 4 $30.00 24 $720 160 $4.800 26 .£780
Engineer 3 $24.00 0 $0 148 $3,552 40 $960
Engineer 2 / RPR $21.00 170 $3,570 630 $13,230 2450 $51,450
Engineer l $19.00 80 $1.520 164 $3,116 228 $4,332
Secretarial $13.00 10 $130 134 $1,742 140 $1,820
$l LOO 40 $440 780 $8,580 104 $!,144
\iv~' Technician
CADD Designer $16.00 40 $640 900 $14,400 40 $640
SUBTOTAL 595 $16,622 4016 $93,586 3530 $79,838
Direct l..:abor Overhead (60%) $9,973 $56,152 $47.903
GenJAdmin. Overhead (80%) $13,298 $74,869 $63,870
SUBTOTAL $39,893 $224,606 $!91,6! I
Cost Escalation (5%) $0 so $9,581
SUBTOTAL $39,893 $224,606 $201,192
Other Direct Costs:
!
Travel, Misc. $i,350 $1,800 $12,820
Computer/CAD $1,488 $10,040 $8,725
Printing/FAX/Phone/Mail $400 $2,500 .S600
SUBTOTAL $43,130 $238,946 $223,337
FixedFee{l5%) $6,470 $35,842 $33,501
TOTAL HOURS AND FEE 595 $49,600 4,016 $274,788 3,530 $256.837
Rounded Off $50,000 $275,000 $257,000
GRAND TOTAL FEE $582,000
Muskegon Water F;Jtration Plant Improvements, July 2001
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The CONSULTANT shall:
1. Follow standard accounting practices and permit the CITY to inspect its
PROJECT books and records at any reasonable time. Such records are to be
kept available for three (3) years from the date of the final payment for
work conducted under this Agreement.
2. Have in its employ a sufficient number of qualified employees available to
complete the PROJECT in accordance with the schedule established upon
the authorization of the services as outlined herein.
3. Show evidence of Workmen's Compensation Insurance, said insurance to be
required by law. Maintain and show evidence of Professional Liability
Insurance in the amount of $500,000, maintain General Liability Insurance
with a limit of liability not less than $500,000, and name the CITY OF
MUSKEGON as additional insured with policy(ies) not being cancelled or
materially altered without at least thirty (30) days notice to the CITY.
4. Commence work on the PROJECT as set forth in this Agreement only upon
receipt of written notice from the CITY.
5. During the performance of the services herein provided for, be responsible
for any loss or damage to the documents, hereinafter enumerated as
belonging to the CITY, while they are in its possession. Restoration of lost
or damaged documents shall be at the CONSULTANT'S expense.
6. The CONSULTANT will perform all work on this project with its own
employees except as noted herein, or as approved by the CITY.
7. CITY INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING. The CONSULTANT shall withhold
Muskegon City income taxes from each and every employee who is subject to
same, and shall pay the income tax due, if any. CONSULTANT shall further
require the same of each subconsultant or other party with whom
CONSULTANT works or from whom CONSULTANT obtains goods or
services for the project. Payroll submissions required by this agreement shall
include full information showing said withholding. The City may withhold
payments otherwise due to the CONSULTANT to assure compliance with this
agreement or cure noncompliance.
II. THE CITY WILL:
A. Provide to CONSULTANT existing data as it is available from its files.
B. Pay for and in consideration of the services rendered by the CONSULTANT in
carrying out the PROJECT on the basis of costs as outlined in the proposal
under the sections entitled "ENGINEERING SERVICES WORK PLAN" and
"CURRENT FEE SCHEDULE" shall not exceed $717,000.00. Any increase
in the amount to be paid to the CONSULTANT shall be by amendment to this
Agreement.
C. Determine actual costs for the PROJECT work required and performed in
accordance with the following terms:
1. Direct Salary Costs: Actual Direct Salary costs of members of the firm
and staff personnel on the basis of salary, on an hourly basis (without
markup) actually expended for said personnel for the time such personnel
are directly utilized on the PROJECT.
2. Other Direct Costs: Actual cost of other material and services as may be
required hereunder but which are not normally provided as part of the
overhead of the CONSULTANT. All actual costs shall be itemized and
certified as paid to specifically named firms or individuals, and shall be
supported by proper receipts. Examples of items normally treated as
direct costs are as follows.
Computer services, travel, transportation, printing and telephone costs
related to the PROJECT work perf01med. Engineering services (by
others) such as surveys, professional engineering services, etc., and items
other than engineering services related to the PROJECT.
3. Overhead, Indirect Costs and Profit: The overhead and indirect costs
incurred by the CONSULTANT during performance of the PROJECT
work. The amount of overhead, indirect costs and profit payment,
including payroll overhead, will be calculated as a percentage of all direct
salary costs related to staff personnel. Overhead and indirect costs shall
include those costs which, because of the incurrence for common or joint
objectives are not readily subject to treatment as a direct cost. The
percentage rate, for Payroll Overhead (Direct Salary Costs), Firm
Overhead and Profit, which will be applied to direct labor costs for
progress payments, is 276%.
It is agreed that this rate is the final overhead rate and will be used for all
work related to the PROJECT.
D. Make payments to the CONSULTANT in accordance with the following
procedures:
1. Progress payments shall be made for reimbursement of amount earned to
date and shall include direct salary costs, other direct costs, calculated
amounts for overhead, indirect costs and profit using the aforementioned
rate.
2. Partial payments will be made upon the submissions by the
CONSULTANT of an Invoice Voucher, accompanied by properly
completed reporting forms and such other evidence of progress as may be
required by the CITY. Pattial payments shall be made only once a month.
3. Final billing under this contract shall be submitted in a timely manner but
not later than six months after completion of the work. Billings for work
submitted later than six months after completion of the work will not be
paid. Final payment will be made upon completion satisfactory to the
CITY.
E. If work on the Agreement is terminated before completion, pay the
CONSULTANT actual costs incurred for the work up to the time of
termination of this Agreement, compensate the CONSULTANT in full for all
overhead costs defined above and prorated profit on work completed. The
aforesaid payment shall be an amount which can be established by the
CONSULTANT from his accounts and records, and verified by the CITY. In
no case shall the amount paid to the CONSULTANT for partial completion of
work under this Agreement exceed the amount the CONSULTANT would
receive had all work be completed.
Ill. IT IS FURTHER AGREED THAT:
A. Upon completion or termination of this Agreement, all documents prepared
by the CONSULTANT, including tracings, drawings, estimates,
specifications, field notes, investigations, studies, etc., as instrnments of
service, shall become the property of the CITY. The CONSULTANT may
keep a copy of materials developed through this contract.
B. No pottion of the PROJECT work, heretobefore defined, shall be sublet,
assigned, or otherwise disposed of except as herein provided or with the prior
written consent of the CITY. Consent to sublet, assign or otherwise dispose
of any portion of said work shall not be construed to relieve the
CONSULTANT of any responsibility for the fulfillment of this Agreement.
C. All questions which may arise as to the quality and acceptability of work, the
manner of performance and rate of progress of work, and the interpretation
of plans and specifications shall be addressed by the CONSULTANT to the
satisfaction of the CITY. All questions as to the satisfactory completion
shall be decided by the CITY.
D. Any change in work to be performed by the CONSULTANT involving extra
compensation must be authorized in writing by the CITY prior to the
performance thereof by the CONSULTANT.
E. The CONSULTANT warrants it has not employed or retained any company
or person other than bona fide employees working solely for the
CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that it has not paid
or agreed to pay any company or person, other than bona fide employees
working solely for the CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration, contingent upon, or resulting
from the award or making of the Agreement. For breach or violation of this
warranty, the CITY shall have the right to annul this Agreement without
liability or, at its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or
consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission,
percentage, brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee.
F. The CONSULTANT specifically agrees that in the performance of
engineering services herein enumerated, by him, or by an approved
subcontractor, or anyone acting in its behalf, they will comply with any and
all State, Federal, and Local statutes, ordinances and regulations and obtain
all permits that are applicable to the entry into and the performance of this
Agreement.
G. No charges or claims for damages shall be made by the CONSULTANT for
delays or hindrances from any cause whatsoever during the progress of any
portions of the services specified in this Agreement, except as hereinafter
provided.
In case of a substantial delay on the patt of the CITY in providing to the
CONSULTANT access to the site, necessary information or approval to
proceed with the work, resulting, through no fault of the
CONSULTANT, in delays of such extent as to require the
CONSULTANT to perform his work under changed conditions not
contemplated by the parties, the CITY will provide supplemental
compensation limited to increased costs incurred as a direct result of
such delays. Any claim of supplemental compensation must be in
writing and accompanied by substantiating data. Authorization of such
supplemental compensation shall be by an amendment to this
Agreement. When delays are caused by circumstances or conditions
3. Workers' Compensation Insurance: The CONSULTANT shall procure
and maintain during the life of this contract, Workers' Compensation
Insurance, including Employer's Liability coverage, in accordance with
all applicable Statutes of the State of Michigan.
4. General Liability Insurance: The CONSULTANT shall procure and
maintain during the life of this contract, commercial General Liability
Insurance on an "Occurrence Basis" with limits of liability not less than
$500,000 per occurrence and/or aggregate combined single limit,
Personal Injury, Bodily Injury and Property Damage. Coverage shall
include the following extensions: (a) Contractual Liability; (b) Products
and Completed Operations; (c) Independent Contractor's Coverage; (d)
Broad Form General Liability Extensions or equivalent.
5. Motor Vehicle Liability: The CONSULTANT shall procure and
maintain during the life of this contract Motor Vehicle Liability
Insurance, including Michigan No-Fault Coverages, with limits of
liability of not less than $500,000 per occurrence or combined single
limit Bodi! y Injury and Prope1ty Damage. Coverage shall include all
owned vehicles, all non-owned vehicles and all hired vehicles.
6. Professional Liability Insurance: The CONSULTANT shall procure and
maintain during the life of this contract and during the performance of
all services, Professional Liability Insurance covering all performances
from the beginning of the Consultant's services on a "claims made
basis" and shall maintain coverage from commence of this contract until
six (6) months following completion of the Consultant's work with
limits of liability not less than $500,000 per occmTence.
7. Additional Insured: Commercial General Liability and Motor Vehicle
Liability Insurance, as described above, shall include an endorsement
stating the following shall be "Additional Insured": The CITY OF
MUSKEGON, all elected and appointed officials, all employees and
volunteers, all boards, commissions and/or authorities and board
members, including employees and volunteers thereof.
8. Cancellation Notice: Workers' Compensation Insurance, General
Liability Insurance, Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance, and Professional
Liability Insurance, as described above, shall include an endorsement
stating the following: It is understood and agreed that Thirty (30) Days
Advance Written Notice of Cancellation, Non-Renewal, Reduction
and/or Material Change shall be sent to: CITY OF MUSKEGON
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
beyond the control of the CONSULTANT, as determined by the CITY,
the CONSULTANT shall be granted an extension of time for such
reasonable period as may be mutually agreed upon between the parties,
it being understood, however, that the permitting of the CONSULTANT
to proceed to complete any services, or part of them, after the date to
which the time of completion may have been extended, shall in no way
operate as a waiver on the part of the CITY of any of its rights herein set
forth.
H. In case the CONSULTANT deems extra compensation will be due them for
work or materials not clearly covered in this Agreement, or not ordered by
the CITY as a change, or due to changed conditions, the CONSULTANT
shall notify the CITY in writing of his intention to make claim for such extra
compensation before they begin such work.
Failure on the patt of the CONSULTANT to give such notification will
constitute a waiver of the claim for such extra compensation. The filing of
such notice by the CONSULTANT shall not in any ways be construed to
establish the validity of the claim. Such extra compensation shall be
provided only by amendment to this Agreement.
I. The CONSULTANT agrees to comply with the following insurance and
indemnity requirements:
1. Hold Harmless A g r e e m e n I.lest
t~ exte.
.u nt .ennitted by law,
CONSULTANT agrees to - - - - - indemnify, and hold
harmless the CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees,
volunteers, and others working on behalf of the CITY against any and
all claims, demands, suits, or loss, including any costs connected
therewith, and for any damages which may be asserted, claimed or
recovered against o form the CITY, its elected and appointed officials,
emp oyees, volunteers, or others working on behalf of the CITY, by
reason of personal injury, including bodily injury and death, property
damage, including loss of use thereof, and/or the effects of or release-el' of
toxic and/or hazardous material which arises out o ~ .. ent acts
and or omission of the engineer. The obligation t o - hold
harmless extends to CONSULTANT'S employees, agents,
subcontractors, assigns and successors.
2. Consultant Insurance Requirements: CONSULTANT shall not
commence work under this contract until obtaining the insurance
required under this paragraph. All coverages shall be with insurance
companies licensed and admitted to do business in the State of
Michigan and Best Rated A VIII. All coverage shall be with insurance
carriers acceptable to the CITY.
9. Proof of Insurance Coverage: The CONSULTANT shall provide the
CITY at the time of the contracts are returned by him for execution,
certificates and policies as listed below:
(a) Two (2) copies of Certificate of Insurance for Workers'
Compensation Insurance.
(b) Two (2) copies of Certificate of Insurance for Commercial
General Liability Insurance.
(c) Two (2) copies of Certificate of Insurance for Vehicle
Liability Insurance.
(d) Two (2) copies of Ce1tificate of Insurance for Professional
Liability Insurance.
(e) If so requested, certified copies of all policies mentioned
above will be furnished.
If any of the above coverages expire during the term of this contract,
the CONSULTANT shall deliver renewal certificates and/or policies
to the CITY at least ten (10) days prior to the expiration date.
J. This Agreement shall be terminated upon advisement to the CONSULTANT
by the CITY that the PROJECT work is completed and accepted, with the
exception that the Professional Liability Insurance at the identified limits of
coverage shall remain in effect for a period of six (6) months following the
date of said advisement of termination.
K. Upon execution of this Agreement by the parties hereto, the same shall
become binding on the parties hereto and their successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals by
their duly authorized agents and representatives the day and year first above written.
Witness
CITY OF MUSKEGON
Witness L / .,, clt:1 /loff-t'r
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COMMISSION MEETING November 27, 2001
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Bryon L. Mazade, City Manager
DATE: November 20, 2001
RE: Flag Flying Policy
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
To approve a policy for the consideration of requests to fly flags on City property.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
To approve the attached policy.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
None
CITY OF MUSKEGON
FLAG PLACEMENT POLICY
2001- 139 ( b)
A. Purpose
To provide a procedure to consider requests to the City to fly flags on City owned
or occupied property or facilities (herein "City property"). The flying of the
United States of America, State of Michigan, the County of Muskegon and the
City of Muskegon flags are exempt (except as set forth herein), from this policy
and can be flown on City property or at City property by authorized City
employees or officials.
B. City Control of Flag Placement.
Except as pe1mitted by the City Commission or City staff members with
authority, no flag, including "exempt" flags shall be placed on City property by
any person except authorized city employees or officials. The procedures and
standards set forth in this policy document shall govern the City's decision to
permit or deny permission to have a particular flag flown or displayed on City
property.
The flying of flags on City property is peculiarly within the prerogatives of the
City. Flags which are permitted to be flown on City property have the effect of
representing to the community the City's support for the organization or point of
view which is represented by the flag. The City reserves the right to refuse or
terminate the flying of any flag for the reason that unintended endorsements by
the City shall not result from this policy. It is this concern, together with the
City's acknowledgement that the flying of flags is a form of speech, which shall
guide the City in administering this policy.
C. Review Process. The Procedure.
1. Request
A request to fly a flag(s) must be submitted in writing to the City Clerk at
least 30 days prior to when the flag is proposed to be raised. The request
shall state in writing:
a.. All the reasons for the request.
b. Describe and display the flag, which shall not be changed in the
event permission is given.
G:\EDSIIFILES\00I00\085011 \RESOLUD9V6 I 60.DOC
c. State the name, address, and the names and addresses of all the
officers, of the organization submitting the request. Indicate the
legal form of organization, and the name and address of the contact
person who shall be responsible for the flag's condition and
presentation.
d. State the period for which the flag is requested to be flown.
e. The desired location. (Locations shall be determined by the
City based on availability and ability to display the flag without
infringing on the display by others, including the City itself).
2. City Staff Review
The City staff will review the request and make a recommendation to the
City Cormnission based on the following:
a. Appropriateness of the organization and the flag. Flags which
support illegal activities, take political positions or suppmi
candidates for any office, advocate against City policies or involve
obscene language, symbols or activities are prohibited.
b. The number of other flags already approved.
c. The availability of locations.
d. The time period during which the flag shall be permitted to be
flown on City property. No permission shall be given for
permanent flag placement. In the event an applicant desires a
longer time period than that granted, renewal applications shall be
submitted at least 30 days before the end of the initial period in
order to afford the City Commission opportunity to decide on the
extension.
D. City Commission Consideration and Decision.
The City Commission will consider the request after the review and
recommendation from City staff. The City Cormnission will consider the
determination of City staff when making their decision as well as any
other criteria they deem appropriate, to the extent that the criteria are
legally and constitutionally supportable. In the event a request is denied by
the Commission, a decision with the reasons set forth shall be adopted at
the time of the refusal, and set forth in the minutes in writing as part of the
motion (or resolution) adopted.
G:IEDSI\FILES\00 I 0010850 I I IRESOLUT\9V6160.DOC
E. Grant by City Commission; Location and Term
Any request that is approved will be accomplished by City Commission
resolution that will include the specific location(s) where the flag(s) can be flown
and the time period for which the request is granted.
Policy regarding term of the permission: No permanent permission shall be
granted. The City's policy is to favor shorter term flying periods to accommodate
a reasonable number of requests and avoid unintended endorsements which can
arise not only by the message of the flag itself, but also by the duration a flag is
flown other than flags of the City, County, State and the United States.
Applicants are encouraged to apply for periods of display which are shorter, as
stated above. However, the Commission will consider periods up to one year for
flags which represent long term or continuing organizations, activities or public
(non-political) concerns. More typical will be permission granted for periods of a
week to thirty days.
The term of any permission granted shall be subject to the City's determination to
fly another flag in the location of and instead of the permitted flag in a time of
emergency or of critical public concern.
F. Flag Maintenance
It shall be the responsibility of the requesting organization to maintain the flag( s)
in good repair. Failure to do so will result in revocation of the permission to fly
the flag(s). The City shall afford access to the flag for repair and maintenance.
G. Revocation
The City Commission shall have the sole discretion to revoke the permission to
fly a flag permitted under this policy for whatever reasons they deem appropriate
and which are legally and constitutionally supportable. Claims made by any
person to whom permission has been granted concerning the import of the City's
permission to fly a flag which are not intended or acceptable to the City shall be,
without limitation, grounds for revocation without notice.
Any revocation of permission before the term permitted has expired shall be
accomplished by the City removing the flag and notifying the applicant to come
to the City's offices to retrieve the flag or flags removed. In such case the City
shall indicate by written memorandum delivered to the applicant the reason(s) for
revocation.
G:\EDSI\FILES\00100\085011 \RESOLUT\9V6 l 60.DOC
2001-139(b)
CERTIFICATION
This policy was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Commission, held on November
27, 2001. 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
By~~Q~L
~ ~~-
Gail A. Kundinger, City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COMMISSION MEETING November 27, 2001
MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: B1yon L. Mazade, City Manager
DATE: November 20, 2001
Flag Flying Request - Rolling Thunder
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
To consider a request from Rolling Thunder to fly the MIA/POW flag.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
To approve the attached resolution granting permission to Rolling Thunder to fly the
MIA/POW flag.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
None
231-7771015 ROLLING THUNDER MI 4 PAGE 01
11/21/2001 12:00
Attn. Ric Scott
Enclosed is a Lisi 0 ' c•, '1at we feel would be the most appropriate places to fly the POW /MIA
flags.
1. Inside and ou ! •,11_1':' of Walker Arena
2. Muskegon Av, , ' the welcome to Muskegon sign next to the sculpture.
3. Hackley Park
4. City Hall,
We would like tr, , >onatc the first (5) Five and also hold Dedication ceremonies that John
McClain will lnli. , '°Otl more about.
After which w1· •; , ilc! like the City to pick up with keeping the flags maintained.
I h,ink You Very much in this matter
Dave Johnson
Board Member
Rolling Thunder. ::•
Michigan Chapt•··
P.O. Box 443
Muskegon, ML ,y, i+·\-0443
CITY OF MUSKEGON
RESOLUTION 2001 - 139 ( c)
WHEREAS, the Muskegon City Commission has established a policy that allows
organizations to fly flags on City property upon the adoption of a resolution by the City
Commission, and
WHEREAS, Rolling Thunder has requested to fly the MIA/POW flag at various City
prope1ties in the City pursuant to the City policy.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Muskegon City Commission grants Rolling
Thunder permission to fly the MIA/POW flag at the following locations:
Inside and outside the L.C. Walker Arena
Corner of Shoreline Drive and Muskegon A venue
Hackley Park
City Hall
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the permission to fly the MIA/POW flag is granted
for one year.
Ayes:
Aslakson, Benedict, Nielsen, Schweifler, - Shepherd, Spataro
Nays:
None
Adopted on November 27, 2001
2001-139(c)
CERTIFICATION
This resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Commission, held on
November 27, 2001. 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
Gail A. Kundinger, City Clerk
Commission Meeting Date: November 27, 2001 . (\·, ~
G,\Y yU
\. '/ifY" (\.tty',,Ci
1))
\,\ \ ·.•.
j\ ';
·\
Date: November 16, 2001
\\ }
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners Cy
From: Planning & Economic Developmen~
RE: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to change front setback
requirement
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Request to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance to change the front setback
landscaping requirements for all multi-family, business and industrial districts.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to change the proposed
language in the articles and sections described.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request on 11/15/01, with the
addition of two conditions - that the greenbelt area be adjacent to the road right-of-way
and be a minimum of 1O feet in average. The vote was unanimous, with L. Abraham,
B. Smith, and F. Nielsen absent.
11/16/2001
Staff Report [EXCERPT]
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
November 15, 2001
Hearing; Case 2001-39: Request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the
front setback requirement on Henry St. from 20 feet to 10 feet, by Trophy House of
lVIuskegon, Inc.
BACKGROUND
In August, Trophy House applied for both a variance and a site plan review for their property
located at 2300 Hemy St. The variance request was to reduce the front setback requirement from
20 feet on Hemy St. to 10 feet. The variance was denied, and Trophy House submitted a revised
plan showing that they would comply with the 20-foot setback. The revised plan was approved.
Since that time, city staff has had dialogue with the property owner about the requirement for a
20-foot front setback on Hemy Street. The crux of the issue became the ordinance standard that
a required front setback had to be landscaped, not that the building had to be set back 20 feet.
When the ordinance was amended to relax setback requirements on minor streets, staff did not
feel comfortable having buildings less than 20 feet from a major street right-of-way. That
opinion has not changed. The 20-foot front setback on Hemy has been in effect since at least
1952. Whether or not we should require that the full front setback be greenspace, however, is
worth asking. The idea of the green space is not to have pavement right up to the sidewalk. It's
unattractive and can be unsafe. Cars often encroach upon the sidewalk making it difficult for
pedestrians to pass. Snowplows throw snow and sometimes debris onto property and having a
buffer between the road and the business facility protects parked cars, other property and people
who may be frequenting the facility. This is especially important on busy streets like Hemy.
Landscaped areas make business districts much more attractive reducing blight and keeping the
City competitive with suburban areas in terms of attractiveness. Well-designed and attractive
sites also make for better resale and reuse of property. The question becomes how much of a
greenbelt is enough? It was suggested by the applicant that a IO foot landscaped strip is plenty
and the remaining area can be used for drives and parking.
In order to get a better feel for what a 10 or 20-foot stretch of greenspace actually looks like, staff
went out and took some measurements and photos of existing businesses, as shown below:
City of Muskegon Planning Commission - 11/15/01 I
1. ADAC, Black Creek Rd., has 21 feet of greenspace.
(:,
2. Sherwin Williams, corner ofHemy St. and Pulaski Ave., has a 15 feet of greenspace on
Pulaski Ave., and 18 feet of gn:enspi1ce on Henry St.
3. Jerry Grow Honda, corner of Henry St. and Pulaski Ave., has 12 feet of greenspace on
Pulaski Ave., and 14 feet of greenspace on Hemy St. (pies are Pulaski St. side)
City of Muskegon Planning Commission - 11/15/01 2
4. Rite Aid, corner of Apple Ave. and Getty St., has 20 feet of greenspace on Apple Ave. Their
5. Walgreens, corner of Apple Ave., and Getty St., has 10 feet of greenspace on both Apple
Ave. and Getty
(."" . ,,_-• St.
,~- ,---
Ave.
Staff believes that a 20-foot building setback is necessary, but understands that there may be an
argument that the entire setback does not need to be greenspace.
City of Muskegon Planning Commission - 11/15/01 3
CITY OF MUSKEGON
MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICHIGAN
ORDINANCE NO.
An ordinance to amend requirement #14 of Sections 703, 803, 903, and 1903 (Area and Bulk
Requirements), requirement #11 of Sections 1003, 1103, 1203, 1303, 1308, 1403, 1503, 1507,
1603, 1703, 1803, and 2003 (Area and Bulk Requirements), requirement #13 of Section 1803
(Area and Bulk Requirements), #9 of the Table I Notes, and requirement #5 of Section 2331
(Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, Screens And Lighting) of the City's Zoning Ordinance to change
the front setback landscaping requirements.
THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MUSKEGON HEREBY ORDAINS:
Sections 703, 803, 903, and 1903 of Articles VII, VIII, IX, and XIX of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Muskegon are hereby amended to read:.
14. 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 the required front yard
setback shall be landscaped and adjacent to the road right-of-way. An average minimum
greenbelt of 10 feet shall be maintained.
Sections 1003, 1103, 1203, 1303, 1308, 1403, 1503, 1507, 1603, 1703, 1803, and 2003 of Articles X,
XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII and XX of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Muskegon
are hereby amended to read:
11. 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 the required front yard
setback shall be landscaped and adjacent to the road right-of-way. An average minimum
greenbelt of 10 feet shall be maintained.
Section 1802 of Article XVIII of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Muskegon is hereby amended to
read:
13. 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 the required front yard
setback shall be landscaped and adjacent to the road right-of-way. An average minimum
greenbelt of 10 feet shall be maintained.
The Table Notes of Table I of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Muskegon are hereby amended to
read:
9. Setbacks are subject to landscaping requirements.
Section 2331 of Atiicle XXIII of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Muskegon is hereby amended to
2
read:
5. Greenbelt Buffers:
All required side and rear setbacks shall be landscaped, greenbelt buffers, unless zero-lot-line
is employed for a structure or fu-e access. At least fifty percent of the required front yard
setback shall be landscaped and adjacent to the road right-of-way. An average mmimum
greenbelt of 10 feet shall be maiutaiued. Greenbelt buffers shall be landscaped in grass,
ground cover, perennials, and/or other natural, living, landscape material.
This ordinance adopted:
Ayes:. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Nayes: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Adoption Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective Date:
-------------------
First Reading: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Second Reading: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
CITY OF MUSKEGON
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Gail A. Kundinger, City Clerk
3
Commission Meeting Date: November 27, 2001 - Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Front Setback Requirements
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned, being the duly qualified clerk of the City of Muskegon, Muskegon County,
Michigan, does hereby certify that the foregoing is a 1:tue and complete copy of an ordinance adopted
by the City Commission of the City of Muskegon, at a regular meeting of the City Commission on the
11th day of December, 2001, at which meeting a quomm was present and remained throughout, and
that the original of said ordinance is on file in the records of the City of Muskegon. I further certify
that the meeting was conducted and public notice was given pursuant to and in foll 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: - - - - - - - - - 2001.
Gail Kundinger, CMC/AAE
Clerk, City of Muskegon
Publish: Notice of Adoption to be published once within ten (10) days of final adoption.
4
CITY OF MUSKEGON
NOTICE OF ADOPTION
Please take notice that on December 11, 2001, the City Commission of the City of Muskegon adopted
an ordinance to amend requirement #14 of Sections 703, 803, 903, and 1903 (Area and Bulk
Requirements),requirement#ll of Sections 1003, 1103, 1203, 1303, 1308, 1403, 1503, 1507, 1603,
1703, 1803, and 2003 (Area and Bulk Requirements), requirement #13 of Section 1802 (Area and
Bulk Requirements), #9 of the Table I Notes, and requirement #5 of Section 2331 (Landscaping,
Fencing, Walls, Screens And Lighting) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, to require that 50% of
required front setback areas be landscaped.
Requirement #14 of Sections 703, 803, 903 and 1903 of Articles VII, VIII, IX, and XIX; requirement
#12 of Sections 1003, 1103, 1203, 1303, 1308, 1403, 1503, 1507, 1603, 1703, 1803, and2003 of
Atticles X, through XVIII and Article XX; and requirement# 13 of Section 1802 of Article XVIII of
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Muskegon are hereby amended to read:
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 the required front yard
setback shall be landscaped and adjacent to the road right-of-way. An average minimum
greenbelt of 10 feet shall be maintained.
The Table Notes of Table I of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Muskegon are hereby amended to
read:
10. Setbacks are subject to landscaping requirements.
Section 2331 of Atticle XXIII of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Muskegon is hereby amended to
read:
6. Greenbelt Buffers:
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 the required front yard
setback shall be landscaped and adjacent to the road right-of-way. An average minimum
greenbelt of 10 feet shall be maintained. Greenbelt buffers shall be landscaped in grass,
ground cover, perennials, and/or other natural, living, landscape material.
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 - - - - - - - - ~ 2001 CITY OF MUSKEGON
By _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
5
Gail A Kundinger
Its Clerk
PUBLISH ONCE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF FINAL PASSAGE.
Account No. 101-80400-5354
6
Commission Meeting Date: November 27, 2001
Date: November 20, 2001
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissio~s
From: Planning & Economic Development (;27 )
RE: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to all~econdhand stores
in the B-2, Convenience and Comparison Business, District
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Request to amend Section 1101 (Special Land Uses Permitted) of Article XI (B-2,
Convenience and Comparison Business) of the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow
secondhand stores, under certain conditions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to change the proposed
language in the article and section described above.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request on 11/15/01, with the
addition of two conditions - that the store be adjacent to or within an established,
identifiable commercial corridor, and that the store be associated with a 501 (c)3
organization. The vote was unanimous, with L. Abraham, B. Smith, and F. Nielsen
absent.
11/20/2001 1
Staff Report [EXCERPT]
CITY OF MUSKEGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
November 15, 2001
Hearing; Case 2001-40: Request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow
secondhand stores in the B-2, Convenience and Comparison Business District, by Tridonn
Development.
BACKGROUND
Tridonn Development owns the property located at 1367 E. Apple Ave., which was formerly a
Rite Aid store. Rite Aid still leases the building from Tridonn, but has been looking for a tenant
to sub-lease to. The Salvation Army is interested in putting their retail store at that location, but
secondhand stores are only allowed in B-4 zoning districts, while Tridonn' s property is zoned
B-2.
Staff has had a lot of dialogue with both the Salvation Army and Tridom1 about possible options
for the prope1iy. The entire block (west of Creston) is zoned B-2 on the south side of Apple,
while the nmih side is zoned both B-2 and R-1. Across Creston, the south side is actually in the
township, but the north side is zoned B-4. Tridonn explored the possibility ofrequesting a
rezoning for the subject property to B-4, but felt that such a request, for a spot zone, would not be
well received by the Planning and City Commissions. Therefore, Tridonn is asking the city to
allow secondhand stores in the B-2 district.
Staff feels that some secondhand stores, those associated with national charity organizations such
as the Salvation Army and Goodwill, are usually well-kept, well-run organizations, and it may be
reasonable to permit them in B-2. B-2 does allow general retail uses, and there is already a dollar
store next door to the subject property. However, staff does recognize that there are concerns
associated with secondhand stores which can congregate in less desirable commercial areas.
City of Muskegon Planning Commission - 11/15/01 1
AGENDA Item No. - - -
lVIUSKEGON CITY COMMISSION MEETING - November 27, 2001
To: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
From: City Manager's Office
Date: November 8, 2001
Subject: Amendments to the Animal Control Ordinance
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Approve the attached Ordinance to amend the Animal Control Ordinance to regulate cats in the
City.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Total administrative costs for the entire program that will result from this ordinance is
approximately $32,000, FY 2002. Cat licensing fees will partially offset this cost (est. $2,000).
BUDGET ACTION REQUIRED
Some of the resources are already budgeted. A budget adjustment will have to be made for
Animal Control Services, which will be billed quarterly.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached ordinance.
S:\Planning\MOORE\WORO\po!icy\cats\animal.ord2.doc
CITY OF l'vfUSKEGON
MUSK.EGON COUNTY, MICHIGAN
ORDINANCE NO.
An ordinance to provide for the control of animals including, without limitation, wild
animals, dogs, cats, dangerous animals, for the confinement and handling, capture,
impoundment, disposition of all animals, and providing for penalties and other relief.
THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF !'vfUSKEGON HEREBY ORDAINS:
Sections 3-0 through 3-17, being the text of Chapter 3 of the Code of Ordinances, are
hereby completely amended to read in their entirety as follows:
3.0 Animal control.
It is determined by the city that ownership of an animal is a privilege which
carries with it responsibilities to the city and all persons therein with regard to the
care, custody, and handling of said animal. This ordinance shall not be construed
to limit or substitute for the authority or functions of the County of Muskegon
Animal Control Shelter or animal control department. The regulations set forth in
this ordinance are supplemental to and not in substitution of the county animal
control department, any county ordinance related thereto or the state law
regarding county animal control.
3.1 Permitting animals in the city; responsibility for control.
The provisions of this ordinance shall be construed to impose the primary
responsibility for compliance with its provisions on the owner, or on any person
in control or the ostensible control of any animal. Both the owner and, as herein
defined, the handler, shall be responsible jointly and severally for the actions of
any animal and any violations of this ordinance except as provided in this
ordinance, no animal may be kept or handled in the City of Muskegon.
3.2 Definitions.
3.2.1 Animal Control Authority. The County of Muskegon, and the City of
Muskegon, and their designated officers. The Licensing Authority and the
Animal Control Authority may be, but are not necessarily, the same entity.
3.2.2 Animal control shelter. Means a facility operated by the County Of
Muskegon and, in addition, if designated and contracted, other facilities under
contract with the City for the impoundment and care of animals that are found in
the streets or at large, animals that are otherwise held due to the violation of a
S:\Planning\MOORE\WORD\pollcy\cats\animal.ord2.doc
municipal ordinance, county ordinance or state law, or animals that are
surrendered to the animal control shelter.
3.2.3 Control. The term "control" means having an animal in confinement as
described or required by this ordinance, or secured on a leash no greater than six
feet in length, and of sufficient strength to confine the animal, or in certain cases
where specified in this ordinance, a shorter leash. Control shall not mean
allowing an animal to go unleashed outside of its confinement or pen, without
complete control of the owner or handler. Control may mean controlling an
unleashed dog except for a dangerous dog. Any person purporting to control an
animal without a leash outside of its confinement bears the burden of proof that
the animal was not running loose.
3.2.4 Dangerous animal. The term "dangerous animal" means any and all of the
following:
3.2.4.1 Any mammal, amphibian, reptile, or fowl of a species which, due
to size, vicious nature or other characteristic, would constitute a danger to human
life, physical well-being or property, including but not limited to lions, tigers,
leopards, panthers, bears, wolves or wolf hybrids, apes, gorillas, monl(eys of a
species with an average adult weigh in excess of 20 pounds, foxes, elephants,
alligators, crocodiles and snakes which are poisonous or otherwise present a risk
of physical harm or death to human beings as a result of their nature or physical
makeup, including all constrictors.
3.2.4.2 Any dog or cat having a disposition or propensity to attack or bite
any person or animal without provocation.
3.2.4.3 Any pit bull dog. The term "pit bull dog" means any dog of one of
the breeds known as Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Bull
Terrier, or American Pit Bull Terrier, or any dog with the appearance and
characteristics of being predominantly of any one of the said lireeds, or
combination thereof, or in combination with other breeds.
3.2.5 Handler. Any person having control of an animal, whether or not by the
consent or direction of the owner.
3.2.6 Impound. The term "impound" means to place any animal in the custody or
control of an animal control shelter.
3,2. 7 Licensing Authority. The County of Muskegon, in accordance with state
law and county ordinance, or, for cats, under contract with the city as appropriate,
and in addition for cats, the City.
S:\P!anning\MOORE\WORD\policy\cats\anlrnal.ord2.doc
3.2. 8 Live Stock. The term "live stock" means. horses, cows, swine, sheep, goats,
or any hoofed animal.
3.2.9 Poulhy. The te1m "poultry" includes chicken, ducks, geese, pheasants, or
other fowl of a type normally used for food or egg production.
3.2.10 Owner: A person having the custody of an animal or who keeps or harbors
an animal, a person having the authority of the owner to be the handler of the
animal, or a person who knowingly permits an animal to remain on or about any
premises occupied by that person.
3.2.l1 Restmint. A dog or cat shall be considered under restraint if it is within
the real property limits of its owner or secured by a leash or lead or under the
control of a responsible person. Any other animal is considered restrained only if
it is effectively prevented from escape by appropriate means.
3.2.12 Wild Animal. Any living member of the animal kingdom, including those
born or raised in captivity, except the following:
1. domestic dogs (excluding hybrids with wolves, coyotes, or
jackals),
2. domestic cats (excluding hybrids with ocelots or margays ),
3. ferrets,
4. rodents,
5. captive-bred species of common cage birds.
3.3 Generalprohibition.
The provisions of this ordinance shall be construed to impose the primary
responsibility for compliance with its provisions on the owner, the handler, or on
any other person in control of the animal. No animal of any kind shall be kept in
the city or be present in the city in violation of the provisions of this ordinance.
3.4 Keeping of Live stock and poultry.
3.4.1 No livestock shall be kept permanently or temporarily in
any district in the City unless affiliated with a stable, pen
cage or other livestock confinement facility which meets
the requirements of all applicable laws, ordinance or
regulations and the best management practices of the local
Cooperative Extension Office. Live stock and poultry
pens, stables, cages or other confinement shall be
adequately maintained in a healthful, sanitary and safe
manner for the type of live stock. No live stock shall be
kept in the city nor any stable or pen, cage or other
livestock confinement shall be erected or maintained in
S:\P!anning\MOORE\WORD\policy\cats\anima!.ord2.doc
violation of the zoning ordinance. No stable or containing
building shall be closer to any dwelling than 25 feet.
3.4.2 No live poultry shall be kept in the city except in a
commercial establishments legally licensed and zoned
therefor, except that one pet may be kept in a pen or
confinement which is at least 25 feet from any dwelling.
3.4.3 No more than two rabbits shall be kept on any premises in the city, except
in a commercial establishment licensed and zoned therefor. The two
rabbits which may be kept at other premises shall be in a pen located at
least 25 feet from any dwelling and constructed and maintained in
accordance with standards published in the industry or by a 4-H
organization.
3.4.4 No wild animal shall be kept permanently or temporarily in the City unless
affiliated with a transient circus or carnival having all required permits to
operate in the City, or a licensed zoo.
3.5 Licensing and Rabies Vaccination
3.5.1 No person shall own, keep, or harbor any dog or cat over four months of age
within the City unless such dog or cat is vaccinated and licensed, as required by
state law, county ordinance or both. The provisions ohhis section do not apply to
animals owned by a licensed research facility or held in a veterinary medical
facility or government operated or licensed animal shelter.
3.5.2 All dogs and cats shall be vaccinated against rabies, and certified as so
vaccinated, as required by state law or county ordinance or both.
3.5.3 All dogs and cats kept in the city shall be licensed in accordance with state
law. In the event no state law requires cats to be licensed, cats shall be licensed
by the city, or if designated by the City, the County on the City's behalf.
Licensing requirements and procedures shall be as follows:
3.5.3.1 Application for a license must be made within 30 days after
obtaining a cat over four months of age, except that this requirement will not
apply to a non-resident keeping a cat within the City for no longer than 60 days.
3. 5.3.2 Written application for a cat license shall be made to the Licensing
Authority and shall include the name and address of the owner and the name,
breed, color, age and sex of the cat. Applicants also shall pay the prescribed
licensing fee and provide proof of current rabies vaccination.
S:\Planning\MOORE\WORD\policy\cats\animal.ord2.doc
3.5.3.3 The licensing period shall be for one year. License renewal may
be applied for within 60 days prior to the expiration date. New residents must
apply for a license within 30 days of establishing residence.
3.5.3.4 Upon acceptance of the license application and fee, the Licensing
Authority shall issue a durable license tag including an identifying number, year
of issuance, city, county, and state. Both rabies and license tags must be attached
to the collar of the cat. Tags must be worn at all times and are not transferable.
The Licensing Authority shall maintain a record of all licenses issued. Owners of
cats within the city limits of City of Muskegon may opt to use a microchip
identification implanted under the cat's skin. Any cat found within city limits
without a required collar or harness and tag, or without required identification, or
running loose, unconfined, situated or kept in violation of this ordinance, shall be
subject to impoundment.
3.6 Impoundment
3.6.1 Impoundment shall occur, where authorized by this ordinance, at the
Muskegon County Animal Shelter or at an animal control shelter or other
designated contracted facility licensed under MCL 287.331 to provide services to
include impounding of animals delivered to the shelter by authority of the City or
the County. A contract with an animal control shelter may include shelters in
addition to the County Animal Shelter for services, impoundment, confinement or
other functions which the County elects not to perform or is unable to perform.
The services and functions of the animal control shelter are governed by state law
and county ordinance, if any.
3.6.2 Any animal control shelter in which an animal is impounded shall carry on
release, treatment, adoption or disposal of animals in accordance with the
requirements of state law. No dog or cat shall be released for adoption to any
person without being neutered. If the animal is too young to neuter at the time of
adoption, the fee shall be paid for services, which shall be performed at a later
date.
3. 7 Interference
3. 7.1 No person shall interfere with, oppose, hinder, or molest any agent of the
Animal Control Authority in the performance of any duty has herein provided.
3. 7.2 If seizure and impoundment of a dangerous animal is not possible
without risk of serious physical harm or death to any person, the animal
may be killed by a police officer or animal control officer at the time of
seizure or impoundment.
3.8 Trapping and Abandonment
S:\Planning\MOORE\WORD\po!icy\cats\animal.ord2.doc
3.8.1 Any person or firm trapping cats within the City limit shall notify the city
and post notice in the vicinity of trapping to alert residents trapping will occur.
3.8.2 Traps shall be properly constructed and used prevent animals from being in
the traps for prolonged periods. Animals trapped in the City shall be promptly
brought to an animal shelter for appropriate care.
3.8.3 Abandonment of animals is prohibited within the City.
3.9 Owner Responsibility
3.9.1 All dogs and cats shall be kept under restraint. Dogs or cats shall not be
permitted to be at large in the City.
3. 9.2 Every vicious dog or cat, as determined by a police officer or the Animal
Control Authority, shall be confined by its owner within a building or secure
enclosure and shall be securely muzzled or caged whenever off the premises of its
owner.
3. 9.3 The owner of every dog or cat shall be held responsible for every behavior
or such dog or cat under the provisions of this ordinance.
3.9.4 Fecal matter shall be collected and removed from the area where the animal
is harbored or kept.
3.10 Confinement and number of dogs and cats which may be kept.
3.10.1 Number of dogs or cats. In other than a permitted veterinary clinic or
kennel, no person shall maintain more than three adult dogs and four adult cats in
the City., Animals born on the premises to a legally confined pet may remain
thereon until four months of age, after which they shall be considered adult dogs
or cats.
3.10.2 AH dogs kept in the city must be licensed in accordance with state law and
county ordinances.
3.10.3 All cats kept in the city must be licensed in accordance with this
ordinance.
3.10.4 All animals shall be confined in a pen or inside the dwelling, under
conditions which are sanitary, safe and secure. Any pen utilized for the outdoor
confinement of a dog shall be of sturdy and secure construction designed to
prevent the escape of the dog.
3.10. 5 No female animal in heat shall be confined in a place where other animals
may have access or a nuisance may be created.
S:\Planning\MOORE\WORO\policy\cats\animal.ord2.doc
3.10. 6 Any dog which habitually barks shall be kept inside the dwelling.
3.11 Confinement and handling of Dangerous Dogs; number.
All dangerous dogs including pit bulls and other dogs meeting the definition of a
dangerous animal, shall be especially confined and treated as follows:
3.11.1 Leash and muzzle. No person shall permit a pit bull or dangerous dog to
go outside its kennel or pen unless it is securely leashed with a leash no longer
than four feet in length. No such dog shall be kept on a chain, rope or other type
of leash outside its kennel or pen unless a person is in physical control of the
leash. Such dogs may not be leashed or tied to inanimate objects. Any such dog
on a leash outside its kennel or pen must be muzzled by a muzzling device
sufficient to prevent the dog from biting persons or other animals.
3.11.2 Confinement. All pit bull and dangerous dogs shall be securely confined
indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or kennel, except when leashed,
muzzled and controlled as above provided. Such pen, kennel or structure must
have secured sides and a secured top attached to the sides. All structures used to
confine pit bull or dangerous dogs must be locked with a key or combination lock
when such animals are within the sh·ucture. The structure must have a secure
bottom or floor attached to the sides of the pen or the sides of the pen must be
embedded in the ground no less than two feet from the grade. All such structures
must be adequately lighted and ventilated and kept in a clean and sanitary
condition.
3.11.3 Confinement indoors. No pit bull or dangerous dog may be kept on a
porch, patio, or any part of a house or structure that would allow the dog to exit
such a building. No such animal may be kept in a house or structure when the
windows or screen doors are the only obstacle preventing it from exiting.
3.11.4 Signs. All owners or handlers of pit bull or dangerous dogs within the city
shall display in a prominent place on the premises and on the pen or kennel a sign
stating the words "Beware of Dog." The letters shall be at least three inches in
height.
3.11.5 Insurance. All owners or handlers of pit bull or dangerous dogs must
obtain public liability insurance in a single incident amount of at least $50,000 for
bodily injury, death or property damage resulting from the ownership, keeping or
maintenance of such animal.
3.11.6 Number. No more than one dog of the breed or description
determined by this ordinance as "dangerous" shall be kept on any
premises in the city.
S:\PlanninglJv'IOORE\WORD\policy\cats\animal.ord2.doc
3.11. 7 Special penalties. Violations of the requirements of the provisions above
concerning dangerous and pit bull dogs shall carry special penalties set forth in
this ordinance.
3.12 Confinement of other dangerous animals.
3.12.1 All other dangerous animals besides dogs shall be kept and confined in
completely secure cages or containers which allow no access by any persons
except by unlocking same for the feeding of the aoimal. Such dangerous aoimals
shall be confined so that there is no access to any other animal or to humans by
the animals.
3.12.2 Dangerous animals specifically prohibited. No lions, tigers, leopards,
panthers, bears, wolves or wolf hybrids, apes, gorillas, monkeys in excess of
20 pounds, elephants, alligators, crocodiles, or poisonous or constrictor snal(es
shall be kept in the City of Muskegon, except in a licensed zoo.
3.13 Animals running loose. All animals, whether dangerous or not, shall be
subject to the following:
3.13.1 No person shall allow an aoimal to run loose or be unconfined in the city.
3.13.2 If an aoimal is upon the premises of the owner, the animal shall be
effectively confined as provided in this ordinance.
3.13.3 No dog shall be allowed to run on any beach, except a dog completely
controlled by a person during the months of October through March, or as
permitted by park rules promulgated by the city from time to time.
3.13.4 No unrestrained, unleashed or uncontrolled dog shall be allowed in any
park.
3.14 Miscellaneous prohibitions.
The following actions or failures to act shall constitute violation of this
ordinance, in addition to other prohibitions or violations found in this Chapter.
3.14.1 Training an animal to engage in vicious behavior.
3.14.2 Training any animal for fighting or contests with other animals; carrying
on, promoting or being present at such a fighting event between animals.
3.14.3 Cruelty to any aoimal or poisoning an animal.
3.14.4 Molesting small wild animals, birds or birds' nests.
S:\Planning\MOORE\WORD\policy\cats\anfmal.ord2.doc
3.14. 5 Allowing an animal to constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties or
other persons in the vicinity.
3.14. 6 Harboring or keeping any dog which commits frequent or habitual
barking, yelping or howling.
3.14. 7 Having a dog on any beach in the city, even if controlled, except for a blind
person controlling a guide dog at any time, and except during the months of
October through March, or except as allowed by park rules promulgated from
time to time by the City.
3.14. 8 Engaging in the feeding of stray cats.
3.15 Removal of animal excrement.
3.15.1 It shall be unlawful for any person to appear with any animal on public
property or the private property of another, unless that person has in his or her
possession an appropriate device for removal of animal excrement.
3.15.2 It shall be unlawful for any person to allow any animal to leave its
excrement on any public property, or upon the private property of another, unless
the excrement is promptly and thoroughly removed from the property by the use
of a removal device; provided, a person may fail to remove the excrement if entry
on the private property of another for said purpose is prevented by the person
owning or controlling the said property.
3.16 Penalties.
Any person violating this ordinance shall be subject to one or more of the
following penalties as applicable.
3.16.1 Any person violating Section 3-11 involving dangerous dogs shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor, carrying a mmdmum penalty of 90 days in jail or $500
fine, or both.
3.16.2 Any person violating any other prohibition of this ordinance shall be
responsible for a civil infraction.
3.16.3 All persons found in violation shall be subject to further injunctive or
other equitable relief as the city may determine to pursue, including destruction of
the animal in question.
3.16.4 Ordinance 25-6, incorporating the Schedule of Fines for Civil Infractions
is amended as to the fines for Chapter 3 of the Code of Ordinances to read as
follows:
S:\Planning\MOORE\WORD\pol!cy\cats\animal.ord2.dac
1st Offense 1st Repeat 2nd Repeat
3-0 through 3-15 $100 $200 $500
3.17 Fees
Fees for cat licensing and impounding shall be determined by the city commission by
resolution.
This ordinance adopted:
Ayes: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Nays: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Adoption Date: _ _ _ __
Effective Date: April 1, 2002.
First Reading: ------
Second Reading: _ _ _ __
CITY OF :MUSKEGON
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Gail A. Kundinger, Clerk
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned, being the duly qualified clerk of the City of Muskegon, Muskegon
County, Michigan, does hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of an
ordinance adopted by the City Commission of the City of Muskegon, at a regular meeting of the
City Commission on the _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _~ 2001, at which meeting a quorum
was present and remained throughout, and that the original of said ordinance is on file in the
records of the City of Muskegon. I further certify that the meeting was conducted, and public
notice was given, pursuant to and in full compliance with 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. Ordinance to talce effect April 1, 2002.
Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _~ 2001
Gail A. Kundinger, CMC/AAE
Clerk, City of Muskegon
Publish: Notice of Adoption to be published once within ten (10) days of fmal adoption.
S:\P1anning\MOORE\WORO\policy\cats\animal.ord2.doc
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails