View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
February 10, 2026 @ 5:30 PM
MUSKEGON CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
933 TERRACE STREET, MUSKEGON, MI 49440
AGENDA
☐ CALL TO ORDER:
☐ PRAYER:
☐ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
☐ ROLL CALL:
☐ HONORS, AWARDS, AND PRESENTATIONS:
A. Parks Staff Recognition - Hackley Park Holiday Decor Manager's Office
☐ PUBLIC HEARINGS:
☐ FEDERAL/STATE/COUNTY OFFICIALS UPDATE:
☐ PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS:
☐ CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Approval of Minutes City Clerk
B. Hosting Ordinances on MuniCode Site City Clerk
C. Liquor License Request for Zini LLC, 380 W. Western Ave., Suite 140 City
Clerk
D. Resolution for 380 West Western Avenue, Suite 140 Social District Permit
Community Engagement
E. Automated Benchmarking Service Agreement with Michigan Green
Building Collaborative Economic Development
F. MDOT Local Agency Agreement for Apple Avenue Public Works
G. Transportation Asset Management Plan Update Public Works
H. Beach Warning System Update — Proposal DPW- Parks
I. Approve CRC Recommendations City Clerk
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 228
☐ UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
☐ NEW BUSINESS:
☐ ANY OTHER BUSINESS:
☐ GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT:
► Reminder: Individuals who would like to address the City Commission shall do the following: ►Fill out a request to
speak form attached to the agenda or located in the back of the room. ► Submit the form to the City Clerk. ► Be
recognized by the Chair. ► Step forward to the microphone. ► State name. ►Limit of 3 minutes to address the
Commission.
☐ CLOSED SESSION:
☐ ADJOURNMENT:
AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT POLICY FOR ACCESS TO OPEN MEETINGS OF THE CITY OF
MUSKEGON AND ANY OF ITS COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES
To give comment on a live-streamed meeting the city will provide a call-in telephone number to
the public to be able to call and give comment. For a public meeting that is not live-streamed,
and which a citizen would like to watch and give comment, they must contact the City Clerk’s
Office with at least a two-business day notice. The participant will then receive a zoom link which
will allow them to watch live and give comment. Contact information is below. For more details,
please visit: www.shorelinecity.com
The City of Muskegon will provide necessary reasonable auxiliary aids and services, such as
signers for the hearing impaired and audio tapes of printed materials being considered at the
meeting, to individuals with disabilities who want to attend the meeting with twenty-four (24)
hours’ notice to the City of Muskegon. Individuals with disabilities requiring auxiliary aids or
services should contact the City of Muskegon by writing or by calling the following:
Ann Marie Meisch, MMC. City Clerk. 933 Terrace St. Muskegon, MI 49440. (231)724-6705.
clerk@shorelinecity.com
Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 228
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: February 10, 2026 Title: Parks Staff Recognition - Hackley Park
Holiday Decor
Submitted by: Kimberly Young, Administrative Department: Manager's Office
Assistant to the City Manager
Brief Summary:
There is a strong desire to recognize the Parks staff for their outstanding efforts in transforming Hackley
Park into a beautiful and welcoming holiday destination. Their creativity, attention to detail, and hard
work enhanced the seasonal experience for residents and visitors alike. This recognition
acknowledges the pride they take in showcasing one of the City’s most cherished public spaces.
Detailed Summary & Background:
Goal/Action Item:
2027 Goal 3: Community Connection
Is this a repeat item?:
Explain what change has been made to justify bringing it back to Commission:
Amount Requested: Budgeted Item:
n/a Yes No N/A x
Fund(s) or Account(s): Budget Amendment Needed:
n/a Yes No N/A x
Recommended Motion:
To approve the resolution recognizing Parks staff for their work decorating Hackley Park for the
Holidays.
Approvals: Name the Policy/Ordinance Followed:
Immediate Division
Head
Information
Technology
Other Division Heads
Communication
Page 3 of 228
Legal Review
Page 4 of 228
Proclamation
Recognition of Parks Staff
WHEREAS, Hackley Park is a cherished public space and a focal point of community pride within
the City of Muskegon; and
WHEREAS, during the holiday season, the appearance and atmosphere of Hackley Park play an
important role in creating a welcoming, festive environment for residents and visitors alike; and
WHEREAS, the dedication, creativity, and professionalism of City staff contribute directly to the
quality and success of these seasonal efforts; and
WHEREAS, Tim Duba, Jeremy Hugall, David Bailey, and Justin Prowant devoted significant time,
skill, and effort to the planning, installation, and maintenance of the holiday decorations at Hackley
Park; and
WHEREAS, their teamwork and commitment to excellence enhanced the beauty of the park and
brought enjoyment and holiday spirit to the community;
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Muskegon, do hereby
proclaim recognition and sincere appreciation to Tim Duba, Jeremy Hugall, David Bailey, and Justin
Prowant for their outstanding work on the Hackley Park holiday decorations, and commend them
for their dedication, teamwork, and service to the community.
Issued this 10th day of February, 2026.
__________________________________
Ken Johnson, Mayor
Page 5 of 228
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: February 10, 2026 Title: Approval of Minutes
Submitted by: Ann Meisch, City Clerk Department: City Clerk
Brief Summary:
To approve minutes of the January 27, 2026, City Commission Meeting.
Detailed Summary & Background:
Goal/Action Item:
Is this a repeat item?:
Explain what change has been made to justify bringing it back to Commission:
Amount Requested: Budgeted Item:
Yes No N/A X
Fund(s) or Account(s): Budget Amendment Needed:
Yes No N/A X
Recommended Motion:
Approval of the minutes.
Approvals: Name the Policy/Ordinance Followed:
Immediate Division
Head
Information
Technology
Other Division Heads
Communication
Legal Review
Page 6 of 228
CITY OF MUSKEGON
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
January 27, 2026 @ 5:30 PM
MUSKEGON CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS
933 TERRACE STREET, MUSKEGON, MI 49440
MINUTES
The Regular Commission Meeting of the City of Muskegon was held at City Hall,
933 Terrace Street, Muskegon, Michigan at 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 27,
2026. Pastor Dwayne Riley from the Crestwood United Methodist Church,
opened the meeting with prayer, after which the Commission and public
recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Ken Johnson, Commissioner Jay Kilgo, Willie German, Jr., Kiley
Jackson, Katrina Kochin, and Rebecca St. Clair, City Manager Jonathan
Seyferth, City Attorney Brennen Gorman, and City Clerk Ann Marie Meisch
Absent: Vice Mayor Destinee Keener
2026-06 PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Establishment of a Commercial Redevelopment District - 1937 Lakeshore
Dr. Economic Development
Pursuant to Public Act 255 of 1978, as amended, Lakeside Development
Properties, LLC has requested the establishment of a Commercial
Redevelopment District for 1937 Lakeshore Dr. (former Harbor Theater).
Creating the district will enable the property owner to apply for a Commercial
Facilities Exemption certificate. If approved, the certificate will freeze the
taxable value of the building and exempt the new real property investment
from local property taxes for the duration of the exemption.
The proposed redevelopment of 1937 Lakeshore Drive will convert the first floor
into commercial suites, with the upper floors used for residential housing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I move to close the public hearing and approve the
establishment of the Commercial Redevelopment District for 1937 Lakeshore Dr.
and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the resolution.
The public hearing opened to hear and consider any comments from the
public. No public comments were made.
Page 1 of 12
Page 7 of 228
Motion by Commissioner Kilgo, second by Commissioner St.Clair, to close the
public hearing and approve the establishment of the Commercial
Redevelopment District for 1937 Lakeshore Dr. and authorize the Mayor and
City Clerk to sign the resolution.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: German, Jackson, Kochin, St.Clair, Johnson, and Kilgo
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
B. Issuance of a Commercial Facilities Exemption Certificate - 1937
Lakeshore Dr, Lakeside Development Properties, LLC Economic
Development
Pursuant to Public Act 255 of 1978, as amended, Lakeside Development
Properties, LLC has requested the issuance of a Commercial Facilities
Exemption Certificate. The certificate will freeze the taxable value of the
building and exempt new real property investment from local taxes.
Lakeside Development Properties, LLC plans to rehabilitate the 17,586 sq ft
former Harbor Theater into a mixed-use development, beginning in April 2026.
This project represents a $3,665,733 investment and is expected to host
commercial/office suites on the first floor, followed by two floors of multiple
condominiums ranging from 1-3 bedrooms and 1-2 baths.
A public hearing for the establishment of the Commercial Redevelopment
District is scheduled for January 27th 2026.
The internal tax committee has reviewed the application and, based on its
findings and calculations, recommends approval of the resolution for a term of
eight (8) years for real property. The applicant has submitted all required
documentation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I move to close the public hearing and approve the
issuance of a Commercial Facilities Exemption Certificate for Lakeside
Development Properties, LLC and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign
the resolution.
The public hearing opened to hear and consider any comments from the
public. No public comments were made.
Motion by Commissioner Kilgo, second by Commissioner Kochin, to close the
public hearing and approve the issuance of a Commercial Facilities Exemption
Certificate for Lakeside Development Properties, LLC and authorize the Mayor
and City Clerk to sign the resolution.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: German, Jackson, Kochin, St.Clair, Johnson, and Kilgo
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
Page 2 of 12
Page 8 of 228
C. Issuance of an Obsolete Property Certificate — 1185 Third St. Economic
Development
Pursuant to Public Act 146 of the Michigan Public Acts of 2000, as amended,
1185 Third St. LLC has requested the issuance of an Obsolete Property
Rehabilitation Certificate for the property located at 1185 Third Street to
support further development. If approved, the property’s taxable value would
be frozen at the pre-rehabilitation level for the duration of the certificate. The
Obsolete Property Rehabilitation District for this site was established by the City
Commission on October 22, 2002.
The applicant proposes to rehabilitate a long-vacant commercial building in
the downtown. The project represents an estimated investment of $4,925,000
and includes significant upgrades to mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
systems, structural improvements, and exterior and façade enhancements.
Upon completion, the building will be used as an office and research and
development facility. The prospective tenant is expected to retain
approximately 80 full-time positions at this location, supporting continued
employment within the City.
The City’s Internal Tax Committee has reviewed the application and all
required supporting documentation. Based on its analysis and calculations, the
Committee recommends approval of the resolution granting a twelve (12)-
year Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Certificate.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I move to close the public hearing and approve the
resolution for the issuance of an Obsolete Property Certificate for 1185 Third St.
and authorize the City Clerk and Mayor to sign.
The public hearing opened to hear and consider any comments from the
public. No public comments were made.
Motion by Commissioner Kochin, second by Commissioner Kilgo, to close the
public hearing and approve the resolution for the issuance of an Obsolete
Property Certificate for 1185 Third St. and authorize the City Clerk and Mayor to
sign.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Jackson, Kochin, St.Clair, Johnson, Kilgo, and German
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS
No public comments were made.
2026-07 CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes City Clerk
Page 3 of 12
Page 9 of 228
To approve minutes of the January 5, 2026, Organizational Meeting; January
12, 2026, Worksession Meeting; and the January 13, 2026, City Commission
Meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the minutes.
B. DPW Union Contract Manager's Office
Staff is seeking approval of the contract with the SEIU Unit 2 union.
Management and SEIU Unit 2 have reached tentative agreement on changes
to the contract, the union has ratified the changes, and the updated contract
has been drafted. Changes will be implemented once all parties have signed
the contract. Pay is retroactive 30 days only. Staff is seeking an up or down
vote on this item as any changes would require re-opening negotiations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the labor contact with the SEIU Unit 2
union.
C. Lakeshore Drive Reconstruction MDOT Agreement Public Works
Staff is requesting approval of a contract with MDOT for the repaving of
Lakeshore Drive from the roundabout at Beach Street to 600 feet west of Sherin
Street, and approval of a resolution authorizing the DPW Director and Clerk to
sign the contract.
This is the standard contract that governs construction contracts that use
federal funds and/or are administered through MDOT. The construction project
funding breakdown is shown in the table below. These costs differ slightly from
the numbers in the agreement, as these have been updated based on the
bids received.
Road Portion Sewer Water Total
Portion Portion
Federal $989,600 N/A N/A $989,600
Funds
City $756,206.24 $245,389.00 $414,801.00 $1,416,396.24
Funds
Total $1,745,806.24 $245,389.00 $414,801.00 $2,405,996.24
A meeting was held with the residents and businesses along and near the
project last summer, and the final version of the plans will be available for
viewing at the Annual Construction Projects Open House on February 18th. The
project was bid earlier this month with AnLaan Corporation of Grand Rapids
being the low bidder and receiving award. The exact schedule is not known at
this time, however the contract includes provisions requiring the work to be
done in two phases so that the roadway is open to traffic from Memorial Day to
Labor Day. Once the City and the contractor have met and details have
been provided, more information will be provided to residents and businesses
along the route and provided to the public via the website and other means.
Page 4 of 12
Page 10 of 228
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Move to approve a contract with MDOT for the
repaving of Lakeshore Drive from the roundabout at Beach Street to 600 feet
west of Sherin Street, and approval of a resolution authorizing the DPW Director
and Clerk to sign the contract.
D. Pedestrian Warning System on Port City Blvd DPW- Engineering
Staff is requesting authorization to approve a contract with Strain Electric in the
amount of $58,850.00 for installation of a rectangular rapid flashing beacon
(RRFB) on Port City Blvd at the crosswalk near ADAC Automotive.
Bids were solicited for a construction project to replace the existing pedestrian
warning system at the crosswalk near ADAC Automotive on Port City
Boulevard. ADAC has expressed growing safety concerns for a number of
years, supported by documentation of "close calls" and a high number of staff
crossings throughout the day including during dark hours. Staff from multiple
departments met with ADAC, and agreed that the existing system was failing
and out of date. Modern pedestrian warning systems are known as
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, or RRFBs, and include pedestrian-
activated lights in advance and at the crossing location. Engineering staff
designed an RRFB system for the crosswalk and solicited bids for the
installation. Two bids were received. Strain Electric bid $58,850.00 and J. Ranck
Electric bid $86,640.37. Staff recommends award to Strain Electric, the low
bidder, based on past experiences with positive results.
While this item was not anticipated in this year's budget the Major Streets fund
carries a balance that can cover this relatively small expense, and staff feels
that with dozens of employees using this crossing daily that this upgraded
warning system is a compelling need. The major street fund budget will be
reforecast accordingly.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Move to authorize staff to enter into a contract with
Strain Electric in the amount of $58,850.00 for installation of a rectangular rapid
flashing beacon (RRFB) on Port City Blvd at the crosswalk near ADAC
Automotive.
F. Security Software for Computers and Users Information Technology
The Information Technology Department is seeking to improve network-wide
cybersecurity protection for all computers and user accounts. Our current
software solution no longer provides adequate protection. We are
recommending Crowdstrike as the security solution for protecting computers
and user accounts going forward. This recommended purchase is for a 3-year
subscription.
Information Technology is continually seeking ways to strengthen our security
against the ever-evolving cybersecurity threat landscape. The computers,
virtual servers, and user accounts on our network are critical components that
require optimal protection to keep the City's computer systems functioning. The
Crowdstrike bundle we are recommending provides a well-rounded set of
Page 5 of 12
Page 11 of 228
security tools to efficiently fight malicious threats. Procured grant funding from
the SLCGP (State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program) will help offset a little
over half of the cost by reimbursing the City during the grant's performance
period, running through August 2027. This will account for $32,202 of the
purchase price of the 3-year term (the total for the 3-year contract is
$61,013.29).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I move to approve the purchase of the Crowdstrike
security software bundle.
I. Workforce Housing Restrictive Covenant - HAPCE LLC Economic
Development
Tim Van Der Kolk, through his HAPCE LLC, requests a Workforce Housing PILOT
for 2 duplexes and 2 accessory dwelling units at 625 and 635 Oak Avenue. This
restrictive covenant establishes the terms of the project and restricts the
properties use to workforce housing for the statutory term.
Tim Van Der Kolk, as HAPCE LLC, is working with Mrs. Kara Novak as the lender
and developer along with Mr. Derek Sjaarda as the builder to add to our stock
of income restricted workforce housing in the community. If approved, these
parcels will each feature a duplex and an accessory dwelling unit, utilizing our
2024 Zoning Reforms to increase density to meet the housing need. These units
will be restricted to families or individuals that fall below 120% AMI for their
household size, per MSHDA's annual rent limits for Muskegon County. The term
of the restricted use is 15 years, along with the companion resolution
establishing the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the Workforce Housing Restricted
Covenant between the City of Muskegon and HAPCE, LLC as presented and to
authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign.
J. Resolution for Housing Tax Exemption - HAPCE LLC Economic
Development
Tim Van Der Kolk, through HAPCE, LLC is requesting a Payment in Lieu of Taxes
for their workforce housing project at 625 and 635 Oak Avenue, which requires
a resolution setting the annual PILOT rate.
Tim Van Der Kolk, as HAPCE LLC is working with Mrs. Kara Novak as the lender
and developer along with Mr. Derek Sjaarda as the builder to add to our stock
of income restricted workforce housing in the community. If approved, these
parcels will each feature a duplex and an accessory dwelling unit, utilizing our
2024 Zoning Reforms to increase density to meet the housing need. These units
will be restricted to families or individuals that fall below 120% AMI for their
household size, per MSHDA's annual rent limits for Muskegon County. The term
of the restricted use is 15 years, along with the companion Workforce Housing
Restrictive Covenant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the Resolution for Housing Tax
Exemption for HAPCE, LLC as presented and to authorize the Clerk to sign.
Page 6 of 12
Page 12 of 228
K. Workforce Housing Restrictive Covenant - Sue Ann Properties,
LLC Economic Development
Eric Payne, through Sue Ann Properties, LLC, request a Workforce Housing PILOT
for 3 duplexes and 3 accessory dwelling unit at 595 and 617 Oak Avenue, as
well as 594 Orchard Avenue. This restrictive covenant establishes the terms of
the project and restricts the property's use to workforce housing for the
statutory term.
Eric Payne, through Sue Ann Properties, LLC is working with Mrs. Kara Novak as
the lender and developer along with Mr. Derek Sjaarda as the builder to add to
our stock of income-restricted workforce housing in the community. If
approved, each of the three parcels will feature a duplex and an accessory
dwelling unit, utilizing our 2024 Zoning Reforms to increase density to meet the
housing need. These units will be restricted to families or individuals that fall
below 120% AMI for their household size, per MSHDA's annual rent limits for
Muskegon County. The term of the restricted use is 15 years, along with the
companion resolution establishing the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the workforce housing restrictive
covenant between the City of Muskegon and Sue Ann Properties, LLC and to
authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign.
L. Resolution for Housing Tax Exemption - Sue Ann Properties
LLC Economic Development
Eric Payne, through Sue Ann Properties, LLC is requesting a Payment in Lieu of
Taxes for their workforce housing project at 595 and 617 Oak Avenue, as well as
594 Orchard Avenue, which requires a resolution setting the annual PILOT rate.
Eric Payne, through Sue Ann Properties, LLC is working with Mrs. Kara Novak as
the lender and developer along with Mr. Derek Sjaarda as the builder to add to
our stock of income restricted workforce housing in the community. If
approved, these parcels will each feature a duplex and an accessory dwelling
unit, utilizing our 2024 Zoning Reforms to increase density to meet the housing
need. These units will be restricted to families or individuals that fall below 120%
AMI for their household size, per MSHDA's annual rent limits for Muskegon
County. The term of the restricted use is 15 years, along with the companion
Workforce Housing Restrictive Covenant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the resolution for housing tax
exemption as presented and to authorize the Clerk to sign.
M. Workforce Housing Restrictive Covenant - Brinks and Arnoldink
Properties, LLC Economic Development
Dave Arnoldink, through Brinks and Arnoldink Properties, LLC, request a
Workforce Housing PILOT for a duplex and accessory dwelling unit at 502 Oak
Avenue. This restrictive covenant establishes the terms of the project and
restricts the properties use to workforce housing for the statutory term.
Dave Arnoldink, through Brinks and Arnoldink Properties, LLC are working with
Page 7 of 12
Page 13 of 228
Mrs. Kara Novak as the lender and developer along with Mr. Derek Sjaarda as
the builder to add to our stock of income restricted workforce housing in the
community. If approved, this parcel will feature a duplex and an accessory
dwelling unit, utilizing our 2024 Zoning Reforms to increase density to meet the
housing need. These units will be restricted to families or individuals that fall
below 120% AMI for their household size, per MSHDA's annual rent limits for
Muskegon County. The term of the restricted use is 15 years, along with the
companion resolution establishing the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the workforce housing restrictive
covenant as presented and to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign
N. Resolution for Housing Tax Exemption - Brinks and Arnoldink Properties,
LLC Economic Development
Dave Arnoldink, through Brinks and Arnoldink Properties LLC, is requesting a
Payment in Lieu of Taxes for their workforce housing project at 502 Oak
Avenue, which requires a resolution setting the annual PILOT rate.
Dave Arnoldink, through Brinks and Arnoldink Properties, LLC is working with Mrs.
Kara Novak as the lender and developer along with Mr. Derek Sjaarda as the
builder to add to our stock of income-restricted workforce housing in the
community. If approved, this parcel will feature a duplex and an accessory
dwelling unit, utilizing our 2024 Zoning Reforms to increase density to meet the
housing need. These units will be restricted to families or individuals that fall
below 120% AMI for their household size, per MSHDA's annual rent limits for
Muskegon County. The term of the restricted use is 15 years, along with the
companion Workforce Housing Restrictive Covenant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the resolution for housing tax
exemption as presented and to authorize the Clerk to sign.
O. Approve CRC Recommendations City Clerk
Recommendations from the January 26, 2026, CRC meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the CRC recommendations for board
positions.
Motion by Commissioner Kilgo, second by Commissioner Kochin, to adopt the
Consent Agenda as presented minus items E, G, and H.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Kochin, St.Clair, Johnson, Kilgo, German, and Jackson
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
2026-08 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
E. 1183 Pine Street HOME rehab project Community & Neighborhood
Services
Page 8 of 12
Page 14 of 228
Approve selected contractor for CNS department HOME rehab project at 1183
Pine Street.
The CNS department purchased a vacant house at 1183 Pine Street for
$5,000.00. The purpose is to rehab the property and sell it to an income-eligible
family.
HOME guidelines require that a lead risk assessment and asbestos testing be
conducted. The risk assessment identified significant amounts of lead
throughout the house as well as asbestos in several locations. In November
2025, an RFP was published to request bids for the lead remediation work,
asbestos removal and general rehab work following a newly configured floor
plan to produce a 3 bedroom, 1-bath house.
Bids were received from 3 contractors. The evaluation of the bids showed that
two of the contractors did not submit complete bid packets. Guidelines require
complete submissions in order to be considered for the project. We do not
allow contractors to submit missing items after the deadline. The bid is being
awarded to the only contractor who submitted a complete bid.
Complete bid packets require the contractor to submit current license/s,
insurance and materials sheets along with the bid.
Bid Packet contents:
Grey Space Construction - Received bid sheets. Did not receive materials
sheets, licenses or certificate of insurance.
Badgerows Building and Remodeling - Received all required paperwork
CTI - Received licenses, certificate of insurance and bid sheets. Did not
receive materials sheets.
This project is being awarded to Badgerow’s Building and Remodeling. Total
cost will be $278,500.00.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I move to approve selected contractor for the
HOME rehab project at 1183 Pine St.
Motion by Commissioner German, second by Commissioner Kilgo, to approve
the selected contractor for the HOME rehab project at 1183 Pine St.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: St.Clair, Johnson, Kilgo, German, Jackson, and Kochin
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
G. Workforce Housing Restrictive Covenant - Ledeboer Family Economic
Development
Jeffery and Nicole Ledeboer request a Workforce Housing PILOT for a duplex
and accessory dwelling unit at 447 Oak Avenue. This restrictive covenant
establishes the terms of the project and restricts the properties use to workforce
housing for the statutory term.
Jeffery and Nicole Ledeboer are working with Mrs. Kara Novak as the lender
Page 9 of 12
Page 15 of 228
and developer along with Mr. Derek Sjaarda as the builder to add to our stock
of income restricted workforce housing in the community. If approved, this
parcel will feature a duplex and an accessory dwelling unit, utilizing our 2024
Zoning Reforms to increase density to meet the housing need. These units will
be restricted to families or individuals that fall below 120% AMI for their
household size, per MSHDA's annual rent limits for Muskegon County. The term
of the restricted use is 15 years, along with the companion resolution
establishing the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the Workforce Housing Restrictive
Covenant between the City of Muskegon and Jeffery and Nicole Ledeboer
and to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign.
Motion by Commissioner German, second by Commissioner Kilgo, to approve
the Workforce Housing Restrictive Covenant between the City of Muskegon
and Jeffery and Nicole Ledeboer and to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Johnson, Kilgo, German, Jackson, Kochin, and St.Clair
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
H. Resolution for Housing Tax Exemption - Ledeboer Family Economic
Development
The Ledeboer family is requesting a Payment in Lieu of Taxes for their workforce
housing project at 447 Oak Avenue, which requires a resolution setting the
annual PILOT rate.
Jeffery and Nicole Ledeboer are working with Mrs. Kara Novak as the lender
and developer along with Mr. Derek Sjaarda as the builder to add to our stock
of income restricted workforce housing in the community. If approved, this
parcel will feature a duplex and an accessory dwelling unit, utilizing our 2024
Zoning Reforms to increase density to meet the housing need. These units will
be restricted to families or individuals that fall below 120% AMI for their
household size, per MSHDA's annual rent limits for Muskegon County. The term
of the restricted use is 15 years, along with the companion Workforce Housing
Restrictive Covenant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the Resolution establishing the
Workforce Housing annual service fee as presented and to authorize the Clerk
to sign.
Motion by Commissioner German, second by Commissioner Kilgo, to approve
the Resolution establishing the Workforce Housing annual service fee as
presented and to authorize the Clerk to sign.
ROLL VOTE: Ayes: Kilgo, German, Jackson, Kochin, St.Clair, and Johnson
Page 10 of 12
Page 16 of 228
Nays: None
MOTION PASSES
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
City Manager Jonathan Seyferth stated we do have a Minority Contractors
Listing. Please reach out to Kim in the City Manager’s Office or EEO &
Employee Relations Director Dwana Thompson.
Commissioner German asked if we could keep track of who is getting contracts
and who is buying the infill housing. It was stated that Development Services is
working on tracking information.
Commissioner Kilgo stated he knows most of the Minority Contractors in our
area and they know they can reach out to the Commission if they feel they are
not getting a fair shot. We need to educate people who want to buy a house.
Commissioner Kilgo thanked the citizen who made public comments at the last
meeting reference his use of language during a public forum where he was
speaking out against ICE. This was a Memorial for Renee Good who was shot
and killed. Since then, another citizen, Alex Pretti, has been shot and killed. He
stated that we have to remain diligent and that he will continue to speak out.
Commissioner Jackson stated she echoes Commissioner Kilgo’s statement
reference ICE in our community. She also mentioned there is a Home Buyer
Education Class January 31, 2026, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Muskegon Hts.
Library.
Mayor Johnson stated the Muskegon Police Department is not an immigration
enforcement agency. He reiterated what Chief Kozal said. The City of
Muskegon is a multi-cultural and welcoming community. The MPD is aware of
the anxiety and concerns surrounding Federal changes and immigration
enforcement and policy. Chief Kozal stands committed to protecting all
members of our great community. We are committed to ensuring every person
feels safe and supported when interacting with our department. This trust is
critical. The Mission Statement is on our website.
Commissioner Kochin agrees with the Mayor and Commissioners statements
that were made. She thanked Ms. Coon, Ms. McKinley and several of the
Commission and Mayor for stepping up and helping out with the recent
community outreach in regards to the unhoused during the cold weather. The
things you did helped save lives.
Mayor Johnson stated the Covenant Community Church, 134 E. Barney, is a
temporary shelter through Saturday morning. The Muskegon Rescue Mission is
also a shelter.
Commissioner St.Clair wanted to support everyone’s thoughts reference ICE in
our community and world and the need for people to use all the words
available to them even if you are sometimes uncomfortable. These are
uncomfortable times. She also mentioned that there is another opportunity to
Page 11 of 12
Page 17 of 228
help the unhoused. Wednesday, January 28, 2026, from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
there is a Point In Time count. They will be going out into the community and
doing a manual count of the unhoused.
Commissioner Kilgo thanked Vice Mayor Keener for cooking meals for the
unhoused.
Mayor Johnson thanked our DPW Director Dan VanderHeide and staff, Public
Safety Director Tim Kozal, and City Manager Jonathan Seyferth for helping with
the need for showering facilities.
Commissioner German stated he shares the sentiment of the Commission
reference ICE. He mentioned Commissioner St.Clair’s statement about
speaking up and he feels the same way. There is scripture that talks about the
immigrant. We have to come together and unify as a City, as a people.
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comments received.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Commission Meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ann Marie Meisch, MMC City Clerk
Page 12 of 12
Page 18 of 228
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: February 10, 2026 Title: Hosting Ordinances on MuniCode Site
Submitted by: Ann Meisch, City Clerk Department: City Clerk
Brief Summary:
The City's ordinances are currently hosted on the city's website and staff is recommending we move
them to the Municode website.
Detailed Summary & Background:
Municode hosts many municipalities on their site and have also been updating our ordinances for
the last several decades. They offer better searching capabilities and will be a benefit to our citizens
and staff. The cost is $1,125 annually with a 5% increase each year. Cancelation can happen upon
60 days notice before the renewal date. Although this is well within the purchasing limits for staff,
because it is a contracted multi-year expense, this is coming to the commission for approval.
Goal/Action Item:
2027 Goal 3: Community Connection
Is this a repeat item?:
Explain what change has been made to justify bringing it back to Commission:
Amount Requested: Budgeted Item:
$1,125 Yes No X N/A
Fund(s) or Account(s): Budget Amendment Needed:
101-215-980 Yes X No N/A
Recommended Motion:
To approve staff to sign an agreement with Municode to host the city's ordinances.
Approvals: Name the Policy/Ordinance Followed:
Immediate Division X Purchasing Policy
Head
Information X
Technology
Other Division Heads
Communication
Legal Review
Page 19 of 228
Page 20 of 228
CivicPlus Statement of Work
302 South 4th St. Suite 500 Quote #: Q-115571-1
Manhattan, KS 66502 Date: 1/22/2026 12:06 PM
US
Expires On: 3/23/2026
Client: Bill To:
City of Muskegon, MI MUSKEGON CITY, MICHIGAN
SALESPERSON Phone EMAIL DELIVERY METHOD PAYMENT METHOD
Mary Beile mary.beile@civicplus.com Net 30
Recurring Service(s)
QTY PRODUCT NAME DESCRIPTION
1.00 Online Code Hosting Premium Online Code Hosting Premium Bundle: Custom Banner, CodeBank,
Bundle CodeBank Compare + eNotify, OrdBank and MuniPro
List Price - Initial Term Total USD 1,375.00
Total Investment - Initial Term USD 1,125.00
Annual Recurring Services (Subject to Uplift) USD 1,125.00
Initial Term 12 Months Beginning at Signing
Initial Term Invoice Schedule 100% Invoiced upon Signature Date
Renewal Procedure Automatic 1 year renewal term, unless 60
days notice provided prior to renewal date
Annual Uplift 5% to be applied in year 2
This Statement of Work ("SOW") shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the CivicPlus Master Services Agreement
and the applicable Solution and Services terms and conditions located at https://www.civicplus.help/hc/en-us/p/legal-
stuff (collectively, the "Binding Terms"). By signing this SOW, Client expressly agrees to the terms and conditions of the
Binding Terms throughout the term of this SOW.
Please note that this document is a SOW and not an invoice. Upon signing and submitting this SOW, Client will receive
the applicable invoice according to the terms of the invoicing schedule outlined herein.
Page 1 of 3
Page 21 of 228
Client may issue purchase orders for its internal, administrative use only, and not to impose any contractual terms. Any
terms contained in any such purchase orders issued by the Client are considered null and will not alter the Binding Terms,
the Agreement or this SOW.
Page 2 of 3
Page 22 of 228
Acceptance of Quote # Q-115571-1
The undersigned acknowledges having read, understood, and agreed to be bound by the binding terms and conditions
incorporated into this SOW. This SOW shall become effective as of the date of the last signature below (“Effective Date”).
For CivicPlus Billing Information, please visit https://www.civicplus.com/verify/
Authorized Client Signature CivicPlus
By (please sign): By (please sign):
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Printed Name: Printed Name:
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Title: Title:
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Date: Date:
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Organization Legal Name:
___________________________________
Billing Contact:
___________________________________
Title:
___________________________________
Billing Phone Number:
___________________________________
Billing Email:
___________________________________
Billing Address:
___________________________________
___________________________________
Mailing Address: (If different from above)
___________________________________
___________________________________
PO Number: (Info needed on Invoice (PO or Job#) if required)
___________________________________
Page 3 of 3
Page 23 of 228
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: February 10, 2026 Title: Liquor License Request for Zini LLC, 380 W.
Western Ave., Suite 140
Submitted by: Ann Meisch, City Clerk Department: City Clerk
Brief Summary:
The Liquor Control Commission is seeking local recommendation on a request from Zini LLC, for a new
off-premises tasting room license to be located at 380 W. Western Ave., Suite 140.
Detailed Summary & Background:
Goal/Action Item:
Is this a repeat item?:
Explain what change has been made to justify bringing it back to Commission:
Amount Requested: Budgeted Item:
Yes No N/A X
Fund(s) or Account(s): Budget Amendment Needed:
Yes No N/A X
Recommended Motion:
Approval of the request.
Approvals: Name the Policy/Ordinance Followed:
Immediate Division
Head
Information
Technology
Other Division Heads
Communication
Legal Review
Page 24 of 228
Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Business ID:
Liquor Control Commission (MLCC)
Toll Free: 866-813-0011 • www.michigan.gov/lcc Request ID:
(For MLCC use only)
Local Government Approval For Off-Premises Tasting Room License
(Authorized by MCL 436.1536)
Instructions for Applicants:
• You must obtain a recommendation from the local legislative body for a new Off-Premises Tasting Room License application.
Instructions for Local Legislative Body:
• Complete this resolution or provide a resolution, along with certification from the clerk or adopted minutes from the meeting at
which this request was considered.
At a meeting of the City of Muskegon council/board
(regular or special) (name of township, city, village)
called to order by on at
(date) (time)
the following resolution was offered:
Moved by and supported by
that the application from Zini LLC
(name of applicant - if a corporation or limited liability company, please state the company name)
for a NEW OFF-PREMISES TASTING ROOM LICENSE
to be located at: 380 W. Western Ave, Suite 140, Muskegon, MI 49440
It is the consensus of this body that it this application be considered for
(recommends/does not recommend)
approval by the Michigan Liquor Control Commission.
If disapproved, the reasons for disapproval are
Vote
Yeas:
Nays:
Absent:
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and is a complete copy of the resolution offered and adopted by the
council/board at a meeting held on (name of township,
city, village)
(regular or special) (date)
Print Name of Clerk Signature of Clerk Date
Under Article IV, Section 40, of the Constitution of Michigan (1963), the Commission shall exercise complete control of the alcoholic beverage traffic
within this state, including the retail sales thereof, subject to statutory limitations. Further, the Commission shall have the sole right, power, and duty to
control the alcoholic beverage traffic and traffic in other alcoholic liquor within this state, including the licensure of businesses and individuals.
Please return this completed form along with any corresponding documents to:
Michigan Liquor Control Commission
Mailing address: P.O. Box 30005, Lansing, MI 48909
Fax to: 517-763-0059
LCC-106b (04/24) LARA is an equal opportunity employer/program.Auxiliary aids, services and other reasonable accommodations are available upon request to individuals with disabilities.
Page 25 of 228
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: February 10, 2026 Title: Resolution for 380 West Western Avenue,
Suite 140 Social District Permit
Submitted by: Deborah Sweet, Community Department: Community Engagement
Engagement Manager
Brief Summary:
Zini LLC is requesting to join the Downtown Muskegon Social District located at 380 West Western Ave
with their Off-Premises Tasting Room License & Permit.
Detailed Summary & Background:
Zini LLC is requesting to join the Downtown Muskegon Social District at their location 380 West Western
Ave (previously Subway). The Michigan Liquor Control Commission has not yet approved its Off-
Premises Tasting Room License & Permit, but ensured staff that submitting both requests at the same
time is acceptable. To meet state requirements under MCL 436.1551, the business must receive
approval from the City Commission to apply for a Social District Permit through the state.
About Zini – Kavy Lenon, owner of Zini LLC, is creating a brand that brings cultural experiences to
Muskegon. Zini will transform the former Subway at 380 West Western Ave into a tasting room
featuring craft cocktails, non-alcoholic options, and small bites with an Asian fusion twist. The menu
and pairings are scheduled to rotate every three months, offering an experimental space to explore
new flavors working with local creators. The distillery previously operated in Muskegon, is now in Troy,
and is planned to relocate to Shelby, MI. Kavy, a Norton Shores resident, is launching the Zini brand
nationwide but plans to maintain Muskegon as its home base. The tasting room will be a bright,
inviting space and is planned to open in May 2026.
Goal/Action Item:
2027 Goal 2: Economic Development Housing and Business
Is this a repeat item?:
Explain what change has been made to justify bringing it back to Commission:
Amount Requested: Budgeted Item:
N/A Yes No N/A x
Fund(s) or Account(s): Budget Amendment Needed:
N/A Yes No N/A x
Recommended Motion:
to approve the Social District Permit for Zini LLC, at 380 West Western Ave Suite 140, Muskegon, MI
49440 for consideration by the Michigan Liquor Control Commission.
Page 26 of 228
Approvals: Name the Policy/Ordinance Followed:
Immediate Division
Head
Information
Technology
Other Division Heads
Communication
Legal Review
Page 27 of 228
Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Business ID:
Liquor Control Commission (MLCC)
Toll Free: 866-813-0011 • www.michigan.gov/lcc Request ID:
(For MLCC use only)
Local Governmental Unit Approval For Social District Permit
Instructions for Governing Body of Local Governmental Unit:
A qualified licensee that wishes to apply for a Social District Permit must first obtain approval from the governing body of the local governmental unit where the
licensee is located and for which the local governmental unit has designated a social district with a commons area that is clearly marked and shared by and
contiguous to the licensed premises of at least two (2) qualified licensees, pursuant to MCL 436.1551. Complete this resolution or provide a resolution, along with
certification from the clerk or adopted minutes from the meeting at which this request was considered.
At a meeting of the City of Muskegon council/board
(regular or special) (name of city, township, or village)
called to order by on at
(date) (time)
the following resolution was offered:
Moved by and supported by
that the application from Zini LLC
(name of licensee - if a corporation or limited liability company, please state the company name)
for a Social District Permit is by this body for consideration for approval by the
(recommended/not recommended)
Michigan Liquor Control Commission.
If not recommended, state the reason:
Vote
Yeas:
Nays:
Absent:
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and is a complete copy of the resolution offered and adopted by the
(name of city, township, or village)
council/board at a meeting held on
(regular or special) (date)
I further certify that the licensed premises of the aforementioned licensee are contiguous to the commons area designated by the
council/board as part of a social district pursuant to MCL 436.1551.
Print Name of Clerk Signature of Clerk Date
Under Article IV, Section 40, of the Constitution of Michigan (1963), the Commission shall exercise complete control of the alcoholic beverage traffic
within this state, including the retail sales thereof, subject to statutory limitations. Further, the Commission shall have the sole right, power, and duty to
control the alcoholic beverage traffic and traffic in other alcoholic liquor within this state, including the licensure of businesses and individuals.
LCC-208 (11-25) LARA is an equal opportunity employer/program.Auxiliary aids, services and other reasonable accommodations are available upon request to individuals with disabilities. Page 2 of 2
Page 28 of 228
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: February 10, 2026 Title: Automated Benchmarking Service
Agreement with Michigan Green Building
Collaborative
Submitted by: Isabela Gonzalez, Development Department: Economic Development
Analyst
Brief Summary:
Approval of a one-year agreement with the Michigan Green Building Collaborative (MiGBC) in the
amount of $1,500 to provide automated building energy benchmarking services through ENERGY
STAR Portfolio Manager for select City facilities.
Detailed Summary & Background:
Staff is requesting approval of a one-year agreement with the Michigan Green Building Collaborative
(MiGBC), a statewide nonprofit supporting sustainable building practices and energy efficiency, in
the amount of $1,500 to provide Automated Benchmarking Services for the Water Filtration Plant, City
Hall, and Public Works building. In 2023, the City Commission adopted a resolution committing
Muskegon to climate action and directed the development of an organizational-wide greenhouse
gas (GHG) inventory. That inventory informed the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), which was
adopted in 2025 and establishes a roadmap to achieve net-zero GHG emissions from municipal
operations by 2040. A key strategy within the CAP’s Buildings and Facilities focus area is improving
how the City tracks and manages energy use across municipal buildings.
Through this agreement, MiGBC will establish and manage the City’s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager
account and automate the upload of utility data from Consumers Energy and DTE for participating
City facilities. This creates a consistent, data-driven way to understand building energy performance
and associated greenhouse gas emissions without requiring significant ongoing staff time for data
entry and tracking.
In addition to maintaining the benchmarking platform, MiGBC will prepare an annual report
summarizing energy consumption trends, key findings, and recommendations. This information will
help the City identify high-energy-use facilities, prioritize future efficiency investments, and track
progress toward the CAP goal of net-zero municipal emissions by 2040.
This agreement supports the City’s commitment to environmental sustainability, improves access to
reliable performance data, and helps ensure Muskegon is making informed, measurable decisions
about its municipal operations. This will also complement our current DPW initiative with Johnson
Controls.
Goal/Action Item:
2027 GOAL 4: FINANCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE - Reliable and efficient short and long term financial
Page 29 of 228
practices
Is this a repeat item?:
Explain what change has been made to justify bringing it back to Commission:
Amount Requested: Budgeted Item:
$1500.00 Yes No N/A
Fund(s) or Account(s): Budget Amendment Needed:
101-701-801 Yes No N/A
Recommended Motion:
I move to approve the Automated Benchmarking Service agreement with the Michigan Green
Building Collaborative.
Approvals: Name the Policy/Ordinance Followed:
Immediate Division
Head
Information
Technology
Other Division Heads
Communication
Legal Review
Page 30 of 228
Automated Benchmarking Service (ABS) Agreement
between USGBC-WM and the City of Muskegon
1. This Automated Benchmarking Service Agreement (Agreement) is between
U.S. Green Building Council-West Michigan Chapter (USGBC-WM), doing
business as Michigan Green Building Collaborative (MiGBC), a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit corporation, located at 146 Monroe Center St NW, Suite 500 Grand
Rapids, MI 49503 and the City of Muskegon (The City) a Michigan Municipal
Corporation, located at 933 Terrace St, Muskegon, MI 49440.
2. The City will pay MiGBC an amount not to exceed $1,500 for the services
described in this Agreement.
3. MiGBC will assist in the creation of an ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager®
account if the City does not currently have one.
a. The City will provide accurate building characteristic information
(square footage, year built, number of occupants, etc. See this resource
for what affects an ENERGY STAR® score)
b. The list of buildings to be included in this Agreement is included as
Exhibit A.
4. The City authorizes MiGBC to access utility data for each utility provider that
services a covered property.
5. As data becomes available from the utility, it will be loaded into ENERGY
STAR® Portfolio Manager®.
6. The City will maintain ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager® data sharing
permission of “full access” to the USGBCWM profile.
7. MiGBC will produce an annual energy consumption report once there is one
complete year of data from all utilities servicing a covered property available in
ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager®. The report will be delivered one time per
year.
8. This Agreement shall be effective for the term of one (1) year commencing on
the date of execution and may be renewed for additional one-year terms upon
mutual written agreement of the parties and subject to any required City
approvals, unless terminated earlier in accordance with this Agreement
9. This Agreement may be renewed with the mutual consent of both parties. Full
payment is required upon the renewal date for continuation of service. If the
City cancels before the renewal date, the cancellation is deemed to be
effective immediately.
10. Each party agrees to be responsible for its own acts and omissions.
11. If this agreement is canceled prior to the end of the agreement term for any
reason, all fees paid are non-refundable and will not be prorated.
Page 31 of 228
12. All notices required under this Agreement shall be served via United States
Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, addressed to the other party as
follows:
For USGBC-WM:
Senior Programs Manager
146 Monroe Center St NW, Suite 500
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503
For City of Muskegon
Building Benchmarking Services for the City of Muskegon
933 Terrace St
Muskegon, MI 49440
13. This Agreement may be amended only by means of a writing executed by the
Parties hereto.
14. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Michigan.
City of Muskegon
USGBC-WM
Signature: __________________________
Signature: _____________________________
Name: ___Kayla Snyder__________
Name: _______________________________
Title: ___Senior Programs Manager_______
Title: ________________________________
Date: _______________________
Date: ________________________________
Page 32 of 228
Exhibit A
List of buildings to be included in the portfolio
Building Address Sq Ft ABS Cost Gov Discount Final Cost
933 Terrace St,
Muskegon, MI
City Hall 49440 61,794 $1,000.00 50% $500.00
1350 E Keating
Ave,
Muskegon, MI
DPW 49442 101,311 $1,000.00 50% $500.00
1900 Beach St,
Water Filtration Muskegon, MI
Plant 49441 93,493 $1,000.00 50% $500.00
256,598 $1,500.00
Page 33 of 228
Transforming Michigan:
Building Greener, Living Better
Our mission is to transform the way buildings
and communities are designed, built and
operated, that improves the quality of life in
Michigan.
Page 34 of 228
Expanding Our Vision for a
Sustainable Future
Founded in 2004 as the U.S. Green Building Council of
West Michigan, our organization has fostered
collaboration between stakeholders, shared
resources, hosted conferences, and established
cornerstone initiatives that cultivate a sustainable
future.
In 2024, the organization transitioned to the Michigan
Green Building Collaborative (MiGBC) to expand our
focus to be state-wide. Over the years, we have acted
as thought partners on numerous initiatives across the
state, a role we are dedicated to continuing and
expanding.
Page 35 of 228
Flagship Programs
Page 36 of 228
OFFICE
Categories
PLACE OF WORSHIP
EDUCATION
ENTERTAINMENT / HOTEL / RETAIL
RESTAURANT
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION VENUE
WAREHOUSE/ DISTRIBUTION/
MANUFACTURING/ INDUSTRIAL SERVICE
MULTI-FAMILY WATER
HEALTH / HOSPITAL OTHER
Page 37 of 228
Winner project examples
Corewell Health Care Center, Royal Oak - 16% reduction
Tied exhaust fans into the building automation system so that they
could turn off those fans and the four large roof top units at night.
Lord of Lords Ministries, Detroit - 39% reduction
Repaired their roof, fixed 12 leaks, upgraded three thermostats, and
unplugged cords and lights before leaving the building.
Detroit Public Schools, Marion Law Academy - 17% reduction
Inconsistent classroom temps led to them partnering with DTE and GDI
Services, Inc. to retrocommission the controls. $40,661.54 saved annually.
San Chez Bistro, Grand Rapids - 11 % reduction
Completed audit recommendations - replaced air conditioner, replaced
lights with LEDs, changed the thermostat programming
Page 38 of 228
MI Battle of the Buildings - Royal Oak
Overview
CEM (Community Energy Management) Grant
Offering Energy Benchmarking (ABS) to
owners
Partnering w/SBAM on walk through
assessments
Inclusion in Michigan Battle of the Buildings
Royal Oak will acknowledge the biggest
losers
Page 39 of 228
City of Royal Oak Battle
Climate Action Plan
The commercial electricity sector was the single largest
contributor to community emissions (24.2%)
Partnering with the Michigan Battle of the
Buildings helps the City achieve its goals
Reduce GHG emissions by 40%* by 2030
and achieve net-zero by 2050.
Action item to create an energy reduction
competition
Page 40 of 228
What to expect
See Savings!
Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Step 6:
Sign up for the Benchmark Energy Receive a report Complete Get
Michigan energy assessment with energy Project recognized!
Battle of the usage of your usage, energy
Buildings building assessment
details, and next
steps
Page 41 of 228
Benchmarking -
Automated Energy Benchmarking Service (ABS)
Energy data upload from utilities to
EnergyStar Portfolio Manager
Annual Statement of Energy Use and
GHG Performance
Data visualization, set goals, track &
measure
Data will be up to date for compliance
with MI Battle of the Buildings
Page 42 of 228
Energy Assessment & Report
SBAM will perform energy
assessment of building
You will receive a report with
Energy benchmarking data
Recommendations from
energy assessment
Contractor resources
Funding resources
Page 43 of 228
Why participate?
Reduce energy consumption & utility
“It’s not rocket
operating costs
science, it’s
Reducing community GHGs simple math.”
Get recognized for your work - Dave Heinz,
Meet peers who are doing similar projects Odawa Casino
See past winners video stories
Page 44 of 228
WHAT IS A 2030 DISTRICT ?
Pubilc-Private partners committed
To promote:
to reducing:
Building Energy Use Transportation GHG Community Vibrancy
Emissions
A High performance
building district
Water Consumption
50% by 2030 & Zero Emissions by 2040*
Economic Growth
*based on CBECS 2003 data set
Page 45 of 228
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: February 10, 2026 Title: MDOT Local Agency Agreement for Apple
Avenue
Submitted by: Dan VanderHeide, Public Works Department: Public Works
Director
Brief Summary:
Staff requests approval of a contract with MDOT for the reconstruction of Apple Avenue from
Webster Avenue to Home Street, and approval of a resolution authorizing the DPW Director and
Clerk to sign the contract.
Detailed Summary & Background:
On May 13th of last year, the Commission passed a resolution committing the City to partnering
with MDOT for select improvements during the Apple Avenue Reconstruction project in the
summer of 2026. Specifically, water main and sewer system upgrades, and certain components
of the road project, such as sections of the new non-motorized trail along the south side of Apple.
The project is ready to proceed, and it's time to sign the agreement outlining the terms under
which the City will participate. It is the same contract format we sign for other projects that use
federal funds and/or are administered through MDOT, such as the one passed at our last meeting
for Lakeshore Drive. The construction project funding breakdown is shown in the table below.
The costs in the chart are estimates as of the publication of the agenda and packet, as the
project is still out for bids. Due to tight construction timelines, MDOT has asked the City to move
forward on the agreement as soon as possible. Staff expects to have more accurate numbers
available at the meeting after the bids are opened, though they should not differ substantially.
Budgeted amounts are included in both the FY26 and FY27 Capital Improvement Plans and
Budgets, as the costs are expected to occur over the two fiscal years.
Goal/Action Item:
2027 Goal 1: Destination Community & Quality of Life - Improved transportation connections
throughout the community
Is this a repeat item?:
Explain what change has been made to justify bringing it back to Commission:
Page 46 of 228
Amount Requested: Budgeted Item:
$3,668,600 Yes X No N/A
Fund(s) or Account(s): Budget Amendment Needed:
See Chart for Breakdown Yes No X N/A
Recommended Motion:
Move approval of a contract with MDOT for the reconstruction of Apple Avenue from Webster
Avenue to Home Street, and approval of a resolution authorizing the DPW Director and Clerk to sign
the contract.
Approvals: Name the Policy/Ordinance Followed:
Immediate Division X
Head
Information
Technology
Other Division Heads
Communication
Legal Review
Page 47 of 228
RESOLUTION __________
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF
MUSKEGON FOR:
PART A – FEDERAL, STATE and CITY PARTICIPATION
Hot mix asphalt inlay work along Highway M-46 from Muskegon Avenue to Home
Street and along 1st Street from Webster Avenue to Highway M-46, including storm
sewer work, aggregate base, subbase, drainage structure, driveway, sidewalk, and
maintaining traffic work; together with necessary related work, located within the
corporate limits of the CITY; and
PART B – 100% CITY PARTICIPATION
Watermain and sanitary sewer work along Highway M-46 from Muskegon Avenue to
Home Street and along 1st Street from Webster Avenue to Highway M-46, including
sidewalk, gate valve, and sanitary structure work; together with necessary related
work, located within the corporate limits of the CITY;
Moved by Commissioner ________________ and supported by Commissioner
______________ the following Resolution be adopted:
WHEREAS, entry by the City of Muskegon into Contract no. 25-5126 between the
Michigan Department of Transportation and the City of Muskegon for the
Reconstruction of Apple Avenue from Muskegon Avenue to Home Street within the
City is in the best interests of the City of Muskegon.
RESOLVED, that entry by the City into Contract Agreement Number 25-5126 be and
the same is hereby authorized and approved and the DPW Director and Clerk are
authorized to execute said contract for and on behalf of the City of Muskegon.
Adopted this 10TH day of February, 2026.
CERTIFICATION
This resolution was adopted at a meeting of the City Commission, held on
February 10, 2026. 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___________________________
Ann Meisch, City Clerk
Page 48 of 228
SPECIAL TRUNKLINE DA
FEDERAL AID PROGRESS PAYMENT Control Section NH 61022
ACT-51 AND ADDED WORK Job Number 214896CON;
214896PE; 214896ROW
Federal Project 26A0222; 22A0586;
25A0751
Contract 25-5126
THIS CONTRACT is made by and between the MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter referred to as the "DEPARTMENT"; and the CITY OF
MUSKEGON, a Michigan municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY"; for the
purpose of fixing the rights and obligations of the parties in agreeing to construction
improvements located within the corporate limits of the CITY.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT is planning asphalt inlay work along Highway M-46
from Muskegon Avenue to Home Street within the corporate limits of the CITY; and
WHEREAS, the CITY has requested additional work in connection with a portion of the
DEPARTMENT'S construction, which additional work in conjunction with the
DEPARTMENT'S construction is hereinafter referred to as the "PROJECT" and is further
described as follows:
PART A – FEDERAL, STATE and CITY PARTICIPATION
Hot mix asphalt inlay work along Highway M-46 from Muskegon Avenue to
Home Street and along 1st Street from Webster Avenue to Highway M-46,
including storm sewer work, aggregate base, subbase, drainage structure,
driveway, sidewalk, and maintaining traffic work; together with necessary related
work, located within the corporate limits of the CITY; and
PART B – 100% CITY PARTICIPATION
Watermain and sanitary sewer work along Highway M-46 from Muskegon
Avenue to Home Street and along 1st Street from Webster Avenue to Highway
M-46, including sidewalk, gate valve, and sanitary structure work; together with
necessary related work, located within the corporate limits of the CITY; and
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT presently estimates the PROJECT COST as hereinafter
defined in Section 1 to be:
PART A: $14,247,400
PART B: $ 3,442,400
TOTAL: $17,689,800
10/08/19 adwkfa51.for 1/21/26 1
Page 49 of 228
WHEREAS, Act 296, Public Acts of 1969, as amended, provides the statutory authority
for the transfer of jurisdiction of highways and the renovation, repair, and reconstruction thereof;
and
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT has determined that the entire length Highway M-46
from Muskegon Avenue to Creston Street and 1st Street from Webster Avenue to Highway M-46
no longer follows the criteria for functioning as a state trunkline; and
WHEREAS, this portion of southbound Highway M-46 from Muskegon Avenue to
Creston Street 1st Street from Webster Avenue to Highway M-46 will no longer function as a
state trunkline; and
WHEREAS, the CITY has expressed their willingness to accept jurisdiction of the above
portions of Highway M-46 and 1st Street upon completion of the reconstruction work to be
performed by the DEPARTMENT according to the provisions of Section 2 of Act 296, P.A. of
1969; and
WHEREAS, existing law authorizes the DEPARTMENT, either acting alone or in
cooperation with boards of county road commissioners, cities, villages, or other local
governments so authorized, to participate among themselves in the construction or reconstruction
of state trunkline highways, including the authority to establish, open, discontinue, vacate, close,
alter, improve, maintain, and provide for the public use of state trunkline highways; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto have reached an understanding with each other regarding
the performance of the PROJECT work and desire to set forth this understanding in the form of a
written agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual undertakings of
the parties and in conformity with applicable law, it is agreed:
1. The CITY hereby consents to the designation of the PROJECT as a state trunkline
highway. The parties shall undertake and complete the construction of the PROJECT as a state
trunkline highway in accordance with this contract. The term "PROJECT COST", as herein
used, is hereby defined as the cost of construction or reconstruction of the PROJECT including
the costs of preliminary engineering (PE), plans and specifications; acquisition costs of the
property for rights of way, including interest on awards, attorney fees and court costs; physical
construction necessary for the completion of the PROJECT as determined by the
DEPARTMENT; and construction engineering (CE), legal, appraisal, financing, and any and all
other expenses in connection with any of the above.
The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy has informed the
DEPARTMENT that it adopted new administrative rules (R 325.10101, et. seq.) which prohibit
any governmental agency from connecting and/or reconnecting lead and/or galvanized service
lines to existing and/or new water main. Questions regarding these administrative rules should be
directed to the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. The cost
10/08/19 adwkfa51.for 1/21/26 2
Page 50 of 228
associated with replacement of any lead and/or galvanized service lines, including but not limited
to contractor claims, will be the sole responsibility of the CITY.
2. The cost of alteration, reconstruction and relocation, including plans thereof, of
certain publicly owned facilities and utilities which may be required for the construction of the
PROJECT, shall be included in the PROJECT COST; provided, however, that any part of such
cost determined by the DEPARTMENT, prior to the commencement of the work, to constitute a
betterment to such facility or utility, shall be borne wholly by the owner thereof.
3. The CITY shall make available to the PROJECT, at no cost, all lands required
thereof, now owned by it or under its control for purpose of completing said PROJECT. The
CITY shall approve all plans and specifications to be used on that portion of this PROJECT that
are within the right of way which is owned or controlled by the CITY. That portion of the
PROJECT which lies within the right of way under the control or ownership by the CITY shall
become part of the CITY facility upon completion and acceptance of the PROJECT and shall be
maintained by the CITY in accordance with standard practice at no cost to the DEPARTMENT.
The DEPARTMENT assumes no jurisdiction of CITY right of way before, during or after
completion and acceptance of the PROJECT.
4. The parties will continue to make available, without cost, their sewer and drainage
structures and facilities for the drainage of the PROJECT.
5. The DEPARTMENT will administer all phases of the PROJECT and will cause to
be performed all the PROJECT work.
Any items of PROJECT COST incurred by the DEPARTMENT may be charged to the
PROJECT.
6. The CITY will approve the design of the PART B portion of the PROJECT and
shall accept full responsibility for the design with respect to the facilities functioning as a part of
the CITY'S facilities. Any approvals by the DEPARTMENT are for its own purposes and are
not to nor do they relieve the CITY of liability for any claims, causes of action or judgments
arising out of the design of the facilities.
7. The PART A portion of the PROJECT COST shall be met in part by contributions
from agencies of the Federal Government. The balance of the PART A and B portions of the
PROJECT COST, after deduction of Federal Funds, shall be charged to and paid by the
DEPARTMENT and the CITY in the following proportions and in the manner and at the times
hereinafter set forth:
PART A PART B
DEPARTMENT - 91.25% 0%
CITY - 8.75% 100%
10/08/19 adwkfa51.for 1/21/26 3
Page 51 of 228
The PROJECT COST and the respective shares of the parties, after Federal-aid, is
estimated to be as follows:
TOTAL BALANCE
ESTIMATED FED AFTER DEPT’S CITY’S
COST AID FED AID SHARE SHARE
PART A
Constr & CE $12,479,600 $10,214,600 $2,265,000 $2,066,800 $ 198,200
PE $ 1,627,800 $ 1,332,400 $ 295,400 $ 269,600 $ 25,800
ROW $ 140,000 $ 114,600 $ 25,400 $ 23,200 $ 2,200
PART B $ 3,442,400 $ 0 $3,442,400 $ 0 $3,442,400
TOTAL $17,689,800 $11,661,600 $6,028,200 $2,359,600 $3,668,600
Participation, if any, by the CITY in the acquisition of trunkline right-of-way for PART
A of the PROJECT shall be in accordance with 1951 P.A. 51 Subsection 1d, MCL 247.651d. An
amount equivalent to the federal highway funds for acquisition of right-of-way, as would have
been available if application had been made thereof and approved by the Federal government,
shall be deducted from the total PROJECT COST prior to determining the CITY'S share. Such
deduction will be established from the applicable Federal-Aid matching ratio current at the time
of acquisition.
The PE costs will be apportioned in the same ratio as the actual construction award and
the CE costs will be apportioned in the same ratio as the actual direct construction costs.
8. The DEPARTMENT shall maintain and keep accurate records and accounts
relative to the cost of the PROJECT. The DEPARTMENT may submit progress billings to the
CITY on a monthly basis for the CITY'S share of the cost of work performed to date, less all
payments previously made by the CITY not including payments made for a working capital
deposit. No monthly billings of a lesser amount than $1,000 shall be made unless it is a final or
end of fiscal year billing. All billings will be labeled either "Progress Bill Number
__________", or "Final Billing". Payment is due within 30 days of receipt of invoice. Upon
completion of the PROJECT, payment of all items of PROJECT COST and receipt of all Federal
Aid, the DEPARTMENT shall make a final billing and accounting to the CITY.
The CITY will deposit with the DEPARTMENT the following amount which will be
used by the DEPARTMENT as working capital and applied toward the end of the project for the
contracted work and cost incurred by the DEPARTMENT in connection with the PROJECT:
DEPOSIT PART B - $241,000
The total deposit will be billed to the CITY by the DEPARTMENT and shall be paid by
the CITY within 30 days after receipt of bill.
9. Pursuant to the authority granted by law, the CITY hereby irrevocably pledges a
sufficient amount of funds received by it from the Michigan Transportation Fund to meet its
10/08/19 adwkfa51.for 1/21/26 4
Page 52 of 228
obligations as specified herein. If the CITY shall fail to make any of its required payments when
due, as specified herein, the DEPARTMENT shall immediately notify the CITY of the fact of
such default and the amount thereof, and, if such default is not cured by payment within ten (10)
days, the DEPARTMENT is then authorized and directed to withhold from the first of such
monies thereafter allocated by law to the CITY from the Michigan Transportation Fund
sufficient monies to remove the default, and to credit the CITY with payment thereof, and to
notify the CITY in writing of such fact.
10. Upon completion of the PROJECT, the CITY shall accept the facilities
constructed as built to specifications within the construction contract documents. It is
understood that the CITY shall own the facilities and shall operate and maintain the facilities in
accordance with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not limited
to, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 USC 12131 et seq., and its
associated regulations and standards, and DEPARTMENT Road and Bridge Standard Plans and
the Standard Specifications for Construction at no cost to the DEPARTMENT.
11. The transfer of jurisdiction of Highway M-46 from Muskegon Avenue to Creston
Street and 1st Street from Webster Avenue to Highway M-46 is contingent upon the
DEPARTMENT and the CITY approving the construction of those portions of Highway M-46.
12. Upon completion of construction of Highway M-46 from Muskegon Avenue to
Home Street and 1st Street from Webster Avenue to Highway M-46 and under a separate
memorandum of understanding, the DEPARTMENT shall transfer the jurisdiction of that portion
of Highway M-46 from Muskegon Avenue to Home Street to the CITY and the CITY agrees to
accept said jurisdiction.
13. The CITY, under the terms of the contract, consents to the designation of those
portions of Highway M-46 and 1st Street as a CITY street and will, at the sole cost and expense,
own, maintain, and operate said highway constructed as a non-trunkline highway. The CITY
shall conform with all DEPARTMENT permit requirements for any work to be performed within
any state trunkline right-of-way not defined as the PROJECT.
14. Any and all approvals of, reviews of, and recommendations regarding contracts,
agreements, permits, plans, specifications, or documents, of any nature, or any inspections of
work by the DEPARTMENT pursuant to the terms of this Contract are done to assist the CITY.
Such approvals, reviews, inspections and recommendations by the DEPARTMENT shall not
relieve the CITY of its ultimate control and shall not be construed as a warranty of their
propriety or that the DEPARTMENT is assuming any liability, control or jurisdiction.
The providing of recommendations or advice by the DEPARTMENT does not relieve the
CITY of its exclusive jurisdiction of the highway and responsibility under MCL 691.1402 et
seq., as amended.
When providing approvals, reviews and recommendations under this Contract, the
DEPARTMENT is performing a governmental function, as that term is defined in MCL
10/08/19 adwkfa51.for 1/21/26 5
Page 53 of 228
691.1401 et seq., as amended, which is incidental to the completion of the PROJECT.
The DEPARTMENT, by executing this Contract, and rendering services pursuant to this
Contract, has not and does not assume jurisdiction of the highway, described as the PROJECT
for purposes of MCL 691.1402 et seq., as amended. Exclusive jurisdiction of such highway for
the purposes of MCL 691.1402 et seq., as amended rests with the CITY.
15. In connection with the performance of PROJECT work under this contract the
parties hereto (hereinafter in Appendix "A" referred to as the "contractor") agree to comply with
the State of Michigan provisions for "Prohibition of Discrimination in State Contracts", as set
forth in Appendix A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. The parties further covenant that
they will comply with the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, being P.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, as
amended, being Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 1971, 1975a-1975d, and 2000a-2000h-6 and the
Regulations of the United States Department of Transportation (49 C.F.R. Part 21) issued
pursuant to said Act, including Appendix "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, and will
require similar covenants on the part of any contractor or subcontractor employed in the
performance of this contract. The parties will carry out the applicable requirements of the
DEPARTMENT’S Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program and 49 CFR, Part 26,
including, but not limited to, those requirements set forth in Appendix C.
10/08/19 adwkfa51.for 1/21/26 6
Page 54 of 228
16. This contract shall become binding on the parties hereto and of full force and
effect upon the signing thereof by the duly authorized officials for the CITY and for the
DEPARTMENT; upon the adoption of a resolution approving said contract and authorizing the
signatures thereto of the respective officials of the CITY, a certified copy of which resolution
shall be attached to this contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this contract to be executed as
written below.
CITY OF MUSKEGON MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
By_______________________ By________________________
Title: Department Director MDOT
By______________________
Title: REVIEWED
By Larry Doyle at 8:46 am, 1/27/26
10/08/19 adwkfa51.for 1/21/26 7
Page 55 of 228
APPENDIX A
PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION IN STATE CONTRACTS
In connection with the performance of work under this contract; the contractor agrees as follows:
1. In accordance with Public Act 453 of 1976 (Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act), the
contractor shall not discriminate against an employee or applicant for employment with
respect to hire, tenure, treatment, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment or a
matter directly or indirectly related to employment because of race, color, religion,
national origin, age, sex, height, weight, or marital status. A breach of this covenant will
be regarded as a material breach of this contract. Further, in accordance with Public Act
220 of 1976 (Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act), as amended by Public Act 478
of 1980, the contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment
or a matter directly or indirectly related to employment because of a disability that is
unrelated to the individual’s ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position. A
breach of the above covenants will be regarded as a material breach of this contract.
2. The contractor hereby agrees that any and all subcontracts to this contract, whereby a
portion of the work set forth in this contract is to be performed, shall contain a covenant
the same as hereinabove set forth in Section 1 of this Appendix.
3. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants for employment and
employees are treated without regard to their race, color, religion, national origin, age,
sex, height, weight, marital status, or any disability that is unrelated to the individual’s
ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position. Such action shall include, but
not be limited to, the following: employment; treatment; upgrading; demotion or transfer;
recruitment; advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of
compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship.
4. The contractor shall, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on
behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for
employment without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, height,
weight, marital status, or disability that is unrelated to the individual’s ability to perform
the duties of a particular job or position.
5. The contractor or its collective bargaining representative shall send to each labor union or
representative of workers with which the contractor has a collective bargaining
agreement or other contract or understanding a notice advising such labor union or
workers’ representative of the contractor’s commitments under this Appendix.
6. The contractor shall comply with all relevant published rules, regulations, directives, and
orders of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission that may be in effect prior to the taking
of bids for any individual state project.
Page 56 of 228
7. The contractor shall furnish and file compliance reports within such time and upon such
forms as provided by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission; said forms may also elicit
information as to the practices, policies, program, and employment statistics of each
subcontractor, as well as the contractor itself, and said contractor shall permit access to
the contractor’s books, records, and accounts by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission
and/or its agent for the purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance under this
contract and relevant rules, regulations, and orders of the Michigan Civil Rights
Commission.
8. In the event that the Michigan Civil Rights Commission finds, after a hearing held
pursuant to its rules, that a contractor has not complied with the contractual obligations
under this contract, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission may, as a part of its order
based upon such findings, certify said findings to the State Administrative Board of the
State of Michigan, which State Administrative Board may order the cancellation of the
contract found to have been violated and/or declare the contractor ineligible for future
contracts with the state and its political and civil subdivisions, departments, and officers,
including the governing boards of institutions of higher education, until the contractor
complies with said order of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission. Notice of said
declaration of future ineligibility may be given to any or all of the persons with whom the
contractor is declared ineligible to contract as a contracting party in future contracts. In
any case before the Michigan Civil Rights Commission in which cancellation of an
existing contract is a possibility, the contracting agency shall be notified of such possible
remedy and shall be given the option by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission to
participate in such proceedings.
9. The contractor shall include or incorporate by reference, the provisions of the foregoing
paragraphs (1) through (8) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by
rules, regulations, or orders of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission; all subcontracts
and purchase orders will also state that said provisions will be binding upon each
subcontractor or supplier.
Revised June 2011
Page 57 of 228
APPENDIX B
TITLE VI ASSURANCE
During the performance of this contract, the contractor, for itself, its assignees, and its successors
in interest (hereinafter referred to as the “contractor”), agrees as follows:
1. Compliance with Regulations: For all federally assisted programs, the contractor shall
comply with the nondiscrimination regulations set forth in 49 CFR Part 21, as may be
amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). Such Regulations
are incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this contract.
2. Nondiscrimination: The contractor, with regard to the work performed under the
contract, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin in the
selection, retention, and treatment of subcontractors, including procurements of materials
and leases of equipment. The contractor shall not participate either directly or indirectly
in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the Regulations, including
employment practices, when the contractor covers a program set forth in Appendix B of
the Regulations.
3. Solicitation for Subcontracts, Including Procurements of Materials and Equipment:
All solicitations made by the contractor, either by competitive bidding or by negotiation
for subcontract work, including procurement of materials or leases of equipment, must
include a notification to each potential subcontractor or supplier of the contractor’s
obligations under the contract and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the
grounds of race, color, or national origin.
4. Information and Reports: The contractor shall provide all information and reports
required by the Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto and shall permit access
to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and facilities as may be
determined to be pertinent by the Department or the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT) in order to ascertain compliance with such Regulations or
directives. If required information concerning the contractor is in the exclusive
possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish the required information, the
contractor shall certify to the Department or the USDOT, as appropriate, and shall set
forth the efforts that it made to obtain the information.
5. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of the contractor’s noncompliance with the
nondiscrimination provisions of this contract, the Department shall impose such contract
sanctions as it or the USDOT may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited
to, the following:
a. Withholding payments to the contractor until the contractor complies; and/or
b. Canceling, terminating, or suspending the contract, in whole or in part.
Page 58 of 228
6. Incorporation of Provisions: The contractor shall include the provisions of Sections (1)
through (6) in every subcontract, including procurement of material and leases of
equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto. The
contractor shall take such action with respect to any subcontract or procurement as the
Department or the USDOT may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including
sanctions for non-compliance, provided, however, that in the event a contractor becomes
involved in or is threatened with litigation from a subcontractor or supplier as a result of
such direction, the contractor may request the Department to enter into such litigation to
protect the interests of the state. In addition, the contractor may request the United States
to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
Revised June 2011
Page 59 of 228
APPENDIX C
TO BE INCLUDED IN ALL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL AGENCIES
Assurance that Recipients and Contractors Must Make
(Excerpts from US DOT Regulation 49 CFR 26.13)
A. Each financial assistance agreement signed with a DOT operating administration
(or a primary recipient) must include the following assurance:
The recipient shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the
award and performance of any US DOT-assisted contract or in the administration of its
DBE program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. The recipient shall take all
necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the
award and administration of US DOT-assisted contracts. The recipient’s DBE program, as
required by 49 CFR Part 26 and as approved by US DOT, is incorporated by reference in
this agreement. Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry
out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon notification to the
recipient of its failure to carry out its approved program, the department may impose
sanctions as provided for under Part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for
enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986
(31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.).
B. Each contract MDOT signs with a contractor (and each subcontract the prime
contractor signs with a subcontractor) must include the following assurance:
The contractor, sub recipient or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race,
color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall
carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of
US DOT-assisted contracts. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a
material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or
such other remedy as the recipient deems appropriate.
Page 60 of 228
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: February 10, 2026 Title: Transportation Asset Management Plan
Update
Submitted by: Todd Myers, Deputy Director of Department: Public Works
Public Works
Brief Summary:
A resolution authorizing the Mayor and Finance Director to certify to the State that the City has an
updated Transportation Asset Management Plan in accordance with the state's requirements, and to
adopt the updated plan.
Detailed Summary & Background:
Public Act 325 of 2018 began a process which required all road maintaining agencies with at least
100 centerline miles to prepare and have on file with the state a Transportation Asset Management
Plan (TAMP) that is updated every three years. The City was first required to file in 2022, and this new
version represents our first triennial update to the plan.
As defined by the act, asset management is "an ongoing process of maintaining, preserving,
upgrading, and operating physical assets cost effectively, based on a continuous physical inventory
and condition assessment and investment to achieve established performance goals." In more
practical terms, the plan provides a detailed inventory of roads, bridges, culverts and traffic signals in
the City, sets goals for maintaining the overall condition of the City's transportation infrastructure, and
makes recommendations on how to achieve the goals in the context of the funds expected to be
available.
As part of the obligations to the state, the Commission must certify the plan, including a resolution
designating the mayor and chief financial officer (Finance Director) as the City's authorized signers.
Adoption of this resolution and plan will keep the City in compliance with the state requirements.
Goal/Action Item:
2027 GOAL 3: COMMUNITY CONNECTION - Digestible understandable and accessible internal and
community communications
Is this a repeat item?:
Explain what change has been made to justify bringing it back to Commission:
Amount Requested: Budgeted Item:
N/A Yes No N/A X
Fund(s) or Account(s): Budget Amendment Needed:
N/A Yes No N/A X
Page 61 of 228
Recommended Motion:
Move to adopt the included resolution authorizing the Mayor and Finance Director to certify to the
State that the City has an updated Transportation Asset Management Plan, and to adopt the
updated plan.
Approvals: Name the Policy/Ordinance Followed:
Immediate Division X
Head
Information
Technology
Other Division Heads
Communication
Legal Review
Page 62 of 228
Page 63 of 228
Page 64 of 228
City of Muskegon
2025 Transportation
Asset Management Plan
A plan describing the City of Muskegon’s transportation assets and conditions.
Prepared by:
Connie Houk, P.E.
Email: chouk@preinnewhof.com
Phone: (231) 468-3456
Page 65 of 228
CONTENTS
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ ii
Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ iii
Asset Management Plan Summary .............................................................................................................. iv
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Pavement Assets ................................................................................................................................... 2
Inventory of Assets ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Condition, Goals, and Trend......................................................................................................................................... 4
Modelled Trends, Gap Analysis, and Planned Projects ................................................................................................ 7
2. Bridge Assets ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Inventory of Assets ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
Condition, Goals, and Trend....................................................................................................................................... 11
Programmed/Funded Projects, Gap Analysis, and Planned Projects ........................................................................ 12
3. Culvert Assets ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Inventory of Assets ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
Goals ........................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Planned Projects ......................................................................................................................................................... 16
4. Signal Assets ........................................................................................................................................... 17
Inventory of Assets ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
Goals ........................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Planned Projects ......................................................................................................................................................... 19
5. Financial Resources ................................................................................................................................ 20
Anticipated Revenues & Expenses .............................................................................................................................. 20
6. Risk of Failure Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 23
7. Coordination with Other Entities ............................................................................................................ 24
8. Proof of Acceptance ................................................................................................................................ 26
Proof of Acceptance .................................................................................................................................... 27
APPENDIX A. Pavement Asset Management Plan ................................................................................... 29
APPENDIX B. Bridge Asset Management Plan ........................................................................................ 30
APPENDIX C. Culvert Asset Management Plan Supplement ................................................................... 31
Culvert Primer ............................................................................................................................................................ 31
APPENDIX D. Traffic Signals Asset Management Plan Supplement ....................................................... 33
Traffic Signals Primer................................................................................................................................................. 33
APPENDIX E. Glossary & Acronyms ....................................................................................................... 34
Glossary ...................................................................................................................................................................... 34
List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................................... 43
APPENDIX F. MAPS FROM FIGURES .................................................................................................. 44
i
Page 66 of 228
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Map showing location of roads managed by the City and PASER Rating..................................................... 3
Figure 2: Pavement type by percentage maintained by the City of Muskegon.............................................................. 4
Figure 3: City major network condition, goals, and trend ............................................................................................. 5
Figure 4: City local network condition, goals, and trend ............................................................................................... 5
Figure 5: Map of the unpaved roads. Unpaved roads owned by the City are shown in blue. ........................................6
Figure 6: Map illustrating planned projects for pavement assets ................................................................................... 8
Figure 7: Map illustrating locations of the City’s bridge assets................................................................................... 10
Figure 8A: Map showing locations of City of Muskegon owned culverts (East) ........................................................ 14
Figure 8B: Map showing locations of City of Muskegon owned culverts (West) ....................................................... 15
Figure 9A: Map showing locations of City of Muskegon owned signals (East) ......................................................... 18
Figure 9B: Map showing locations of City of Muskegon owned signals (West) ........................................................ 19
ii
Page 67 of 228
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Roadsoft Modelled Trends, Planned Projects, and Gap Analysis for City's Road Assets ............................... 7
Table 2: Bridge Assets by Type: Inventory, Size, and Condition ................................................................................ 10
Table 3: Planned Projects and Gap Analysis for City’s Bridge Assets........................................................................ 12
Table 4: Annual Fiscal-Year Revenues & Expenditures per Fiscal Year .................................................................... 22
iii
Page 68 of 228
ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY
As conduits for commerce and connections to vital services, roads and bridges are among the most
important assets in any community. Other assets like culverts, traffic signs, traffic signals, and utilities
support and affect roads and bridges. The City of Muskegon’s roads, bridges, and support systems are
also some of the most valuable and extensive public assets, all of which are paid for with taxes collected
from citizens and businesses. The cost of building and maintaining these assets, their importance to
society, and the investment made by taxpayers all place a high level of responsibility on local agencies to
plan, build, and maintain roads, bridges, and support assets in an efficient and effective manner.
An asset management plan is required by Michigan Public Act 325 of 2018, and this document represents
fulfillment of some of the City’s obligations towards meeting these requirements. However, this plan and
its supporting documents are intended to be much more than a fulfillment of required reporting. This asset
management plan helps to demonstrate the City’s responsible use of public funds by providing elected
and appointed officials as well as the general public with the inventory and condition information of the
City’s road and bridge assets, and gives taxpayers the information they need to make informed decisions
about investing in the City’s essential transportation infrastructure.
iv
Page 69 of 228
INTRODUCTION
Asset management is defined by Public Act 325 of 2018 as “an ongoing process of maintaining,
preserving, upgrading, and operating physical assets cost effectively, based on a continuous physical
inventory and condition assessment and investment to achieve established performance goals”. In other
words, asset management is a process that uses data to manage and track assets, like roads and bridges, in
a cost-effective manner using a combination of engineering and business principles. This process is
endorsed by leaders in municipal planning and transportation infrastructure, including the Michigan
Municipal League, County Road Association of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Transportation
(MDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The City of Muskegon is supported in its
use of asset management principles and processes by the Michigan Transportation Asset Management
Council (TAMC), formed by the State of Michigan.
Asset management, in the context of this plan, ensures that public funds are spent as effectively as
possible to maximize the condition of the road and bridge network. Asset management also provides a
transparent decision-making process that allows the public to understand the technical and financial
challenges of managing transportation infrastructure with a limited budget.
The City of Muskegon has adopted an “asset management” business process to begin to address the
challenges presented by having limited financial, staffing, and other resources while needing to meet road
users’ expectations. The City is responsible for maintaining and operating over 184.70 centerline miles of
roads and two bridge structures. The City is responsible for 29 separated storm culverts. Culvert
inventory data was collected during the EGLE Stormwater, Asset Management, and Wastewater (SAW)
Grant Program between 2015-2017. The City owns and is responsible for maintaining 23 signals.
This 2025 plan identifies the City’s transportation assets and their condition as well as the strategy that
the City of Muskegon uses to maintain and upgrade particular assets given the City’s condition goals,
priorities of network’s road users, and resources. An updated plan is to be released approximately every
three years both to comply with Public Act 325 and to reflect changes in road and bridge conditions,
finances, and priorities.
Questions regarding the use or content of this plan should be directed to Dan VanderHeide at 1350 E.
Keating Avenue, Muskegon, MI 49442, dan.vanderheide@shorelinecity.com, or at (231) 724-4100.
1
Page 70 of 228
1. PAVEMENT ASSETS
2
Page 71 of 228
The City of Muskegon is responsible for 184.70 centerline miles of public roads. An inventory of these
miles divides them into different network classes based on road purpose/use and funding priorities as
identified at the state level: city major road network, which is prioritized for state-level funding, and city
local road network.
Inventory of Assets
Of the City’s 184.70 miles of road, 73.88 miles are classified as city major and 110.82 miles are classified
as city local. Figure 1 identifies these paved roads in green, yellow, and red with the colors being
determined based on the road segment’s condition. Figure 1 shows unrated roads in blue. The City also
manages 11.20 miles that are classified as part of the National Highway System (NHS); the NHS is
subject to special rules and regulations and has its own performance metrics dictated by the FHWA. In
addition, the City has 7.175 miles of unpaved roads.
Figure 1: Map showing location of roads managed by the City and PASER Rating
Please refer to Appendix F which shows a more detailed map of roads managed by the City and their
current PASER Rating condition.
Additional detail about these road assets can be found in Appendix A, the City’s Roadsoft database, or by
contacting the City.
3
Page 72 of 228
Types
The City of Muskegon has multiple types of pavements in its jurisdiction, including asphalt and concrete;
it also has unpaved roads (i.e., gravel and earth). Figure 2 shows a breakdown of these pavement types for
all of the City’s road assets.
Surface Type
Earth
1% Gravel
Concrete 3%
23%
Asphalt
73%
Figure 2: Pavement type by percentage maintained by the City of Muskegon.
Condition, Goals, and Trend
Paved Roads
Paved roads in Michigan are rated using the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) system,
which is a 1 to 10 scale with 10 being a newly constructed surface and 1 being a completely failed
surface. PASER scores are grouped into TAMC definition categories of good (8-10), fair (5-7), and poor
(1-4) categories. The City collects PASER data every two years on 100 percent of those portions of its
city major and city local networks that are eligible for federal funding and plan to rate pavements every
three years on the non-federal aid roads. The non-federal aid roads need to be rated in 2026.
Of the city major roads that are PASER rated, the city has been consistently maintaining approximately
24% of its roads in good condition, 35% in fair condition, and 41% in poor condition, and a majority of
the city local ratings were completed in 2023 and has almost 5% of its roads in good condition, 21% in
fair condition, and 74% in poor condition.
4
Page 73 of 228
The City’s long-range goal is to continue to maintain the current condition of the city major network by
having at least 50% of roads in good and fair condition (shown below in Figure 3). The long-range goal
for the city local network is to stabilize the network by maintaining current PASER rating trends. (Figure
4). Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate the historical and current condition of the City’s major and local
networks, respectively; they also illustrate the projected trend, the overall trend in condition (trendlines),
and the City’s goal (final solid bar). Additional information and goals for the City of Muskegon’s roads
are included in the Pavement Asset Management Plan in Appendix A. The selected Goal for the local
network is less conservative than this trend goal shown. With additional funding expected to be received
during this AMP cycle, the local road network is anticipated to exceed the trend goal.
Figure 3: City major network condition, goals, and trend
Figure 4: City local network condition, goals, and trend
5
Page 74 of 228
Unpaved Roads
The City of Muskegon has 7.175 miles of unpaved roads, shown on the map in Figure 19. Because the
condition of unpaved roads can change quickly, it is difficult to maintain a consistent surface condition
rating over the course of a season or even from week to week. The City’s highway supervisor visually
assesses their gravel roadways at various times throughout the year and schedules required maintenance
and repairs as needed. Refer to Figure 5 below which shows the locations of unpaved roads in blue.
Please refer to Appendix F for more detailed maps which show unpaved roads.
Figure 5: Map of the unpaved roads. Unpaved roads owned by the City are shown in blue.
6
Page 75 of 228
Modelled Trends, Gap Analysis, and Planned Projects
Table 1: Roadsoft Modelled Trends, Planned Projects, and Gap Analysis for City's Road
Assets
Network 1 – City Majors (73.88 miles)
Additional Work
Necessary to Overcome
Planned Projects Deficit
Average Mile-Years
Average Average
Yearly
Yearly Years Min. Max. Yearly
Miles of
Miles of of Mile- Trigger Trigger Miles of Mile-
Treatment
Treatment Treatment Life Years Reset Reset Reset Treatment Years
Complete 1.53 25 38.33 1 3 10 1.53 38.33
Reconstruct
Crush & Shape, 25 1 3 10
3.5”
3” Mill & Overlay 15 3 4 9
2” Overlay 10 3 6 9
1.5” Mill & 7 4 6 9 2 14
Overlay
1.5” Overlay 7 4 6 9
Chip Seal & Fog 5 4 7 8 3 15
Crack Seal 2 7 7 8 5 10
Total
Gap Analysis: -35.55 39
(Deficit)/Surplus
Network 2 – City Local (110.82 miles)
Additional Work
Necessary to Overcome
Planned Projects Deficit
Average Minimu Maxim Average Average Mile-Years
Yearly Years m um Yearly Yearly
Miles of of Mile- Trigger Trigger Miles of Mile- Miles of
Treatment Treatment Life Years Reset Reset Reset Treatment Years Treatment
Complete 0.5 25 12.5 1 3 10 0.5 12.5
Reconstruct
Crush & Shape, 25 1 3 10 0.5 12.5
3.5”
3” Mill & Overlay 15 3 4 9
2” Overlay 10 3 6 9 1 10
1.5” Mill & 7 4 6 9 1.5 10.5
Overlay
1.5” Overlay 7 4 6 9
Chip Seal & Fog 5 4 7 8 10 50
Crack Seal 2 7 7 8 2 4
Total
Gap Analysis: -85.82 87
(Deficit)/Surplus
Modelled Trends & Gap Analysis
The Roadsoft network analysis of the City of Muskegon’s planned projects for the city major and city
local networks for their currently available budget does not allow the City to reach its pavement condition
goals given the projects planned for the next three years. To maintain current road conditions, this deficit
must be overcome with a combination of maintenance and rehabilitation/reconstruction work which
would require additional funding. Table 1 (above) is an example strategy that displays the additional road
work that would be necessary to overcome the deficit.
7
Page 76 of 228
Planned Projects
The City has projects planned for the next three years. These projects are shown in red in Figure 6. The
total cost of the projects is approximately $5,350,000.
This cost includes road related items such as curb and gutter, gravel, asphalt, traffic control, contractor
mobilization, as well as everything else included in the reconstruction of each project such as utilities,
driveway approaches, sidewalk, ADA ramps, restoration, signing, and pavement markings. Please refer
to Appendix F which shows a more detailed map and list of future projects.
Figure 6: Map illustrating planned projects for pavement assets
8
Page 77 of 228
2. BRIDGE ASSETS
9
Page 78 of 228
Inventory of Assets
Figure 7: Map illustrating locations of the City’s bridge assets.
The City has two bridges in its bridge network; these bridges connect various points of the road network,
as illustrated in Figure 7. Table 2 summarizes the City’s bridge assets by type, size, and condition. More
information about each of these structures can be found in Appendix B, the MiBRIDGE database, or by
contacting the City.
Table 2: Bridge Assets by Type: Inventory, Size, and Condition
Condition: Structurally
Total Total
Number Deck
Deficient, Posted, Closed 2025 Condition
of Area Struct.
Bridge Type Bridges (sq ft) Defic Posted Closed Poor Fair Good
Concrete – Culvert 1 1,316 0 0 0 0 0 1
Steel – Multistringer 1 2,007 1 0 1 1 0 0
Total 1 0 1
SD/Posted/Closed
Total 2 3,323 1 0 1
Percentage (%) 50% 0 50 50 0 50
10
Page 79 of 228
Condition, Goals, and Trend
Bridges in Michigan are rated as good, fair, or poor based on the National Bridge Inspection Standards
(NBIS) rating scale, which was developed by the Federal Highway Administration to assess bridge
deficiencies and ensure the safety of road users. Currently, the City of Muskegon’s bridge network
includes one bridge in good condition and one bridge rated poor or lower. The poor rated bridge is
currently closed and scheduled for demolition in 2026.
One goal of the City’s asset management program is the preservation and safety of the City’s bridge
network. In 2022, the City maintained three bridges. Following evaluations of network connectivity,
structural condition, replacement costs, and available funding occurred, a plan was established to remove
two bridges from the City’s system while continuing to maintain the remaining bridge structure. One of
the structurally deficient bridges has already been removed and the remaining poor bridge is planned for
removal in 2026.
The City’s long-range objective is to maintain 100% of the City’s bridges in fair or good condition with
zero bridges classified as structurally deficient, within the next five years.
The goal of the program is the preservation and safety of the City’s bridge network. Additional
information and goals for the City of Muskegon’s bridges are included in the Bridge Asset Management
Plan in Appendix B.
11
Page 80 of 228
Programmed/Funded Projects, Gap Analysis, and Planned
Projects
The City received commitment of $250,000 from MDOT’s Local Bridge Program towards the removal of
Bridge #7700 Ottawa Street over the Muskegon River. The City has plans to remove this bridge in 2026.
The City will provide a local match. The projected cost for this project is $500,000.
Bridge #7698 along Lakeshore Drive was reconstructed in 2019. Routine maintenance will be performed
as necessary. Maintenance would include activies such as deck sweeping, tree/brush trimming, joint
replacement, and crack sealing. Funding for maintenance will be included in the City’s routine
maintenance budget.
Table 3 illustrates the programmed/funded projects that will be undertaken in order to achieve the City’s
goal. These programmed/funded projects are juxtaposed with priority projects that remain unfunded.
Table 3: Planned Projects and Gap Analysis for City’s Bridge Assets
Strategy 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 GAP
Scheduled Maintenance
Subtotal $500 $3500 $500 $500 $500 $0
Other - Demolition
Subtotal $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
12
Page 81 of 228
3. CULVERT ASSETS
13
Page 82 of 228
The City of Muskegon maintains awareness of its culvert assets. An initial culvert inventory was
completed as part of the EGLE Stormwater, Asset Management, and Wastewater (SAW) Grant Program
between 2015-2017.
Inventory of Assets
Currently, the City tracks inventory data for its culvert assets in the Roadsoft database A total of 29
culverts have been inventoried, representing 100 percent of the City’s known culverts. If additional
culverts are identified, removed, or replaced, inventory locations and condition rating information will be
updated in Roadsoft for tracking purposes.
Of the 29 inventoried culverts, 23 have been condition using a pole-mounted zoom camera. Based on the
rating results, 22 culverts are in good condition and one culvert is in fair condition. The remaining 6
culverts were submerged at the time of inspection and therefore could not be rated. No culverts were
identified as being in poor or failed condition according to the established rating system (see Appendix C
Culvert Asset Management Plan Supplement).
Figure 8 (A & B) illustrates the locations of the City’s culverts, with rated culverts shown in red and
unrated culverts shown in green. More detailed maps identifying culverts owned by the City of
Muskegon are provided in Appendix F.
Figure 8A: Map showing locations of City of Muskegon owned culverts (East)
14
Page 83 of 228
Figure 8B: Map showing locations of City of Muskegon owned culverts (West)
More detailed information regarding the City’s culvert assets, including inventory and condition data, is
available through the City’s Roadsoft database or by contacting the City directly.
15
Page 84 of 228
Goals
The primary goal of the City of Muskegon’s asset management program is the preservation and long-term
functionality of its culvert network. The City is responsible for maintaining 29 inventoried culverts, as
well as any additional un-inventoried culverts that underlie the City’s roadway system.
A key objective of the program is to work toward having the condition of all culverts inspected and rated
on a routine basis. The City plans to ensure that larger culverts – those with lengths between 15 feet and
20 feet that fall below the threshold for ‘bridge’ classification - are inspected by a qualified bridge
inspector on a 5-year cycle. These inspections will provide formal condition assessments and include
maintenance recommendations.
In addition, the City’s aims to mitigate future storm-related infrastructure failure disasters by addressing
closely spaced multiple culvert installations during replacement projects. When culverts are placed in
close proximity, water is more likely to infiltrate the backfill material between them, leading to erosion.
Over time, the loss of supporting material may result in culvert failure and potential roadway collapse.
When an existing double or triple culvert is rated poor condition and requires replacement, the City will
conduct an engineering review of the crossing to evaluate hydraulic performance and determine the best
replacement configuration to reduce risk and improve system performance.
Planned Projects
The City’s policy is to repair or replace culvert assets in coordination with roadway projects. Culvert
assets are also included in routine maintenance projects that affect the roadway segments they support.
16
Page 85 of 228
4. SIGNAL ASSETS
17
Page 86 of 228
The City of Muskegon maintains awareness of its traffic sign and signal assets. Traffic signals are
regularly reviewed to ensure they continue to meet applicable warrants, and are removed or modified
when warranted.
Inventory of Assets
Currently, the City maintains inventory data for each traffic signal, including location, signal head
configuration, pole configuration, presence of pedestrian signals, flashing beacons, and camera or loop
detection systems. The City has inventoried 100 percent of the 23 traffic signal locations it owns. Figures
9 (A & B) illustrates the locations of the City’s inventoried traffic signals.
Figure 9A: Map showing locations of City of Muskegon owned signals (East)
18
Page 87 of 228
Figure 9B: Map showing locations of City of Muskegon owned signals (West)
More detailed information regarding the City’s traffic signal assets can be found in Appendix D or by
contacting the City directly.
Goals
The goal of the City’s asset management program is the preservation and continual operation of its traffic
signals and flashing beacons. The City is responsible for preserving 23 inventoried traffic signals and
flashing beacons as well as providing upgrades deemed necessary based on traffic or geometric needs.
A key objective of the program is to systematically and proactively review upgrades in technology to
financially prepare for large signal replacement projects.
Planned Projects
The City’s policy is to evaluate traffic signal assets based on condition assessments to determine the need
for repair or replacement during roadway reconstruction, rehabilitation, preventive maintenance, or
scheduled maintenance activities affecting the associated roadway. The City contracts with Muskegon
County Signal Maintenance Group to perform annual inspections and maintenance of each traffic signal.
This group also completes repairs or replacements for traffic signal assets that are reported as non-
functional or operating at a reduced level of service. The City adheres to regular maintenance and
servicing policies outlined in the Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
19
Page 88 of 228
5. FINANCIAL
RESOURCES
Public entities must balance the quality and extent of services they can provide with the tax resources
provided by citizens and businesses, all while maximizing how efficiently funds are used. Therefore, the
City will overview its general expenditures and financial resources currently devoted to transportation
infrastructure maintenance. This financial information is not intended to be a full financial disclosure or a
formal report. Full details of the City’s financial status can be found by request submitted to our agency
contact (listed in this plan).
Anticipated Revenues & Expenses
The City of Muskegon receives funding from the following sources:
State funds – The City’s principal source of transportation funding is received from the Michigan
Transportation Fund (MTF). This fund is supported by vehicle registration fees and the state’s
per-gallon gas tax. Allocations from the MTF are distributed to state and local governmental units
based on a legislated formula, which includes factors such as population, miles of certified roads,
and vehicle registration fees for vehicles registered in the agency’s jurisdiction. The City also
receives revenue from the Michigan Department of Transportation to maintain (e.g. plow, patch,
mow) the state trunklines within its jurisdictional boundary. Revenue from these maintenance
contracts are received on a time and materials basis as resources are expended to maintain the
State’s roads. While these contracts do not allow for capital gain (profit) and only bring in
revenue to cover the cost of the work, they do provide a benefit to the City by allowing an
economy of scale that enables us to provide better service at a lower cost for the City’s roads
while allowing the same for the State of Michigan. Examples of state grants also include local
bridge grants, economic development funds, and metro funds.
20
Page 89 of 228
Federal and state grants for individual projects – These are typically competitive funding
applications that are targeted at a specific project type to accomplish a specific purpose. These
may include safety enhancement projects, economic development projects, or other targeted
funding. Examples of federal funds include Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds, C and
D funds, bridge funds, MDOT payments to private contractors, and negotiated contracts.
Local government entities or private developer contributions to construction projects for
specific improvements – This category includes funding received to mitigate the impact of
commercial developments as a condition of construction of a specific development project, and
can also include funding from a special assessment district levied by another governmental unit.
Examples of contributions from local units include city, village, and township contributions to the
county; special assessments; county appropriations; bond and note proceeds; contributions from
counties to cities and villages; city general fund transfers; city municipal street funds; capital
improvement funds; and tax millages (see below).
Local tax millages – Many local agencies in Michigan use local tax millages to supplement their
road-funding budget. These taxes can provide for additional construction and maintenance for
new or existing roads that are also funded using MTF or MDOT funds. The City does not have
local tax millages in its road-funding budget.
Interest – Interest from invested funds.
Permit fees – Generally, permit fees cover the cost of a permit application review.
Other – Other revenues can be gained through salvage sales, property rentals, land and building
sales, sundry refunds, equipment disposition or installation, private sources, and financing.
Charges for services – Funds from partner agencies who contract with the City to construct or
maintain its roads, or roads under joint or neighboring jurisdictions, including state trunkline
maintenance and non-maintenance services and preservation.
The City is required to report transportation fund expenditures to the State of Michigan using a prescribed
format with predefined expenditure categories. The definitions of these categories according to Public Act
51 of 1951 may differ from common pavement management nomenclature and practice. For the purposes
of reporting under PA 51, the expenditure categories are:
Construction/Capacity Improvement Funds – According to PA 51 of 1951, this financial
classification of projects includes, “new construction of highways, roads, streets, or bridges, a
project that increases the capacity of a highway facility to accommodate that part of traffic having
neither an origin nor destination within the local area, widening of a lane width or more, or
adding turn lanes of more than 1/2 mile in length.”1
Preservation and Structural Improvement Funds – Preservation and structural improvements
are “activit[ies] undertaken to preserve the integrity of the existing roadway system.”2
1
Public Act 51 of 1951, 247.660c Definitions
2
Public Act 51 of 1951, 247.660c Definitions
21
Page 90 of 228
Preservation includes items such as a reconstruction of an existing road or bridge, or adding
structure to an existing road.
Routine and Preventive Maintenance Funds – Routine maintenance activities are “actions
performed on a regular or controllable basis or in response to uncontrollable events upon a
highway, road, street, or bridge”.3 Preventive maintenance activities are “planned strategy[ies] of
cost-effective treatments to an existing roadway system and its appurtenances that preserve assets
by retarding deterioration and maintaining functional condition without significantly increasing
structural capacity”.4
Winter Maintenance Funds – Expenditures for snow and ice control.
Trunkline Maintenance Funds – Expenditures spent under the City’s maintenance agreement
with MDOT for maintenance it performs on MDOT trunkline routes.
Administrative Funds – There are specific items that can and cannot be included in
administrative expenditures as specified in PA 51 of 1951. The law also states that the amount of
MTF revenues that are spent on administrative expenditures is limited to 10 percent of the annual
MTF funds that are received.
Other Funds – Expenditures for equipment, capital outlay, debt principal payment, interest
expense, contributions to adjacent governmental units, principal, interest and bank fees, and
miscellaneous for cities and villages.
The Table (below) details the 2023 revenues and expenditures for the City.
Table 4: Annual Fiscal-Year Revenues & Expenditures per Fiscal Year
REVENUES EXPENDITURES
Estimated Percent Estimated Percent
Item $ of Total Item $ of Total
State funds Construction & capacity
$7,237,905 96.47% $0 0%
improvement (CCI)
Federal funds Preservation & structural
$0 0% $4,788,894 75.14%
improvement (PSI)
Contributions for local units Routine maintenance 2.72%
$0 0% $173,634
Interest, rents, and other Winter maintenance 10.27%
$31,635 0.42% $654,281
Charges for services $233,372 Trunkline maintenance 3.66%
3.11% $233,372
Administrative $522,991 8.21%
Other $0 0%
TOTAL $7,502,912 100% TOTAL $6,373,172 100%
Verify the information in this table. You can find your agency’s information in the TAMC dashboard at
https://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/mitrp/tamcDashboards.
3
Public Act 51 of 1951, 247.660c Definitions
4
Public Act 51 of 1951, 247.660c Definitions
22
Page 91 of 228
6. RISK OF FAILURE
ANALYSIS
Transportation infrastructure is designed to be resilient. The system of interconnecting roads and bridges
maintained by the City provides road users with multiple alternate options in the event of an unplanned
disruption of one part of the system. There are, however, key links in the transportation system that may
cause significant inconvenience to users if they are unexpectedly closed to traffic. These routes are given
higher priority when planning future fixes. Shown in Appendix F is a map of the City of Muskegon key
transportation links in our network, including the ones who meet the following types of situations:
Geographic divides: Areas where a geographic feature (river, lake, hilly terrain, or limited
access road) limits crossing points of the feature. This includes the Lakeshore Drive bridge over
Ruddiman Creek.
Emergency alternate routes for high-volume roads and bridges: Roads and bridges that are
routinely used as alternate routes for high-volume assets are included in an emergency response
plan. This includes roads such as Sherman Boulevard, Laketon Avenue, Getty Street, and Peck
Street.
Limited access areas: Roads and bridges that serve remote or limited access areas that result in
long detours if closed. This includes Beach Street, Keating Avenue, and Lakeshore Drive.
Main access to key commercial districts: Areas with a large concentration of businesses or
where large-size business will be significantly impacted if a road is unavailable. This includes
Keating Avenue, Latimer Drive, Black Creek Road, Olthoff Street, and Sheridan Road.
23
Page 92 of 228
7. COORDINATION WITH
OTHER ENTITIES
An asset management plan provides a significant value for infrastructure owners because it serves as a
platform to engage other infrastructure owners using the same shared right of way space. The City of
Muskegon communicates with both public and private infrastructure owners to coordinate work in the
following ways:
The City of Muskegon maintains drinking water, sanitary, and storm sewer assets in addition to
transportation assets. The City follows an asset management process for all of its assets by coordinating
the upgrade, maintenance, and operation of all major assets.
Planned projects for sub-surface infrastructure that the City owns are listed in the following asset
management plans: drinking water asset management plan, wastewater collection system asset
management plan, and storm sewer system asset management plan. These three sub-surface utility plans
are coordinated with the transportation infrastructure plans to maximize value and minimize service
disruptions and cost to the public.
The City Utility Department and the Streets Department meet yearly to develop the rolling 6-year CIP.
City staff discuss planned projects that would disrupt transportation services or cause damage to
pavements. Projects which may cause damage to pavements in good or fair condition are discussed and
mitigation measures are proposed to minimize the impact to pavements. Mitigation measures could
include rescheduling and coordinating projects to maximize value and minimize disruptions and cost to
the public.
The City takes advantage of coordinated infrastructure work to reduce cost and maximize value using the
following policies:
24
Page 93 of 228
Roads which are in poor condition that have a subsurface infrastructure project planned which
will destroy more than half the lane width will be rehabilitated or reconstructed full width using
transportation funds to repair the balance of the road width.
Subsurface infrastructure projects which will cause damage to pavements in good condition will
be delayed as long as possible, or methods that do not require pavement cuts will be considered.
Subsurface utility projects will be coordinated to allow all under pavement assets to be upgraded
in the same project regardless of ownership.
Projects on roads which share a border with an adjacent community will have an agreement
created during the planning process which defines the formal split for cost sharing. These
communities include Roosevelt Park, Norton Shores, Muskegon Heights, as well as the
Muskegon County Road Commission.
25
Page 94 of 228
8. PROOF OF
ACCEPTANCE
PUBLIC ACT 325
CERTIFICATION OF TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
RESOLUTION
26
Page 95 of 228
PROOF OF ACCEPTANCE
PUBLIC ACT 325
CERTIFICATION OF TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
Certification Year: 2025
Local Road-owning Agency Name: City of Muskegon
Beginning October 2022 and on a three-year cycle thereafter, certification must be made for
compliance to Public Act 325. A local road-owning agency with 100 certified miles or more must
certify that it has developed an asset management plan for the road and bridge assets. Signing this
form certifies that the hitherto referred agency meets with minimum requirements as outlined by
Public Act 325 and agency-defined goals and objectives.
This form must be signed by the mayor of the local road-owning agency and the chief financial
officer of the local road-owning agency.
Signature
Printed Name: Ken Johnson, Mayor
Date: _____________________, 2026
Signature
Printed Name: Ken Grant, Finance Director
Date: _____________________, 2026
Due every three years based on agency submission schedule.
Submittal Date: _______________________, 2026.
See attached resolution.
27
Page 96 of 228
CITY OF MUSKEGON
RESOLUTION
Certification of 2025 Compliance Asset Management Plan
WHEREAS, Beginning October, 2022 and on a three-year cycle thereafter, certification must be
made for compliance of Public Act 325; and
WHEREAS, A local road-owning agency with 100 certified miles or more must certify that it has
developed an asset management plan for the road, bridge, culvert and traffic signal assets.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT BE RESOLVED; the City of Muskegon hereby certifies the 2025
Compliance Asset Management Plan and authorizes the Mayor and Finance Director to sign the
Proof of Acceptance form.
Yeas:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
I certify that the above Resolution was adopted by the City Commission of the City of Muskegon
on _________________________, 2026.
BY: Ann Meisch, City Clerk
________________________________________________________________________
Signature Date
28
Page 97 of 228
APPENDIX A. PAVEMENT ASSET MANAGEMENT
PLAN
An attached Pavement Asset Management Plan follows.
29
Page 98 of 228
City of Muskegon
2025 Pavement
Asset Management Plan
A plan describing the City of Muskegon’s roadway assets and conditions.
Prepared by:
Connie Houk, P.E.
Email: chouk@preinnewhof.com
Phone: (231) 468-3456
Page 99 of 228
CONTENTS
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ ii
Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ iv
Pavement Asset Management Plan Summary .............................................................................................. v
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Pavement Primer ........................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Pavement Assets ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Inventory ..................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Goals ........................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Modelled Trends ......................................................................................................................................................... 27
Planned Projects .......................................................................................................................................................... 32
Gap Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................... 33
2. Financial Resources ................................................................................................................................ 35
Anticipated Revenues & Expenses ............................................................................................................................. 35
3. Risk of Failure Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 38
4. Coordination with Other Entities ............................................................................................................ 39
Appendix P-1: A Quick Check of Your Highway Network Health............................................................ 41
Appendix P-2: Roadsoft model inputs & outputs ....................................................................................... 47
i
Page 100 of 228
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Pavement Examples. ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Unpaved (gravel) road examples.................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Examples of reconstruction treatments—(left) reconstructing a road and (right) road
prepared for full-depth repair. ......................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Examples of structural improvement treatments—(from left) HMA overlay on an
unmilled pavement, milling asphalt pavement, and pulverization of a road during a crush-
and-shape project............................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 5: Examples of capital preventive maintenance treatments—(from left) crack seal, fog seal,
chip seal, and slurry seal/microsurface. ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 6: Examples of capital preventive maintenance treatments, cont’d—(from left) concrete
road prepared for partial-depth repair, gravel road undergoing maintenance grading, and
gravel road receiving dust control application (dust control photo courtesy of Weld
County, Colorado, weldgov.com). ................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 7: Map showing location of the City’s paved roads ......................................................................................... 13
Figure 8: Percentage of city major and city local roads for the City. .......................................................................... 14
Figure 9: Miles of roads managed by the City that are part of the National Highway System and
condition. ....................................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 10: Pavement type by percentage maintained by the City of Muskegon .......................................................... 15
Figure 11: (A) Left: The City paved city major road network conditions by percentage of good,
fair, or poor, and (B) Right: paved city local road network conditions by percentage of
good, fair, or poor .......................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 12: (A) Left: Statewide paved city major road network conditions by percentage of good,
fair, or poor, and (B) Right: paved city local road network conditions by percentage of
good, fair, or poor .......................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 13: The City paved city major road network conditions. Bar graph colors correspond to
good/fair/poor TAMC designations. ............................................................................................................. 19
Figure 14: The City paved city local network condition by PASER rating. Bar graph colors
correspond to good/fair/poor TAMC designations. ....................................................................................... 20
Figure 15: Map of the current paved road condition in good (PASER 10, 9, 8) shown in green, fair
(PASER 7, 6, 5) shown in yellow, and poor (PASER 4, 3, 2, 1) shown in red. Only Roads
owned by the City are shown. ....................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 16: Historical City of Muskegon paved city major road network condition trend. .......................................... 22
Figure 17: Historical statewide federal-aid road network condition trend................................................................... 22
Figure 18: Historical paved city local road network condition trend. .......................................................................... 23
Figure 19: Historical statewide paved non-federal-aid road network condition trend. ................................................ 23
Figure 20: Map of the unpaved roads. Unpaved roads owned by the City are shown in blue. .................................... 24
Figure 21: The City’s 2025 city major road network condition by percentage of good/fair/poor. .............................. 25
Figure 22: The City’s 2025 paved city local road network condition by percentage of
good/fair/poor. ............................................................................................................................................... 26
ii
Page 101 of 228
Figure 23: Pavement condition forecast model in the software program Roadsoft. .................................................... 29
Figure 24: Forecast good/fair/poor changes to the city network condition from planned projects on
the City major road network. ......................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 25: Pavement condition forecast model in the software program Roadsoft. .................................................... 31
Figure 26: Forecast good/fair/poor changes to the city network condition from planned projects on
the paved city local road network. ................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 27. Map of 2023 – 2026 Construction Projects ..............................................................................................30
iii
Page 102 of 228
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Service Life Extension (in Years) for Pavement Types Gained by Fix Type1 .............................................. 28
Table 2: Roadsoft Modelled Trends and Planned Projects: Roadsoft Annual Work Program for the
Paved City Major Road Network Forecast .................................................................................................... 30
Table 3: Roadsoft Modelled Trends and Planned Projects: Roadsoft Annual Work Program for the
Paved City Local Road Network Forecast .................................................................................................... 31
Table 4: Annual Fiscal-Year Revenues & Expenditures per Fiscal Year .................................................................... 33
iv
Page 103 of 228
PAVEMENT ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY
As conduits for the commerce and connections to vital services, roads are among the most important
assets in any community along with other assets like bridges, culverts, traffic signs, traffic signals, and
utilities that support and affect roads. The City of Muskegon’s roads, other transportation assets, and
support systems are also some of the most valuable and extensive public assets, all of which are paid for
with taxes collected from citizens and businesses. The cost of building and maintaining roads, their
importance to society, and the investment made by taxpayers all place a high level of responsibility on
local agencies to plan, build, and maintain the road network in an efficient and effective manner.
An asset management plan is required by Michigan Public Act 325 of 2018, and this document represents
fulfillment of some of the City’s obligations towards meeting these requirements. However, this plan and
its supporting 15
documents are intended to be much more than a fulfillment of required reporting. This asset management
plan helps to demonstrate the City’s responsible use of public funds by providing elected and appointed
officials as well as the general public with the inventory and condition information of the City’s road
assets, and gives taxpayers the information they need to make informed decisions about investing in the
City’s essential transportation infrastructure.
This plan overviews the City’s road assets and condition, and explains how the City works to maintain
and improve the overall condition of those assets. These explanations can help answer the following
questions:
What kinds of road assets the City has in its jurisdiction and the different options for maintaining
these assets.
What tools and processes the City uses to track and manage road assets and funds.
What condition road assets are in the City compared to statewide averages.
Why some road assets are in better condition than others and the path to maintaining and
improving road asset conditions through proper planning and maintenance.
How transportation assets are funded and where those funds come from.
How funds are used and the costs incurred during the City’s road assets’ normal life cycle.
What condition the City expects the network to be if road assets continue to be funded at the
current funding levels.
How changes in funding levels can affect the overall condition of all of the City’s road assets.
The City owns and manages 184.70 centerline miles of roads. This road network can be divided into the
City major network, the City local network, the unpaved road network, and the National Highway System
(NHS) network based on the different factors these roads have that influence asset management decisions.
A summary of the City of Muskegon’s historical and current network conditions, projected trends, and
goals can be found in this document.
v
Page 104 of 228
INTRODUCTION
Asset management is defined by Public Act 325 of 2018 as “an ongoing process of maintaining,
preserving, upgrading, and operating physical assets cost effectively, based on a continuous physical
inventory and condition assessment and investment to achieve established performance goals”. In other
words, asset management is a process that uses data to manage and track assets, like roads and bridges, in
a cost-effective manner using a combination of engineering and business principles. This process is
endorsed by leaders in municipal planning and transportation infrastructure, including the Michigan
Municipal League, County Road Association of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Transportation
(MDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The City of Muskegon is supported in its
use of asset management principles and processes by the Michigan Transportation Asset Management
Council (TAMC), formed by the State of Michigan.
Asset management, in the context of this plan, ensures that public funds are spent as effectively as
possible to maximize the condition of the road network. Asset management also provides a transparent
decision-making process that allows the public to understand the technical and financial challenges of
managing road infrastructure with a limited budget.
The City has adopted an “asset management” business process to overcome the challenges presented by
having limited financial, staffing, and other resources while needing to meet road users’ expectations. The
City of Muskegon is responsible for maintaining and operating over 184.70 centerline miles of roads. The
City is also responsible for its bridges, culverts, and traffic signals.
This plan identifies the City’s transportation assets and their condition as well as the strategy the City uses
to maintain and upgrade assets, goals, priorities of its road users, and resources provided. An updated plan
is to be released approximately every three years to reflect changes in road conditions, finances, and
priorities.
Knowing the basic features of the asset classes themselves is a crucial starting point to understanding the
rationale behind an asset management approach. The following primer provides an introduction to
pavements.
1
Page 105 of 228
Questions regarding the use or content of this plan should be directed to Dan VanderHeide at 1350 E.
Keating Avenue, Muskegon, MI 49442 or at (231) 732-4100 and/or dan.vanderheide@shorelinecity.com.
Pavement Primer
Roads come in two basic forms—paved and unpaved. Paved roads have hard surfaces. These hard
surfaces can be constructed from asphalt, concrete, composite (asphalt and concrete), sealcoat, and brick
and block materials. On the other hand, unpaved roads have no hard surfaces. Examples of these surfaces
are gravel and unimproved earth.
The decision to pave with a particular material as well as the decision to leave a road unpaved allows
road-owning agencies to tailor a road to a particular purpose, environment, and budget. Thus, selecting a
pavement type or leaving a road unpaved depends upon purpose, materials available, and budget. Each
choice represents a trade-off between budget and costs for construction and maintenance.
Maintenance enables the road to fulfill its particular purpose. To achieve the maximum service for a
pavement or an unpaved road, continual monitoring of a road’s pavement condition is essential for
choosing the right time to apply the right fix in the right place.
Here is a brief overview of the different types of pavements, how condition is assessed, and treatment
options that can lengthen a road’s service life.
Surfacing
Pavement type is influenced by several different factors, such as cost of construction, cost of
maintenance, frequency of maintenance, and type of maintenance. These factors can have benefits
affecting asset life and road user experience.
Paved Surfacing
Typical benefits and tradeoffs for hard surface types include:
Concrete pavement: Concrete pavement, which is sometimes called a rigid pavement, is durable
and lasts a long time when properly constructed and maintained. Concrete pavement can have
longer service periods between maintenance activities, which can help reduce maintenance-
related traffic disruptions. However, concrete pavements have a high initial cost and can be
challenging to rehabilitate and maintain at the end of their service life. A typical concrete
pavement design life will provide service for 30 years before major rehabilitation is necessary.
Hot-mix asphalt pavement (HMA): HMA pavement, sometimes known as asphalt or flexible
pavement, is currently less expensive to construct than concrete pavement (this is, in some part,
due to the closer link between HMA material costs and oil prices that HMA pavements have in
comparison with other pavement types). However, they require frequent maintenance activities to
maximize their service life. A typical HMA pavement design life will provide service for 18 years
before major rehabilitation is necessary. The vast majority of local-agency-owned pavements are
HMA pavements.
2
Page 106 of 228
Composite pavement: Composite pavement is a combination of concrete and asphalt layers.
Typically, composite pavements are old concrete pavements exhibiting ride-related issues that
were overlaid by several inches of HMA in order to gain more service life from the pavement
before it would need reconstruction. Converting a concrete pavement to a composite pavement is
typically used as a “holding pattern” treatment to maintain the road in usable condition until
reconstruction funds become available.
Unpaved Surfacing
Typical benefits and tradeoffs for non-hard surfacing include:
Gravel: Gravel is a low-cost, easy-to-maintain road surface made from layers of soil and
aggregate (gravel). However, there are several potential drawbacks such as dust, mud, and ride
smoothness when maintenance is delayed or traffic volume exceeds design expectations. Gravel
roads require frequent low-cost maintenance activities. Gravel can be very cost effective for
lower-volume, lower-speed roads. In the right conditions, a properly constructed and maintained
gravel road can provide a service life comparable to an HMA pavement and can be significantly
less expensive than the other pavement types.
Pavement Condition
Besides traffic congestion, pavement condition and rideability are what road users typically notice most
about the quality of the roads that they regularly use. The better the pavement condition and the smoother
the ride, the more satisfied users are with the service provided by the roadwork performed by road-
owning agencies. Pavement condition is also a major factor in determining the most cost-effective
treatment. Routine maintenance, capital preventive maintenance, or structural improvement for a given
section of pavement may be options for pavement treatments. As pavements age, they transition between
“windows” of opportunity when a specific type of treatment can be applied to gain an increase in quality
and extension of service life.
Routine maintenance is a day-to-day, regularly-scheduled, low-cost activity applied to “good” roads to
prevent water or debris intrusion. Capital preventive maintenance (CPM) is a planned set of cost-effective
treatments for “fair” roads that corrects pavement defects, slows further deterioration, and maintains the
functional condition without increasing structural capacity. The City uses pavement condition and age to
anticipate when a specific section of pavement will be a potential candidate for preventive maintenance.
More detail on this topic is included in the Pavement Treatment section of this primer.
Pavement condition data is also important because it allows road owners to evaluate the benefits of
preventive maintenance projects. This data helps road owners to identify the most cost-effective use of
road construction and maintenance dollars. Further, historic pavement condition data can enable road
owners to predict future road conditions based on budget constraints and to determine if a road network’s
condition will improve, stay the same, or degrade at the current or planned investment level. This analysis
can help determine how much additional funding is necessary to meet a network’s condition improvement
goals.
3
Page 107 of 228
Paved Road Condition Rating System
The City is committed to monitoring the condition of its road network and using pavement condition data
to drive cost-effective decision-making and preservation of valuable road assets. The City uses the
Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) system to assess its paved roads.
The TAMC has adopted the PASER system for measuring statewide pavement conditions in Michigan for
asphalt, concrete, composite, sealcoat, and brick-and-block paved roads. Broad use of the PASER system
means that data collected by the City is consistent with data collected statewide. PASER data is collected
using trained inspectors in a slow-moving vehicle using GPS-enabled data collection software provided to
road-owning agencies at no cost to them. The method does not require extensive training or specialized
equipment, and data can be collected rapidly, which minimizes the expense for collecting and maintaining
this data.
The PASER system rates surface condition using a 1-10 scale where 10 is a brand-new road with no
defects, 9 through 6 are roads that can be treated with routine maintenance (RM), 5 is a road with
distresses but is structurally sound that can be treated with preventive maintenance (PM), and 1 is a road
with extensive surface and structural distresses that is in need of total reconstruction.
Roads with lower PASER scores generally require costlier treatments to restore their quality than roads
with higher PASER scores. The cost effectiveness of treatments generally decreases the as the PASER
number decreases. In other words, as a road deteriorates, it costs more dollars per mile to fix it, and the
dollars spent are less efficient in increasing the road’s service life. Nationwide experience and asset
management principles tell us that a road that has deteriorated to a PASER 4 or less will cost more to
improve and the dollars spent are less efficient. Understanding this cost principle helps to draw meaning
from the current PASER condition assessment.
Information regarding the PASER system and PASER manuals can be found on the Michigan.gov TAMC
website as well as https://www.ctt.mtu.edu/sites/default/files/resources/paser/paser-training-manual.pdf.
4
Page 108 of 228
The TAMC has developed statewide definitions of
road condition by creating three simplified condition
categories—“good”, “fair”, and “poor”—that
represent ranges of PASER scores having similar
contexts with regard to maintenance and/or
reconstruction. The definitions of these rating
conditions are:
“Good” roads, have PASER scores of 8, 9, or
10. Roads in this category have very few, if
any, defects and only require minimal
maintenance; they may be kept in this
category longer using Routine Maintenance
(RM). These roads may include those that
have been recently seal coated or newly
constructed. The top image in Figure 1
illustrates an example of a road in this
category.
“Fair” roads, have PASER scores of 5, 6, or 7.
Roads in this category still show good
structural support, but their surface is starting
to deteriorate. The middle images in Figure 1
illustrate two road examples in this category.
Capital Preventative Maintenance (CPM) can
be cost effective for maintaining the road’s
“fair” condition or even raising it to “good”
condition before the structural integrity of the
pavement has been severely impacted. CPM
treatments can be likened to shingles on a roof
of a house: while the shingles add no
structural value, they protect the house from
structural damage by maintaining the
protective function of a roof covering.
“Poor” roads have PASER scores of 1, 2, 3, or Figure 1: Pavement Examples.
4. These roads exhibit evidence that the
underlying structure is failing, such as alligator cracking and rutting. These roads must be
rehabilitated with treatments like a heavy overlay, crush and shape, or total reconstruction. The
bottom image in Figure 1 illustrates a road in this category.
The TAMC’s good, fair, and poor categories are based solely on the definitions above. Therefore, caution
should be exercised when comparing other condition assessments with these categories because other
condition assessments may have “good”, “fair”, or “poor” designations similar to the TAMC condition
categories but may not share the same definition. Often, other condition assessment systems define the
5
Page 109 of 228
“good”, “fair”, and “poor” categories differently, thus rendering the data of little use for cross-system
comparison. The TAMC’s definitions provide a statewide standard for all of Michigan’s road-owning
agencies to use for comparison purposes.
Unpaved Road Condition Rating System (IBR System™)
The condition of unpaved roads can be rapidly changing,
which makes it difficult to obtain a consistent surface
condition rating over the course of weeks or even days. The
PASER system works well on most paved roads, which have
a relatively-stable surface condition over several months, but
it is difficult to adapt to unpaved roads. To address the need
for a reliable condition assessment system for unpaved roads,
the TAMC adopted the Inventory Based Rating (IBR)
System™, and the City also uses the IBR System™ for rating
its unpaved roads. Information about the IBR System™ can
be found at http://ctt.mtu.edu/inventory-based-rating-system.
The IBR System™ gathers reliable condition assessment data
for unpaved road by evaluating three features—surface
width, drainage adequacy, and structural adequacy—in
comparison to a baseline, or generally considered “good”,
road. These three assessments come together to generate an
overall 1-10 IBR number. A high IBR number reflects a road
with wide surface width, good drainage, and a well-designed
and well-constructed base, whereas a low IBR number
reflects a narrow road with no ditches and little gravel. A
good, fair, or poor assessment of each feature is not an
endorsement or indictment of a road’s suitability for use but
simply provides context on how these road elements compare
to a baseline condition. The top example in Figure 2 shows
Figure 2: Unpaved (gravel) road examples.
an unpaved road with a narrow surface width, little or no
drainage, and very little gravel thickness. Using the IBR System™, these assessments would yield an IBR
number of “1” for this road. The middle example in Figure 2 shows a road with fair surface width, fair
drainage adequacy, and fair structural adequacy. These assessments would yield an IBR number of “7”
for this road. The bottom example in Figure 2 shows a road with good surface width, good drainage
adequacy, and good structural adequacy. These assessments would yield an IBR number of “9” for this
road.
Just because a gravel road has a low IBR number does not necessarily mean that it needs to be upgraded.
The IBR number is not an endorsement or indictment of the road’s suitability for use but rather, an
indication of a road’s capabilities to support different traffic volumes and types in all weather.
6
Page 110 of 228
Pavement Treatments
Selection of repair treatments for roads aims to balance costs, benefits, and road life expectancy. All
pavements are damaged by water, traffic weight, freeze/thaw cycles, and sunlight. Each of the following
treatments and strategies for reconstruction, structural improvements, capital preventive maintenance, and
others used by the City counters at least one of these pavement-damaging forces.
Full Construction
Pavement reconstruction treats failing or failed pavements by completely removing the old pavement and
base and constructing an entirely new road (Figure 3). Every pavement has to eventually be reconstructed
and it is usually done as a last resort after more cost-effective treatments are done, or if the road requires
significant changes to road geometry, base, or buried utilities. Compared to the other treatments, which
are all improvements of the existing road, reconstruction is the most extensive rehabilitation of a
roadway, the most expensive per mile, and also most disruptive to regular traffic patterns. Reconstructed
pavement will subsequently require one or more of the previous maintenance treatments to maximize
service life and performance. A reconstructed road lasts approximately 25 years and costs $1,500,000 per
mile. The City of Muskegon does not typically perform full reconstruction to repair a failed pavement
unless there are known road base issues or utility replacement projects.
Figure 3: Examples of reconstruction treatments—(left) reconstructing a road and (right) road prepared for full-depth repair.
Full-depth Concrete Repair
A full-depth concrete repair removes sections of damaged concrete pavement and replaces it with new
concrete of the same dimensions (Figure 3). It is usually performed on isolated deteriorated joint locations
or entire slabs that are much further deteriorated than adjacent slabs. The purpose is to restore the riding
surface, delay water infiltration, restore load transfer from one slab to the next, and eliminate the need to
perform costly temporary patching. This repair lasts approximately 25 years and typically costs $125,000
per mile and depends on the amount of patching.
Gravel Overlay (for Unpaved Roads)
Unpaved roads will exhibit gravel loss over time due to traffic, wind, and rain. Gravel on an unpaved road
provides a wear surface and contributes to the structure of the entire road. Unpaved roads frequently need
to be overlaid new gravel and regraded. Four inches of new gravel every 12 years costs approximately of
$25,000 per mile.
7
Page 111 of 228
Structural Improvement
Roads requiring structural improvements exhibit alligator cracking and rutting and rated poor in the
TAMC scale. Road rutting is evidence that the underlying structure is beginning to fail and it should be
rehabilitated with a structural treatment. Examples of structural improvement treatments include HMA
overlay with or without milling, and crush and shape (Figure 4). The following descriptions outline the
main structural improvement treatments used by the City.
Figure 4: Examples of structural improvement treatments—(from left) HMA overlay on an unmilled pavement, milling asphalt
pavement, and pulverization of a road during a crush-and-shape project.
Hot-mix Asphalt (HMA) Overlay with/without Milling
An HMA overlay is a layer of new asphalt (liquid asphalt and stones) placed on an existing pavement
(Figure 4). Depending on the overlay thickness, this treatment can add significant structural strength. This
treatment also creates a new wearing surface for traffic and seals the pavement from water, debris, and
sunlight damage. The top layer of severely damaged pavement can be removed by milling, a technique
that helps prevent structural problems from being quickly reflected up to the new surface. Milling is also
performed to keep roads at the same height of existing curb and gutter. An HMA overlay lasts
approximately 10 to 12 years and costs between $150,000 and $300,000 per mile. Milling adds $40,000
per mile to the HMA overlay cost.
Crush and Shape
During a crush and shape treatment, the existing pavement and base are pulverized and then the road
surface is reshaped to correct imperfections in the road’s profile (Figure 4). An additional layer of gravel
is often added along with a new wearing surface such as an HMA overlay or chip seal. Additional gravel
and an HMA overlay provide an increase in the pavement’s structural capacity. This treatment is usually
performed on roads with severe structural distress. When working in an Urban Area with curb and gutter,
the crushed material is used as base material to support curb and gutter repairs. Crush and shape
treatments last approximately 20 years and costs $600,000 per mile. Crush and shape with curb repair is
the typical method the City of Muskegon uses to repair roads with failed pavements.
8
Page 112 of 228
Capital Preventive Maintenance
Capital preventive maintenance (CPM) addresses pavement problems of fair-rated roads before the
structural integrity of the pavement has been severely impacted. CPM is a planned set of cost-effective
treatments applied to an existing roadway that slows further deterioration and maintains or improves the
functional condition of the system without significantly increasing the structural capacity. Examples of
such treatments include crack seal, chip seal, fog seal, slurry seal, cape seal, and microsurface (Figure 5).
The purpose of CPM treatments is to protect the pavement structure, slow the rate of deterioration, and/or
correct pavement surface deficiencies. The following descriptions outline the main CPM treatments used
by The City.
Figure 5: Examples of capital preventive maintenance treatments—(from left) crack seal, fog seal, chip seal, and slurry
seal/microsurface.
Crack Seal
Water that infiltrates the pavement surface softens the pavement structure and allows traffic loads to
cause more damage to the pavement than in normal dry conditions. Crack sealing helps prevent water
infiltration by sealing cracks in the pavement with asphalt sealant (Figure 5). The City seals pavement
cracks early in the life of the pavement to keep it functioning as strong as it can and for as long as it can.
Crack sealing lasts approximately two to three years and costs $10,000 per mile. Even though it does not
last very long compared to other treatments, it does not cost very much in comparison. Crack sealing is a
very cost effective treatment.
Chip Seal
A chip seal, also known as a sealcoat, is a two-part treatment that starts with liquid asphalt sprayed onto
the old pavement surface followed by a single layer of small stone chips spread onto the wet liquid
asphalt layer (Figure 5). The liquid asphalt seals the pavement from water and debris and holds the stone
chips in place, providing a new wearing surface for traffic that can correct friction problems and helping
to prevent further surface deterioration and oxidation. Chip seals are best applied to pavements that are
not exhibiting problems with strength, and their purpose is to help preserve that strength. These
treatments last approximately five to seven years and cost $40,000 per mile.
Fog Seal
Fog sealing sprays a liquid asphalt coating onto the entire pavement surface to fill hairline cracks and
prevent damage from sunlight (Figure 5). Fog seals are often applied after a chip seal. The fog seal adds
additional sealant as well as a barrier over the chip stone to fully adhere the stone in place on the
roadway. Fog seals are best for good to very good pavements and last approximately five years at a cost
of $6,000 per mile.
9
Page 113 of 228
Slurry Seal/Microsurface
A slurry seal or microsurface’s purpose is to protect existing pavement from being damaged by water and
sunlight. The primary ingredients are liquid asphalt (slurry seal) or modified liquid asphalt
(microsurface), small stones, water and portland cement applied in a very thin (less than a half an inch)
layer (Figure 5). The main difference between a slurry seal and a microsurface is the modified liquid
asphalt used in microsurfacing provides different curing and durability properties, which allows
microsurfacing to be used for filling pavement ruts. Since the application is very thin, these treatments do
not add any strength to the pavement and only serves to protect the pavement’s existing strength by
sealing the pavement from sunlight and water damage. These treatments work best when applied before
cracks are too wide and too numerous. A slurry seal treatment lasts approximately four years and costs
$40,000 per mile, while a microsurface treatment tends to last for seven years and costs $50,000 per lane
mile.
Partial-Depth Concrete Repair
A partial-depth concrete repair involves removing spalled (i.e., fragmented) or delaminated (i.e.,
separated into layers) areas of concrete pavement, usually near joints and cracks and replacing with new
concrete (Figure 6). This is done to provide a new wearing surface in isolated areas, to slow down water
infiltration, and to help delay further freeze/thaw damage. This repair lasts approximately five years and
typically costs $30,000 per mile.
Maintenance Grading (for Unpaved Roads)
Maintenance grading involves regrading an unpaved road to remove isolated potholes, washboarding, and
ruts then restoring the compacted crust layer (Figure 6). Crust on an unpaved road is a very tightly
compacted surface that sheds water with ease but takes time to be created, so destroying a crusted surface
with maintenance grading requires a plan to restore the crust. Maintenance grading often needs to be
performed three to five times per year and each grading costs $300 per mile.
Dust Control (for Unpaved Roads)
Dust control typically involves spraying chloride or other chemicals on a gravel surface to reduce dust
loss, aggregate loss, and maintenance (Figure 6). This is a relatively short-term fix that helps create a
crusted surface. Chlorides work by attracting moisture from the air and existing gravel. This fix is not
effective if the surface is too dry or heavy rain is imminent, so timing is very important. Dust control is
done two to four times per year and each application costs $700 per mile.
10
Page 114 of 228
Figure 6: Examples of capital preventive maintenance treatments, cont’d—(from left) concrete road prepared for partial-depth
repair, gravel road undergoing maintenance grading, and gravel road receiving dust control application (dust control photo courtesy
of Weld County, Colorado, weldgov.com).
Maintenance
Maintenance is the most cost-effective strategy for managing road infrastructure and prevents good and
fair roads from reaching the poor category, which require costly rehabilitation and reconstruction
treatments to create a year of service life. It is most effective to spend money on routine maintenance and
CPM treatments, first; then, when all maintenance project candidates are treated, reconstruction and
rehabilitation can be performed as money is available. This strategy is called a “mix-of-fixes” approach to
managing pavements.
11
Page 115 of 228
1. PAVEMENT ASSETS
Building a mile of new road can cost over $1 million due to the large volume of materials and equipment
that are necessary. The high cost of constructing road assets underlines the critical nature of properly
managing and maintaining the investments made in this vital infrastructure. The specific needs of every
mile of road within an agency’s overall road network is a complex assessment, especially when
considering rapidly changing conditions and the varying requisites of road users; understanding each
road-mile’s needs is an essential duty of the road-owning agency.
In Michigan, many different governmental agencies own and maintain roads, so it can be difficult for the
public to understand who is responsible for items such as planning and funding construction projects,
[patching] repairs, traffic control, safety, and winter maintenance for any given road. MDOT is
responsible for state trunkline roads, which are typically named with “M”, “I”, or “US” designations
regardless of their geographic location in Michigan. Cities and villages are typically responsible for all
public roads within their geographic boundary with the exception of the previously mentioned state
trunkline roads managed by MDOT. County Road Commissions are typically responsible for all public
roads within the county’s geographic boundary, with the exception of those managed by cities, villages,
and MDOT.
In cases where non-trunkline roads fall along jurisdictional borders, local and intergovernmental
agreements dictate ownership and maintenance responsibility. Quite frequently, roads owned by one
agency may be maintained by another agency because of geographic features that make it more cost
effective for a neighboring agency to maintain the road instead of the actual road owner. Other times,
road-owning agencies may mutually agree to coordinate maintenance activities in order to create
economies of scale and take advantage of those efficiencies.
The City of Muskegon owns and maintains just over 184 miles of roadway (measured along the
centerline), as shown in Figure 7.
12
Page 116 of 228
Figure 7: Map showing location of the City’s paved roads.
Inventory
Michigan Public Act 51 of 1951 (PA 51), which defines how funds from the Michigan Transportation
Fund (MTF) are distributed to and spent by road-owning agencies, classifies roads owned by the City of
Muskegon as either city major or city local roads.
The City of Muskegon is responsible for 184.70 centerline miles of public roads. An inventory of these
miles divides them into different network classes based on road purpose/use and funding priorities as
identified at the state level: city major road network, which is prioritized for state-level funding, and city
local road network.
Of the City’s 184.70 miles of road, 73.88 miles are classified as city major and 110.82 miles are classified
as city local. Approximately 82% of all Primary roads are classified as federal aid eligible, which allows
them to receive federal funding for their maintenance and improvements. Only 1% of Local roads are
considered federal aid eligible, which means state and local funds must be used to manage the majority of
these roads. Most local streets must be maintained using state and local funds.
13
Page 117 of 228
Figure 8 illustrates the percentage of roads owned by the City that are classified as city major and city
local roads.
Figure 8: Percentage of city major and city local roads for the City.
The City of Muskegon manages 11.205 miles of roads that are part of the National Highway System
(NHS)—in other words, those roads that are critical to the nation’s economy, defense, and mobility—and
monitors and maintains their condition. The NHS is subject to special rules and regulations and has its
own performance metrics dictated by the FHWA. While most NHS roads in Michigan are managed by
MDOT, the City manages a percentage of those roads located in its jurisdiction, as shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Miles of roads managed by the City that are part of the National Highway System and condition.
14
Page 118 of 228
Types
Muskegon has multiple types of pavements in its jurisdiction, including asphalt and concrete; it also has
unpaved roads (i.e., gravel and earth).
Factors influencing pavement type include cost of construction, cost of maintenance, frequency of
maintenance, type of maintenance, asset life, and road user experience. More information on pavement
types is available in the Introduction’s Pavement Primer.
Figure 10 illustrates the percentage of various pavement types that the City has in its network.
Surface Type
Earth
1% Gravel
Concrete 3%
23%
Asphalt
73%
Figure 10: Pavement type by percentage maintained by the City of Muskegon
Locations
Locations and sizes of each asset can be found in the City’s Roadsoft database. For more detail, please
refer to the agency contact listed in the Introduction of this pavement asset management plan.
Condition
The road characteristics that road users most readily notice are pavement condition and ride quality.
Pavement condition is a major factor in determining the most cost-effective treatment—that is, routine
maintenance, capital preventive maintenance, or structural improvement—for a given section of
pavement. The City of Muskegon uses pavement condition and age to anticipate when a specific section
of pavement will be a potential candidate for preventive maintenance. Pavement condition data enables
the City to evaluate the benefits of preventive maintenance projects and to identify the most cost-effective
use of road construction and maintenance dollars. Historic pavement condition data can be used to predict
future road conditions based on budget constraints and to determine if a road network’s condition will
15
Page 119 of 228
improve, stay the same, or degrade at the current or planned investment level. This analysis helps to
determine how much additional funding is necessary to meet a network’s condition improvement goals.
More detail on this topic is included in the Introduction’s Pavement Primer.
Paved Roads
The City of Muskegon is committed to monitoring the condition of its road network and using pavement
condition data to drive cost-effective decision-making and preservation of valuable road assets. The City
uses the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) system, which has been adopted by the
TAMC for measuring statewide pavement conditions, to assess its paved roads. The PASER system
provides a simple, efficient, and consistent method for evaluating road condition through visual
inspection. More information regarding the PASER system can be found in the Introduction’s Pavement
Primer.
PASER data is collected every two years on all the City’s roads that are eligible for federal funding. This
process is guided and funded by the Transportation Asset Management Council (TAMC), which sets the
training requirements and data collection standards and shares the results at both the regional and
statewide levels.
For paved roads that are not eligible for federal funding, the City conducts it’s own data collection using
city staff and resources, or with staffing or help from West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development
Commission (WMSRDC). In the past, data collection for the local roads has been inconsistent and has
not aligned with the City’s Asset Management Plan updates. The City would like to better align local
road data collection with the Asset Management Plan (AMP) update cycle. Coordinating data collection
for local roads more closely with AMP updates will improve consistency, planning, and long-term
decision-making for roadway maintenance and investment. The West Michigan Shoreline Regional
Development Commission is a federal and state designated regional planning and development agency
serving 120 local governments in Lake, Mason, Muskegon, Newaygo, and Oceana Counties, of which the
City of Muskegon is one.
The City’s 2025 paved city major road network has approximately 24 percent of roads in the TAMC good
condition category, 35 percent in fair, and 41 percent in poor (Figure 11A). The paved city local road
network has approximately 5 percent in good, 21 percent in fair, and 74 percent in poor (Figure 11B). It
should be noted that the local road condition is based on the most recent data collected for each roadway,
which includes data from multiple years. The most comprehensive data collection for local roads
occurred in 2023.
16
Page 120 of 228
Figure 11: (A) Left: The City paved city major road network conditions by percentage of good, fair, or poor, and (B) Right: paved city
local road network conditions by percentage of good, fair, or poor.
17
Page 121 of 228
PASER ratings for Federal Aid roads are collected annually for the Transportation Asset Management
Council (TAMC). While this is not a direct comparison to the City of Muskegon, a general comparison
can be made between the City’s major road network (Figure 10A) and the statewide Federal Aid road
network (Figure 12A).
Statewide, the Federal Aid road system includes 21% of roads rated in good condition, 40% rated fair,
and 39% rated poor (Figure 12A). A comparison of Figures 10A and 11A shows that the City’s paved
major roads have a higher percentage of roads in good condition than the statewide Federal Aid network.
The roads shown in Figure 12B represent voluntary condition reporting by participating agencies. This
data is not directly comparable to the City’s local road ratings.
Other road condition graphs can be viewed on the TAMC pavement condition dashboard at:
http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/mitrp/Data/PaserDashboard.aspx.
Figure 12: (A) Left: Statewide paved city major road network conditions by percentage of good, fair, or poor, and (B) Right: paved
city local road network conditions by percentage of good, fair, or poor.
18
Page 122 of 228
Figures below show the number of miles for the City’s roads with PASER scores expressed in TAMC
definition categories for the paved city major road network (Figure 13) and the paved city local road
network (Figure 14). The average PASER rating for each network is 5.4 for the major and 3.8 for the
local road networks. Over the past decade, the City has placed a stronger emphasis on improving the
condition of Muskegon’s major road network. While this effort has resulted in the major road network
being in relatively decent condition, it has, to some extent, limited investment in the local road network.
Looking ahead, the City of Muskegon plans to utilize upcoming increases in funding to also improve the
local network, which makes up 60% of the City’s roadway system. This shift will be supported in part
through the new Neighborhood Roads Fund funding distribution, with the amount of additional funding
expected to be better understood by April 2027.
The City considers road miles on the transition line between good and fair (PASER 8) and the transition
line between fair and poor (PASER 5) as representing parts of the road network where there is a risk of
losing the opportunity to apply less expensive treatments that gain significant improvements in service
life.
Figure 13: The City paved city major road network conditions. Bar graph colors correspond to good/fair/poor TAMC designations.
19
Page 123 of 228
Figure 14: The City paved city local network condition by PASER rating. Bar graph colors correspond to good/fair/poor TAMC
designations.
Figure 15 provides a map illustrating the geographic location of paved roads and their respective PASER
condition. An online version of the most recent PASER data is located at
https://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/tamcMap/.
20
Page 124 of 228
Figure 15: Map of the current paved road condition in good (PASER 10, 9, 8) shown in green, fair (PASER 7, 6, 5) shown in yellow,
and poor (PASER 4, 3, 2, 1) shown in red. Only Roads owned by the City are shown.
Reviewing historical trends from previous years helps the City understand how roads have deteriorated
over time and how past maintenance and investment decisions have affected their condition. This
information is essential for making informed, long-term decisions in the Asset Management Plan, so
resources can be effectively prioritized and road conditions can be improved and maintained over time.
Figures 16-19 show road conditions based on previous PASER ratings, with poor roads in red, fair roads
in yellow, and good roads in green. Roads that were not PASER rated are shown in black.
Historically, the overall quality of the City’s paved city major roads has been improving at a noticeable
rate, as shown in Figure 16, assuming the roads surveyed in 2016 and 2019 were representative of the
entire network.
When comparing the City’s major road condition trends (Figure 16) to statewide trends for similarly
classified roads (Figure 16), the City demonstrates noticeable improvement in PASER scores, while
statewide conditions remain consistent over the same period.
21
Page 125 of 228
Figure 16: Historical City of Muskegon paved city major road network condition trend.
Figure 17: Historical statewide federal-aid road network condition trend.
Historically, the overall condition of the City’s paved local roads has been significantly worse than that of
the major road network, largely due to the lack of state and federal funding - local roads must be
maintained using local resources. Figure 18 illustrates the condition of the City’s paved local road
network, while Figure 19 shows conditions for non-Federal-Aid roads statewide.
Because local road data for the City of Muskegon is limited, it is difficult to make detailed comparisons.
Year-to-year variations in the paved local network are common, as only a portion of the network is
collected each year, both locally and statewide. Variations are also influenced by volunteer reporting
from other agencies, where the roads surveyed often do not represent entire networks. The City
22
Page 126 of 228
recognizes the importance of rating 100% of the local roads on a regular cycle to accurately monitor
conditions and track trends over time.
Figure 18: Historical paved city local road network condition trend.
Figure 19: Historical statewide paved non-federal-aid road network condition trend.
23
Page 127 of 228
Unpaved Roads
The City of Muskegon has 7.175 miles of unpaved roads, shown on the map in Figure 20. Because the
condition of unpaved roads can change quickly, it is difficult to maintain a consistent surface condition
rating over the course of a season or even from week to week. The City’s highway supervisor visually
assesses their gravel roadways at various times throughout the year and schedules required maintenance
and repairs as needed.
Figure 20: Map of the unpaved roads. Unpaved roads owned by the City are shown in blue.
Goals
Goals help establish expectations for how pavement conditions may change over time. Pavement
condition changes are influenced by factors such as water infiltration, soil conditions, sunlight exposure,
traffic loads, and repair work performed. The City cannot fully control any of these factors due to
seasonal weather, changing traffic patterns, and budget limitations. In spite of the uncontrollable
variables, it is still important to set realistic network condition goals that efficiently use budget resources
to build and maintain roads in line with taxpayer expectations. Progress toward achieving these goals is
summarized in the 1. Pavement Assets: Gap Analysis section of this plan.
24
Page 128 of 228
Goals for Paved City Major Roads
The overall goal for the City’s paved major road network is to maintain or improve road conditions across
the network at 2025 levels. The baseline condition for this goal is illustrated in Figure 21.
Figure 21: The City’s 2025 city major road network condition by percentage of good/fair/poor.
City Network-Level Pavement Condition Strategy (Paved Major Roads)
1. Maintain or improve current conditions – Keep the city major roads at their current condition or
better.
2. Maintain Overall Pavement Condition - Strive to maintain the overall percentage of paved major
roads in the good to fair condition (PASER 10 - 5) while addressing the roads in poor condition
(PASER 4 - 1) to prevent systemwide deterioration.
3. Expand Preventive Maintenance practices – Continue to incorporate Preventive Maintenance
treatments in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the annual road program to extend
pavement life at the best value.
4. Monitor roadway conditions and use for Planning purposes - Perform Roadway Condition Report
utilizing PASER ratings to give a snapshot of current systemwide road health. This will be used
to aid in the determination of future road work through planning, prioritization, and future
roadway investment decisions.
25
Page 129 of 228
Goals for Paved City Local Roads
The City’s goal is to maintain or improve the condition of its paved local roads compared to 2025 levels.
Figure 22 shows the current condition of the road network. To track progress and ensure accountability,
the City will need to assess the condition of all local roads to establish a clear baseline, and then reassess
them in 2028 to measure changes over time.
Figure 22: The City’s 2025 paved city local road network condition by percentage of good/fair/poor.
City Network-Level Pavement Condition Strategy (Paved Local Roads)
1. Maintain Overall Pavement Condition - Strive to maintain the overall percentage of paved local
roads in the good to fair condition (PASER 10 - 5) while addressing the roads in poor condition
(PASER 4 - 1) to prevent systemwide deterioration.
2. Improve consistency, planning, and long-term decision-making for roadway maintenance and
investment by collecting PASER ratings on the whole local network.
3. Expand Preventive Maintenance practices – Continue to incorporate Preventive Maintenance
treatments in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the annual road program to extend
pavement life at the best value.
4. Support sustainable local road funding – Seek opportunities to sustain and enhance the City’s
commitment to funding for local road maintenance and rehabilitation.
5. Monitor roadway conditions and use for Planning purposes - Perform Roadway Condition Report
utilizing PASER ratings to give a snapshot of current systemwide road health. This will be used
to aid in the determination of future road work through planning, prioritization, and future
roadway investment decisions.
26
Page 130 of 228
Goals for Unpaved Roads
The City will continue to maintain year-round unpaved roads at generally consistent service levels.
Drainage conditions will be reviewed as needed, with priority given to addressing drainage-related
concerns, followed by underlying structural issues. Road surface widths will be evaluated and adjusted on
an as-needed basis to support access, service needs, and public safety.
In addition, the City will consider paving select segments of unpaved roads where ongoing maintenance
challenges persist. These improvements may be pursued where paving is expected to reduce long-term
maintenance demands, address recurring issues such as washouts, limit gravel migration into the
stormwater system, and help manage dust concerns.
Modelled Trends
Roads age and deteriorate just like any other asset. All pavements are damaged by water, traffic weight,
freeze/thaw cycles, sunlight, and traffic weight. To offset natural deterioration and normal wear-and-tear
on the road, an agency must complete treatment projects that either protect and/or add life to its
pavements. The year-end condition of the whole network depends upon changes or preservation of
individual road section condition that preservation treatments have affected.
The City uses many types of repair treatments for its roads, each selected to balance costs, benefits, and
road life expectancy. When agency trends are modelled, any gap between goals and accomplishable work
becomes evident. Financial resources influence how much work can be accomplished across the network
within agency budget and what treatments and strategies can be afforded; a full discussion of The City’s
financial resources can be found in the 5. Financial Resources section.
Treatments and strategies that counter pavement-damaging forces include reconstruction, structural
improvement, capital preventive maintenance, innovative treatments, and maintenance. For a complete
discussion on the pavement treatment tools, refer to the 1. Introduction’s Pavement Primer.
Correlating with each PASER score are specific types of treatments best performed either to protect the
pavement (CPM) or to add strength back into the pavement (structural improvement) (Table 1). MDOT
provides guidance regarding when a specific pavement may be a candidate for a particular treatment.
These identified PASER scores “trigger” the timing of projects appropriately to direct the right pavement
fix at the right time, thereby providing the best chance for a successful project. The information provided
in Table 1 is a guide for identifying potential projects; however, this table should not be the sole criteria
for pavement treatment selection. Other information such as future development, traffic volume, utility
projects, and budget play a role in project selection. This table should not be a substitute for engineering
judgement.
27
Page 131 of 228
Table 1: Service Life Extension (in Years) for Pavement Types Gained by Fix Type1
Life Extension (in years)*
Fix Type Flexible Composite Rigid PASER
HMA crack treatment 1-3 1-3 N/A 6-7
Overband crack filling 1-2 1-2 N/A 6-7
One course non-structural HMA overlay 5-7 4-7 N/A 4-5****
Mill and one course non-structural HMA overlay 5-7 4-7 N/A 3-5
Single course chip seal 3-6 N/A N/A 5-7†
Double chip seal 4-7 3-6 N/A 5-7†
Single course microsurface 3-5 ** N/A 5-6
Multiple course microsurface 4-6 ** N/A 4-6****
Ultra-thin HMA overlay 3-6 3-6 N/A 4-6****
Paver placed surface seal 4-6 ** N/A 5-7
Full-depth concrete repair N/A N/A 3-10 4-5***
Concrete joint resealing N/A N/A 1-3 5-8
Concrete spall repair N/A N/A 1-3 5-7
Concrete crack sealing N/A N/A 1-3 4-7
Diamond grinding N/A N/A 3-5 4-6
Dowel bar retrofit N/A N/A 2-3 3-5***
Longitudinal HMA wedge/scratch coat with 3-7 N/A N/A 3-5****
surface treatment
Flexible patching ** ** N/A N/A
Mastic joint repair 1-3 1-3 N/A 4-7
Cape seal 4-7 4-7 N/A 4-7
Flexible interlayer “A” 4-7 4-7 N/A 4-7
Flexible interlayer “B” (SAMI) 4-7 4-7 N/A 3-7
Flexible interlayer “C” 4-7 4-7 N/A 3-7
Fiber reinforced flexible membrane 4-7 4-7 N/A 3-7
Fog seal ** ** N/A 7-10
GSB 88 ** ** N/A 7-10
Mastic surface treatment ** ** N/A 7-10
Scrub seal ** ** N/A 4-8
* The time range is the expected life extending benefit given to the pavement, not the anticipated longevity of the
treatment.
** Data is not available to quantify the life extension.
*** The concrete slabs must be in fair to good condition.
**** Can be used on a pavement with a PASER equal to 3 when the sole reason for rating is rutting or severe
raveling of the surface asphalt layer.
†For PASER 4 or less providing structural soundness exists and that additional pre-treatment will be required for
example, wedging, bar seals, spot double chip seals, injection spray patching or other pre-treatments.
1Part of Appendix D-1 from MDOT Local Agency Programs Guidelines for Geometrics on Local Agency Projects
2017 Edition Approved Preventive Maintenance Treatments
28
Page 132 of 228
Roadsoft Pavement Condition Forecast to Forecast Future Trends
The City of Muskegon uses Roadsoft, an asset management software suite, to manage road- and bridge-
related infrastructure. Roadsoft is developed by Michigan Technological University and is available for
Michigan local agencies at no cost to them. Roadsoft uses pavement condition data to drive network-level
deterioration models that forecast future road conditions based on planned construction and maintenance
work. A screenshot of Roadsoft’s pavement condition model and the associated output is shown in Figure
23.
Figure 23: Pavement condition forecast model in the software program Roadsoft..
Paved City Major Roads
Table 2 illustrates the network-level model inputs for Roadsoft on the paved major road network. Other
pavement types in this network were neglected due to their small numbers relative to HMA pavements.
The treatments outlined in Table 2 are the average treatment volume of planned projects scheduled to be
completed in 2026-2028. It should be noted that Roadsoft only analyzes the traveling lane portion of a
project; the road/pavement costs. Incidental related costs are oftentimes 50% more in a roadway
reconstruction or rehabilitation project. These additional items include necessary elements such as
municipal utilities, drainage, traffic control, sidewalk improvements, guardrail, pavement markings,
signing, and restoration. Although the City’s annual expenditures in the 2023 IRT was $6.37 Million,
only a portion of that funding is applied to the actual roadway which is modeled in Roadsoft. See
Appendix F of the Compliance Asset Management Plan for details on planned projects. Full model inputs
and outputs are included in Appendix P-2.
29
Page 133 of 228
Table 2: Roadsoft Modelled Trends and Planned Projects: Roadsoft Annual Work
Program for the Paved City Major Road Network Forecast
Treatment Name Years of Life Average Yearly Miles Trigger Life
of Treatment
Complete Reconstruction 25 1.5 1-3
Crush & Shape 25 1-3
3” Mill & Overlay 15 3-4
2” Overlay 10 3-6
1.5” Mill & Overlay 7 4-6
Chip Seal & Fog 5 4-7
Sealcoat 5 6-6
Crackseal 2 7-7
Results from the Roadsoft network condition model for the City major roads are shown in Figure 24. The
Roadsoft network analysis of the City’s planned projects from its anticipated budget of $6.2 Million does
allow the City to reach and exceed its pavement condition goals given the projects planned for the next
three years.
For modeling purposes, $4 Million of the budget was assumed to be applied to the physical roadway.
Figure 24: Forecast good/fair/poor changes to the city network condition from planned projects on the City major road network.
30
Page 134 of 228
Paved City Local Road
A screenshot of Roadsoft’s pavement condition model and the associated output is shown in Figure 25.
Figure 25: Pavement condition forecast model in the software program Roadsoft.
Table 3 shows the network-level model inputs for Roadsoft on the City’s paved local road network. The
City of Muskegon has a significant amount of local concrete pavements which need to be addressed along
with the larger proportion of asphalt pavements. The treatments outlined in Table 3 are the average
treatment volume of planned projects scheduled to be completed in 2026- 2028 with a budget of
$250,000. See Appendix F of the Compliance Asset Management Plan for details on planned projects.
Full model inputs and outputs are included in Appendix P-2.
Table 3: Roadsoft Modelled Trends and Planned Projects: Roadsoft Annual Work
Program for the Paved City Local Road Network Forecast
Treatment Name Years of Life Average Yearly Trigger Life
Miles of Treatment
Complete 25 0.25 1-3
Reconstruction
Crush & Shape 25 1-3
3” Mill & Overlay 15 3-4
2” Overlay 10 3-6
1.5” Mill & Overlay 7 4-6
Chip Seal & Fog 5 4-7
Sealcoat 5 6-6
Crackseal 2 7-7
31
Page 135 of 228
Results from the Roadsoft network condition model for the City’s paved local roads are shown in Figure
26. The analysis reflects a $250,000 budget for the City’s planned local road projects. This funding level
is not sufficient to achieve the City’s goal of maintaining or improving the local road network. Until
the new funding distribution is finalized and the City knows how much is available to spend on the
roadway system, future project planning will remain conservative. Additional funding is expected
through the new Neighborhood Roads Fund, with the amount anticipated to be clarified by April 2027.
Figure 26: Forecast good/fair/poor changes to the city network condition from planned projects on the paved city local road network.
Shown above are projections based only on data collected.
Planned Projects
The City of Muskegon plans construction and maintenance projects several years in advance. A multi-
year planning threshold is required due to the time necessary to plan, design, and finance construction and
maintenance projects on the paved city major road network. This includes planning and programming
requirements from state and federal agencies that must be met prior to starting a project and can include
studies on environmental and archeological impacts, review of construction and design documents and
plans, documentation of rights-of-way ownership, planning and permitting for storm water discharges,
and other regulatory and administrative requirements.
Per PA 499 of 2002 (later amended by PA 199 of 2007), road projects for the upcoming three years are
required to be reported annually to the TAMC. Planned projects represent the best estimate of future
activity; however, changes in design, funding, and permitting may require the City to alter initial plans.
Project planning information is used to predict the future condition of the road networks that the City
32
Page 136 of 228
maintains. The 1. Pavement Assets: Modelled Trends section of this plan provides a detailed analysis of
the impact of the proposed projects on their respective road networks.
Planned Projects
The City has projects planned for the next three years. These projects are shown in red in Figure 27. The
total cost of the projects is approximately $5,350,000. Please refer to Appendix F of the Compliance
Asset Management Plan for details on planned projects.
Figure 27: Map of 2026 – 2029 Construction Projects.
Gap Analysis
The City of Muskegon currently has a total budget for pavement asset management of $6,500,000.
Historically $6,200,000 is spent on city major-network projects consisting of, but not limited to,
33
Page 137 of 228
reconstruction, overlay, culvert replacement, and preventive maintenance. Spending on projects
depends on revenue from Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF). The planned budget for local roads is
$250,000.
The City of Muskegon’s current funding levels are not sufficient to fully achieve the goals for the major,
local, or unpaved roads. The 1. Pavement Assets: Goals section of this plan provides more detail on these
goals and the 1. Pavement Assets: Modelled Trends section explains the shortfall given the current budget.
However, with the additional funding expected from the new Neighborhood Roads Funds for construction
and maintenance, the City believes it will be possible to maintain or improve overall road conditions
before this Asset Management Plan is undated again in 2028. Until the new funding distribution is
finalized, the full extent of the funding gap is not known. The amount of additional funding is expected
to be clarified by April 2027.
34
Page 138 of 228
2. FINANCIAL
RESOURCES
Public entities must balance the quality and extent of services they can provide with the tax resources
provided by citizens and businesses, all while maximizing how efficiently funds are used. Therefore, the
City will overview its general expenditures and financial resources currently devoted to transportation
infrastructure maintenance. This financial information is not intended to be a full financial disclosure or a
formal report. Full details of the City’s financial status can be found by request submitted to our agency
contact listed earlier in this plan.
Anticipated Revenues & Expenses
The City of Muskegon receives funding from the following sources:
State funds – The City’s principal source of transportation funding is received from the Michigan
Transportation Fund (MTF). This fund is supported by vehicle registration fees and the state’s
per-gallon gas tax. Allocations from the MTF are distributed to state and local governmental units
based on a legislated formula, which includes factors such as population, miles of certified roads,
and vehicle registration fees for vehicles registered in the agency’s jurisdiction. The City also
receives revenue from the Michigan Department of Transportation to maintain (e.g. plow, patch,
mow) the state trunklines within its jurisdictional boundary. Revenue from these maintenance
contracts are received on a time and materials basis as resources are expended to maintain the
State’s roads. While these contracts do not allow for capital gain (profit) and only bring in
revenue to cover the cost of the work, they do provide a benefit to the City by allowing an
economy of scale that enables us to provide better service at a lower cost for the City’s roads
while allowing the same for the State of Michigan. Examples of state grants also include local
bridge grants, economic development funds, and metro funds.
35
Page 139 of 228
Federal and state grants for individual projects – These are typically competitive funding
applications that are targeted at a specific project type to accomplish a specific purpose. These
may include safety enhancement projects, economic development projects, or other targeted
funding. Examples of federal funds include Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds, C and
D funds, bridge funds, MDOT payments to private contractors, and negotiated contracts.
Local government entities or private developer contributions to construction projects for
specific improvements – This category includes funding received to mitigate the impact of
commercial developments as a condition of construction of a specific development project, and
can also include funding from a special assessment district levied by another governmental unit.
Examples of contributions from local units include city, village, and township contributions to the
county; special assessments; county appropriations; bond and note proceeds; contributions from
counties to cities and villages; city general fund transfers; city municipal street funds; capital
improvement funds; and tax millages (see below).
Local tax millages – Many local agencies in Michigan use local tax millages to supplement their
road-funding budget. These taxes can provide for additional construction and maintenance for
new or existing roads that are also funded using MTF or MDOT funds. The City does not have
local tax millages in its road-funding budget.
Interest – Interest from invested funds.
Permit fees – Generally, permit fees cover the cost of a permit application review.
Other – Other revenues can be gained through salvage sales, property rentals, land and building
sales, sundry refunds, equipment disposition or installation, private sources, and financing.
Charges for services – Funds from partner agencies who contract with the City to construct or
maintain its roads, or roads under joint or neighboring jurisdictions, including state trunkline
maintenance and non-maintenance services and preservation.
The City is required to report transportation fund expenditures to the State of Michigan using a prescribed
format with predefined expenditure categories. The definitions of these categories according to Public Act
51 of 1951 may differ from common pavement management nomenclature and practice. For the purposes
of reporting under PA 51, the expenditure categories are:
Construction/Capacity Improvement Funds – According to PA 51 of 1951, this financial
classification of projects includes, “new construction of highways, roads, streets, or bridges, a
project that increases the capacity of a highway facility to accommodate that part of traffic having
neither an origin nor destination within the local area, widening of a lane width or more, or
adding turn lanes of more than 1/2 mile in length.”1
Preservation and Structural Improvement Funds – Preservation and structural improvements
are “activit[ies] undertaken to preserve the integrity of the existing roadway system.”2
1
Public Act 51 of 1951, 247.660c Definitions
2
Public Act 51 of 1951, 247.660c Definitions
36
Page 140 of 228
Preservation includes items such as a reconstruction of an existing road or bridge, or adding
structure to an existing road.
Routine and Preventive Maintenance Funds – Routine maintenance activities are “actions
performed on a regular or controllable basis or in response to uncontrollable events upon a
highway, road, street, or bridge”.3 Preventive maintenance activities are “planned strategy[ies] of
cost-effective treatments to an existing roadway system and its appurtenances that preserve assets
by retarding deterioration and maintaining functional condition without significantly increasing
structural capacity”.4
Winter Maintenance Funds – Expenditures for snow and ice control.
Trunkline Maintenance Funds – Expenditures spent under the City’s maintenance agreement
with MDOT for maintenance it performs on MDOT trunkline routes.
Administrative Funds – There are specific items that can and cannot be included in
administrative expenditures as specified in PA 51 of 1951. The law also states that the amount of
MTF revenues that are spent on administrative expenditures is limited to 10 percent of the annual
MTF funds that are received.
Other Funds – Expenditures for equipment, capital outlay, debt principal payment, interest
expense, contributions to adjacent governmental units, principal, interest and bank fees, and
miscellaneous for cities and villages.
The Table (below) details the latest reported 2023 revenues and expenditures for the City.
Table 4: Annual Fiscal-Year Revenues & Expenditures per Fiscal Year
REVENUES EXPENDITURES
Estimated Percent Estimated Percent
Item $ of Total Item $ of Total
State funds Construction & capacity
$7,237,905 96.47% $0 0%
improvement (CCI)
Federal funds Preservation & structural
$0 0% $4,788,894 75.14%
improvement (PSI)
Contributions for local units Routine maintenance 2.72%
$0 0% $173,634
Interest, rents, and other Winter maintenance 10.27%
$31,635 0.42% $654,281
Charges for services $233,372 Trunkline maintenance 3.66%
3.11% $233,372
Administrative $522,991 8.21%
Other $0 0%
TOTAL $7,502,912 100% TOTAL $6,373,172 100%
Verify the information in this table. You can find your agency’s information in the TAMC dashboard at
https://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/mitrp/tamcDashboards.
3
Public Act 51 of 1951, 247.660c Definitions
4
Public Act 51 of 1951, 247.660c Definitions
37
Page 141 of 228
3. RISK OF FAILURE
ANALYSIS
Transportation infrastructure is designed to be resilient. The system of interconnecting roads and bridges
maintained by the City provides road users with multiple alternate options in the event of an unplanned
disruption of one part of the system. There are, however, key links in the transportation system that may
cause significant inconvenience to users if they are unexpectedly closed to traffic. See Appendix F of the
Compliance Asset Management Plan for a map of the City of Muskegon’s key transportation links in our
network, including the ones who meet the following types of situations:
Geographic divides: Areas where a geographic feature (river, lake, hilly terrain, or limited
access road) limits crossing points of the feature. This includes the Lakeshore Drive bridge over
Ruddiman Creek.
Emergency alternate routes for high-volume roads and bridges: Roads and bridges that are
routinely used as alternate routes for high-volume assets are included in an emergency response
plan. This includes roads such as Sherman Boulevard, Laketon Avenue, Getty Street, and Peck
Street.
Limited access areas: Roads and bridges that serve remote or limited access areas that result in
long detours if closed. This includes Beach Street, Keating Avenue, and Lakeshore Drive.
Main access to key commercial districts: Areas with a large concentration of businesses or
where large-size business will be significantly impacted if a road is unavailable. This includes
Keating Avenue, Latimer Drive, Black Creek Road, Olthoff Street, and Sheridan Road.
38
Page 142 of 228
4. COORDINATION WITH
OTHER ENTITIES
An asset management plan provides a significant value for infrastructure owners because it serves as a
platform to engage other infrastructure owners using the same shared right of way space. The City of
Muskegon communicates with both public and private infrastructure owners to coordinate work in the
following ways:
The City of Muskegon maintains drinking water, sanitary, and storm sewer assets in addition to
transportation assets. The City follows an asset management process for all of its assets by coordinating
the upgrade, maintenance, and operation of all major assets.
Planned projects for sub-surface infrastructure that the City owns are listed in the following asset
management plans: drinking water asset management plan, wastewater collection system asset
management plan, and storm sewer system asset management plan. These three sub-surface utility plans
are coordinated with the transportation infrastructure plans to maximize value and minimize service
disruptions and cost to the public.
The City Utility Department and the Streets Department meet yearly to develop the rolling 6-year CIP.
City staff discuss planned projects that would disrupt transportation services or cause damage to
pavements. Projects which may cause damage to pavements in good or fair condition are discussed and
mitigation measures are proposed to minimize the impact to pavements. Mitigation measures could
include rescheduling and coordinating projects to maximize value and minimize disruptions and cost to
the public.
The City takes advantage of coordinated infrastructure work to reduce costs and maximize value using the
following policies:
39
Page 143 of 228
Roads which are in poor condition that have a subsurface infrastructure project planned which
will destroy more than half the lane width will be rehabilitated or reconstructed full width using
transportation funds to repair the balance of the road width.
Subsurface infrastructure projects which will cause damage to pavements in good condition will
be delayed as long as possible, or methods that do not require pavement cuts will be considered.
Subsurface utility projects will be coordinated to allow all under pavement assets to be upgraded
in the same project regardless of ownership.
Projects on roads which share a border with an adjacent community will have an agreement
created during the planning process which defines the formal split for cost sharing. These
communities include Roosevelt Park, Norton Shores, Muskegon Heights, as well as the
Muskegon County Road Commission.
40
Page 144 of 228
APPENDIX P-1: A QUICK CHECK OF YOUR HIGHWAY
NETWORK HEALTH
A Quick Check of Your
Highway Network Health
By Larry Galehouse, Director, National Center for Pavement Preservation
and
Jim Sorenson, Team Leader, FHWA Office of Asset Management
Historically, many highway agency managers and administrators have tended to view
their highway systems as simply a collection of projects. By viewing the network in this
manner, there is a certain comfort derived from the ability to match pavement actions with their
physical/functional needs. However, by only focusing on projects, opportunities for strategically
managing entire road networks and asset needs are overlooked. While the “bottom up” approach
is analytically possible, managing networks this way can be a daunting prospect. Instead, road
agency administrators have tackled the network problem from the “top down” by allocating
budgets and resources based on historical estimates of need. Implicit in this approach, is a belief
that the allocated resources will be wisely used and prove adequate to achieve desirable network
service levels.
Using a quick checkup tool, road agency managers and administrators can assess the
needs of their network and other highway assets and determine the adequacy of their resource
allocation effort. A quick checkup is readily available and can be usefully applied with
minimum calculations.
It is essential to know whether present and planned program actions (reconstruction,
rehabilitation, and preservation) will produce a net improvement in the condition of the
network. However, before the effects of any planned actions on the highway network can be
analyzed, some basic concepts should be considered.
Assume every lane-mile segment of road in the network was rated by the number of
years remaining until the end of life (terminal condition). Remember that terminal condition
does not mean a failed road. Rather, it is the level of deterioration that management has set as a
minimum operating condition for that road or network. Consider the rated result of the current
network condition as shown in Figure 1.
41
Page 145 of 228
Figure 1 – Current Condition Figure 2 – Condition 1-Year Later
If no improvements are made for one year, then the number of years remaining until the
end of life will decrease by one year for each road segment, except for those stacked at zero.
The zero- stack will increase significantly because it maintains its previous balance and also
becomes the recipient of those roads having previously been stacked with one year remaining.
Thus, the entire network will age one year to the condition shown in Figure 2, with the net lane-
miles in the zero stack raised from 4% to 8% of the network.
Some highway agencies still subscribe to the old practice of assigning their highest
priorities to the reconstruction or rehabilitation of the worst roads. This practice of “worst first”,
i.e., continually addressing only those roads in the zero-stack, is a proven death spiral strategy
because reconstruction and rehabilitation are the most expensive ways to maintain or restore
serviceability. Rarely does sufficient funding exist to sustain such a strategy.
The measurable loss of pavement life can be thought of as the network’s total lane-miles
multiplied by 1 year, i.e., lane-mile-years. Consider the following quantitative illustration.
Suppose your agency’s highway network consisted of 4,356 lane-miles. Figure 3 shows that
without intervention, it will lose 4,356 lane-mile-years per year.
Agency Highway Network = 4,356 lane miles
Each year the network will lose
4,356 lane-mile-years
Figure 3 – Network Lane Miles
To offset this amount of deterioration over the entire network, the agency would need to
annually perform a quantity of work equal to the total number of lane-mile-years lost just to
maintain the status quo. Performing work which produces fewer than 4,356 lane-mile-years
would lessen the natural decline of the overall network, but still fall short of maintaining the
42
Page 146 of 228
status quo. However, if the agency produces more than 4,356 lane-mile-years, it will improve the
network.
In the following example, an agency can easily identify the effect of an annual program
consisting of reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preservation projects on its network. This
assessment involves knowing the only two components for reconstruction and rehabilitation
projects: lane-miles and design life of each project fix. Figure 4 displays the agency’s
programmed activities for reconstruction and Figure 5 displays it for rehabilitation.
Reconstruction Evaluation
Projects this Year = 2
Design Lane Lane Mile Lane Mile
Project Total Cost
Life Miles Years Cost
No. 1 25 yrs 22 550 $463,425 $10,195,350
No. 2 30 yrs 18 540 $556,110 $10,009,980
Total = 1,090 $20,205,330
Figure 4 - Reconstruction
Rehabilitation Evaluation
Projects this Year = 3
Design Lane Lane Mile Lane Mile
Project Life Miles Years Cost Total Cost
No. 10 18 yrs 22 396 $263,268 $5,791,896
No. 11 15 yrs 28 420 $219,390 $6,142,920
No. 12 12 yrs 32 384 $115,848 $3,707,136
Total = 1,200 $15,641,952
Figure 5 – Rehabilitation
When evaluating pavement preservation treatments in this analysis, it is appropriate to
think in terms of “extended life” rather than design life. The term design life, as used in the
reconstruction and rehabilitation tables, relates better to the new pavement’s structural adequacy
to handle repetitive loadings and environmental factors. This is not the goal of pavement
preservation. Each type of treatment/repair has unique benefits that should be targeted to the
specific mode of pavement deterioration. This means that life extension depends on factors such
as type and severity of distress, traffic volume, environment, etc. Figure 6 exhibits the agency’s
programmed activities for preservation.
43
Page 147 of 228
Preservation Evaluation
Life Lane Lane Mile Lane Mile
Project Extension Miles Years Cost Total Cost
No. 101 2 yrs 12 24 $2,562 $30,744
No. 102 3 yrs 22 66 $7,743 $170,346
No. 103 5 yrs 26 130 $13,980 $363,480
No. 104 7 yrs 16 112 $29,750 $476,000
No. 105 10 yrs 8 80 $54,410 $435,280
Total = 412 $1,475,850
Figure 6 – Preservation
To satisfy the needs of its highway network, the agency must accomplish 4,356 lane-
mile-years of work per year. The agency’s program will derive 1,090 lane-mile-years from
reconstruction, 1,200 lane-mile-years from rehabilitation, and 412 lane-mile-years from
pavement preservation, for a total of 2,702 lane-mile-years. Thus, these programmed activities
fall short of the minimum required to maintain the status quo, and hence would contribute to a
net loss in network pavement condition of 1,653 lane-mile-years. The agency’s programmed
tally is shown in Figure 7.
Network Trend
Programmed Activity Lane-Mile-Years Total Cost
Reconstruction 1,090 $20,205,330
Rehabilitation 1,200 $15,641,952
Preservation 412 $1,475,850
Total 2,702 $37,323,132
Network Needs (Loss) ( - ) 4,356
Deficit = - 1,654
Figure 7 – Programmed Tally
This exercise can be performed for any pavement network to benchmark its current trend.
Using this approach, it is possible to see how various long-term strategies could be devised and
evaluated against a policy objective related to total-network condition.
Once the pavement network is benchmarked, an opportunity exists to correct any
shortcomings in the programmed tally. A decision must first be made whether to improve the
44
Page 148 of 228
network condition or just to maintain the status quo. This is a management decision and system
goal.
Continuing with the previous example, a strategy will be proposed to prevent further
network deterioration until additional funding is secured.
The first step is to modify the reconstruction and rehabilitation (R&R) programs. An
agonizing decision must be made about which projects to defer, eliminate, or phase differently
with multi- year activity. In Figure 8, reductions are made in the R&R programs to recover funds
for less costly treatments in the pavement preservation program. The result of this decision
recovered slightly over $6 million.
Program Modification
Programmed Activity Lane-Mile-Years Cost Savings
Reconstruction 31 lane miles 820
$5,004,990
( 40 lane-miles ) ( 1,090 )
Rehabilitation 77 lane miles 1,125
$1,096,950
( 82 lane-miles ) ( 1,200 )
Pavement Preservation
0
( 84 lane-miles ) ( 412 )
2,357
$6,101,940
Total = ( 2,702 )
Figure 8 – Revised R & R Programs
Modifying the reconstruction and rehabilitation programs has reduced the number of
lane-mile- years added to the network from 2,702 to 2,357 lane-mile-years. However, using less
costly treatments elsewhere in the network to address roads in better condition will increase the
number of lane-mile-years added to the network. A palette of pavement preservation treatments,
or mix of fixes, is available to address the network needs at a much lower cost than traditional
methods.
Preservation treatments are only suitable if the right treatment is used on the right road at
the right time. In Figure 9, the added treatments used include concrete joint resealing, thin hot-
mix asphalt (HMA) overlay (≤ 1.5”), microsurfacing, chip seal, and crack seal. By knowing the
cost per lane-mile and the treatment life-extension, it is possible to create a new strategy (costing
$36,781,144) that satisfies the network need. In this example, the agency saved in excess of
$500,000 from traditional methods (costing $37,323,132), while erasing the 1,653 lane-mile-year
deficit produced by the initial program tally. Network Strategy
45
Page 149 of 228
Lane Mile
Programmed Activity Total Cost
Years
Reconstruction
( 31 lane-miles ) 820 $15,200,340
Rehabilitation
( 77 lane-miles ) 1,125 $14,545,002
Pavement
Preservation
(84 lane-miles) 412 $1,475,850
Concrete Resealing (4 years x 31 lane-miles) 124 $979,600
Thin HMA Overlay (10 years x 16 lane-miles) 160 $870,560
Microsurfacing (7 years x 44 lane-miles) 308 $1,309,000
Chip Seal (5 years x 79 lane-miles) 395 $1,104,420
Crack Seal (2 years x 506 lane-miles) 1,012 $1,296,372
Total = 4,356 $36,781,144
Figure 9 – New Program Tally
In a real-world situation, the highway agency would program its budget to achieve the
greatest impact on its network condition. Funds allocated for reconstruction and rehabilitation
projects must be viewed as investments in the infrastructure. Conversely, funds directed for
preservation projects must be regarded as protecting and preserving past infrastructure
investments.
Integrating reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preservation in the proper proportions will
substantially improve network conditions for the taxpayer while safeguarding the highway
investment.
46
Page 150 of 228
APPENDIX P-2: ROADSOFT MODEL INPUTS &
OUTPUTS
47
Page 151 of 228
Major Roads $4M
Local Asphalts - $250,000
with Mill and Overlay Fix Option
45
Page 152 of 228
Local Asphalts - $250,000
without Mill and Overlay Fix Option
Local - $250,000
Concrete and Asphalt Fix Options
Page 153 of 228
APPENDIX B. BRIDGE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
An attached Bridge Asset Management Plan follows.
30
Page 154 of 228
City of Muskegon
2025 Bridge
Asset Management Plan
A plan describing the City of Muskegon’s Bridge Assets and Conditions
Prepared by:
Connie Houk, P.E.
Email: chouk@preinnewhof.com
Phone: (231) 468-3456
Page 155 of 228
CONTENTS
Table of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ iv
Bridge Asset Management Plan Summary ................................................................................................... v
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
Bridge Primer ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Bridge Assets ............................................................................................................................. 8
Inventory .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Goals .................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Prioritization, Programmed/Funded Projects, and Planned Projects................................................................................ 11
2. Financial Resources ................................................................................................................ 17
Anticipated Revenues ......................................................................................................................................................... 17
Anticipated Expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 17
3. Risk Management ................................................................................................................... 18
APPENDIX B-1 – Inventory ...................................................................................................................... 20
APPENDIX B-2 – Summary of Inspection Fix Recommendations ........................................................... 21
APPENDIX B-3 – Bridge Inspection Reports ............................................................................................ 22
ii
Page 156 of 228
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Girder bridge .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2: Slab bridge ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3: Truss bridge.................................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 4: Three-sided box bridge .................................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 5: Examples of common bridge construction materials used in Michigan ......................................................... 3
Figure 6: Diagram of basic elements of a bridge ........................................................................................................... 4
Figure 7: Map illustrating locations of the City’s bridge assets..................................................................................... 9
iii
Page 157 of 228
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of the NBI Rating Scale .................................................................................................................. 3
Table 2: Bridge Assets by Type: Inventory, Size, and Condition .................................................................................. 9
Table 3: Summary of Preservation Criteria ................................................................................................................. 11
iv
Page 158 of 228
BRIDGE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY
As conduits for commerce and connections to vital services, bridges are among the most important assets
in any community that support and affect the road network. The City of Muskegon’s bridges, other road-
related assets, and support systems are some of the most valuable and extensive public assets, all of which
are paid for with taxes collected from citizens and businesses. The cost of building and maintaining
bridges, their importance to society, and the investment made by taxpayers all place a high level of
responsibility on local agencies to plan, build, and maintain the road and bridge network in an efficient
and effective manner.
The City of Muskegon owns and manages two bridges. This plan provides an overview of the City’s
bridge assets and conditions and explains how the City will work to maintain and improve the overall
condition of these assets within the road network. These explanations can help answer:
What kinds of bridge assets the City has in its jurisdiction and the different options for
maintaining these assets.
What tools and processes the City uses to track and manage bridge assets and funds.
What condition the City’s bridge assets are in compared to statewide averages.
Why some bridge assets are in better condition than others and the path to maintaining and
improving bridge asset conditions through proper planning and maintenance.
How agency bridge assets are funded and the source of these funds.
How funds are used and the costs incurred during the City’s bridge assets’ normal life cycle.
What condition can be expected of the City’s bridges if current funding levels continue.
How changes in funding levels can affect the overall condition of the City’s bridge assets.
An asset management plan is required by Michigan Public Act 325 of 2018, and this document represents
fulfillment of some of the City’s obligations towards meeting these requirements. This asset management
plan also helps demonstrate the City’s responsible use of public funds by providing elected and appointed
officials as well as the general public with inventory and condition information of the City’s bridge assets,
and gives taxpayers the information they need to make informed decisions about investing in essential
transportation infrastructure.
v
Page 159 of 228
INTRODUCTION
Asset management is defined by Public Act 325 of 2018 as “an ongoing process of maintaining, preserving,
upgrading, and operating physical assets cost effectively, based on a continuous physical inventory and
condition assessment and investment to achieve established performance goals”. In other words, asset
management is a process that uses data to manage and track assets, like roads and bridges, in a cost-
effective manner using a combination of engineering and business principles. This process is endorsed by
leaders in municipal planning and transportation infrastructure, including the Michigan Municipal League,
County Road Association of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), and the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The City of Muskegon is supported in its use of asset
management principles and processes by the Michigan Transportation Asset Management Council
(TAMC), formed by the State of Michigan.
Asset management, in the context of this plan, ensures that public funds are spent as effectively as possible
to maximize the condition of the necessary bridges in the City of Muskegon’s transportation network. Asset
management also provides a transparent decision-making process that allows the public to understand the
technical and financial challenges of managing infrastructure with a limited budget.
The City of Muskegon has adopted an “asset management” business process to overcome the challenges
presented by having limited financial, staffing, and other resources while needing to meet safety standards
and bridge users’ expectations. The City is currently responsible for two bridges. One bridge is open to
traffic and being maintained for public use. The second bridge is closed to the public and has been planned
for removal with appropriate site restoration in 2026.
This plan outlines how the City determines its strategy to maintain and upgrade bridge asset condition given
agency goals, priorities of its bridge users, and resources provided. An updated plan is to be released
approximately every three years to reflect changes in bridge conditions, finances, and priorities.
Questions regarding the use or content of this plan should be directed to Dan VanderHeide at 1350 E.
Keating Avenue, Muskegon, MI 49442, dan.vanderheide@shorelinecity.com, or at (231) 724-4100.
1
Page 160 of 228
Knowing the basic features of an asset class is a crucial starting point to understanding the rationale behind
an asset management approach. The following primer provides an introduction to bridges.
Bridge Primer
Bridge Types
Bridges are structures that span 20 feet or more. These bridges can extend across one
or multiple spans.
If culverts are placed side by side to form a span of 20 feet or more (for example, three
6-foot culverts with one-foot between each culvert), then this culvert system would be
defined as a bridge. (Note: The Compliance Plan Appendix C contains a primer on
culverts not defined as bridges.)
Figure 1: Girder
Bridge types are classified based on two features: design and material. bridge
The most common bridge design is the girder system (Figure 1). With this design, the
bridge deck transfers vehicle loads to girders (or beams) that, in turn, transfer the load
to the piers or abutments (see Figure 6).
A similar design that lacks girders (or beams) is a slab bridge (Figure 2, and see
Figure 6). A slab bridge transfers the vehicle load directly to the abutments and, if
necessary, piers.
Figure 2: Slab
Truss bridges were once quite common and consist of a support structure that is bridge
created when structural members are connected at joints to form interconnected
triangles (Figure 3). Structural members may consist of steel tubes or angles
connected at joints with gusset plates.
Another common bridge design in Michigan is the three-sided pre-cast box or arch
bridge (Figure 4).
Michigan is also home to several unique bridge designs.
Figure 3: Truss
Adding another layer of complexity to bridge typing is the primary construction
bridge
materials used (Figure 5). Bridges are generally constructed from concrete, steel, pre-
stressed concrete, or timber. Some historical bridges or bridge components in
Michigan may be constructed from stone or masonry.
Figure 4: Three-
sided box bridge
2
Page 161 of 228
Figure 5: Examples of common bridge construction materials used in Michigan
Bridge Condition
Michigan inspectors rate bridge condition on a 0-9 scale known as the National Bridge Inventory (NBI)
rating scale (see Table for a summary of the NBI Rating scale). Elements of the bridge’s superstructure,
deck, and substructure receive a 9 if they are in excellent condition down to a 0 if they are in failed
condition. A complete guide for Michigan bridge condition rating according to the NBI can be found in the
MDOT Bridge Field Services’ Bridge Safety Inspection NBI Rating Guidelines
(https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/BIR_Ratings_Guide_Combined_2017-10-30_606610_7.pdf).
Table 1: Summary of the NBI Rating Scale
NBI Rating General Condition
9-7 Like new/good
6-5 Fair
4-3 Poor/serious
2-0 Critical/failed
Bridge Treatments
Replacement
Replacement work is typically performed when a bridge is in poor condition (NBI rating of 4 or less) and
will improve the bridge to good condition (NBI rating of 7 or more). The Local Bridge Program, a part of
MDOT’s Local Agency Program, defines bridge replacement as full replacement, which removes the entire
bridge (superstructure, deck, and substructure) before re-building a bridge at the same location (Figure 6).
The decision to perform a total replacement over rehabilitation (see below) should be made based on a life-
cycle cost analysis. Generally, replacement is selected if rehabilitation costs more than two-thirds of the
cost of replacement. Replacement is generally the most expensive of the treatment options.
3
Page 162 of 228
Figure 6: Diagram of basic elements of a bridge
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation involves repairs that improve the existing condition and extend the service life of the
structure and the riding surface. Most often, rehabilitation options are associated with bridges that have
degraded beyond what can be fixed with preventive maintenance. Rehabilitation is typically performed on
poor-rated elements (NBI rating of 4 or less) to improve them to fair or good condition (NBI rating of 5 or
more). Rehabilitation can include superstructure replacement (removal and replacement of beams and deck)
or deck replacement. While typically more expensive than general maintenance, rehabilitation treatments
may be more cost-effective than replacing the entire structure.
Railing retrofit/replacement: A railing retrofit or replacement either reinforces the existing railing
or replaces it entirely (Figure 6). This rehabilitation is driven by a need for safety improvements on
poor-rated railings or barriers (NBI rating less than 5).
Beam repair: Beam repair corrects damage that has reduced beam strength (Figure 6). In the case
of steel beams, it is performed if there is 25 percent or more of section loss in an area of the beam
that affects load-carrying capacity. In the case of concrete beams, this is performed if there is 50
percent or more spalling (i.e., loss of material) at the ends of beams.
Substructure concrete patching and repair: Patching and repairing the substructure is essential
to keep a bridge in service. These rehabilitation efforts are performed when the abutments or piers
are fair or poor (NBI rating of 5 or 4), or if spalling and delamination affect less than 30 percent of
the bridge surface.
4
Page 163 of 228
Preventive Maintenance
The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Bridge Preservation Guide (2018) defines preventive
maintenance as “a strategy of extending service life by applying cost-effective treatments to bridge
elements…[that] retard future deterioration and avoid large expenses in bridge rehabilitation or
replacements.”
Preventive maintenance work is typically done on bridges rated fair (NBI rating of 5 or 6) in order to slow
the rate of deterioration and keep them from falling into poor condition.
Concrete deck overlay: A concrete deck overlay involves removing and replacing the driving
surface. Typically, this is done when the deck surface is poor (NBI rating is less than 5) and the
underneath portion of the deck is at least fair (NBI rating greater than 4). A shallow or deep
concrete overlay may be performed depending on the condition of the bottom of the deck. The
MDOT Bridge Deck Preservation matrices provide more detail on concrete deck overlays (see
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9625_24768_24773---,00.html).
Deck repairs: Deck repairs include three common techniques: HMA overlay with or without
waterproof membranes, concrete patching, deck sealing, crack sealing, and joint repair/replacement.
An HMA overlay with an underlying waterproof membrane can be placed on bridge decks with a
surface rating of fair or lower (NBI of 5 or less) and with deficiencies that cover between 15 and 30
percent of the deck surface and deck bottom. An HMA overlay without a waterproof membrane
should be used on a bridge deck with a deck surface and deck bottom rating of serious condition or
lower (NBI rating of 3 or less) and with deficiencies that cover greater than 30 percent of the deck
surface and bottom; this is considered a temporary holdover to improve ride quality when a bridge
deck is scheduled to undergo major rehabilitation within five years. All HMA overlays need to be
accompanied by an updated load rating. Patching of the concrete on a bridge deck is done in
response to an inspector’s work recommendation or when the deck surface is in good, satisfactory,
or fair condition (NBI rating of 7, 6, or 5) with minor delamination and spalling. To preserve a good
bridge deck in good condition, a deck sealer can be used.
Deck sealing should only be done when the bridge deck has surface rating of fair or better (NBI of
5 or more). Concrete sealers should only be used when the top and bottom surfaces of the deck are
free from major deficiencies, cracks, and spalling. An epoxy overlay may be used when between 2
and 5 percent of the deck surface has delaminations and spalls, but these deficiencies must be
repaired prior to the overlay. An epoxy overlay may also be used to repair an existing epoxy
overlay. Concrete crack sealing is an option to maintain concrete in otherwise good condition that
has visible cracks with the potential of reaching the steel reinforcement. Crack sealing may be
performed on concrete with a surface rating of good, satisfactory, or fair (NBIS rating of 7, 6, or 5)
with minor surface spalling and delamination; it may also be performed in response to a work
recommendation by an inspector who has determined that the frequency and size of the cracks
require sealing.
Steel bearing repair/replacement: Rather than sitting directly on the piers, a bridge superstructure
is separated from the piers by bearings. Bearings allow for a certain degree of movement due to
temperature changes or other forces. Repairing or replacing the bearings is considered preventive
5
Page 164 of 228
maintenance. Girders and a deck in at least fair condition (NBI of 5 or higher) and bearings in poor
condition (NBI rating of 4 or less) identifies candidates for this maintenance activity.
Painting: Re-painting a bridge structure can either be done in totality or in part. Total re-painting is
done in response to an inspector’s work recommendation or when the paint condition is in serious
condition (NBI rating of 3 or less). Partial re-painting can either consist of zone re-painting, which
is a preventive maintenance technique, or spot re-painting, which is scheduled maintenance (see
below). Zone re-painting is done when less than 15 percent of the paint in a smaller area, or zone,
has failed while the rest of the bridge is in good or fair condition. It is also done if the paint
condition is fair or poor (NBI rating of 5 or 4).
Channel improvements: Occasionally, it is necessary to make improvements to the waterway that
flows underneath the bridge. Such channel improvements are driven by an inspector’s work
recommendation based on a hydraulic analysis or to remove vegetation, debris, or sediment from
the channel and banks (Figure 6).
Scour countermeasures: An inspector’s work recommendations or a hydraulic analysis may
require scour countermeasures (see the Risk Management section of this plan for more information
on scour). This is done when a structure is categorized as scour critical and is not scheduled for
replacement or when NBI comments in abutment and pier ratings indicate the presence of scour
holes.
Approach repaving: A bridge’s approach is the transition area between the roadway leading up to
and away from the bridge and the bridge deck. Repaving the approach areas is performed in
response to an inspector’s work recommendation, when the pavement surface is in poor condition
(NBI rating of 4 or less), or when the bridge deck is replaced or rehabilitated (e.g., concrete
overlay).
Guardrail repair/replacement: A guardrail is a safety feature on many roads and bridges that
prevents or minimizes the effects of lane departure incidents. Keeping bridge guardrails in good
condition is important. Repair or replacement of bridge guardrail should be done when a guardrail
is missing or damaged, or when it needs a safety improvement.
Scheduled Maintenance
Scheduled maintenance activities are those activities or treatments that are regularly scheduled and intend to
maintain serviceability while reducing the rate of deterioration.
Superstructure washing: Washing the superstructure, or the main structure supporting the bridge,
typically occurs in response to an inspector’s work recommendation or when salt-contaminated dirt
and debris collected on the superstructure is causing corrosion or deterioration by trapping
moisture.
6
Page 165 of 228
Drainage system cleanout/repair: Keeping a bridge’s drainage system clean and in good working
order allows the bridge to shed water effectively. An inspector’s work recommendation may
indicate drainage system cleanout/repair. Signs that a drainage system needs cleaning or repair
include clogs and broken, deteriorated, or damaged drainage elements.
Spot painting: Spot painting is a form of partial bridge painting. This scheduled maintenance
technique involves painting a small portion of a bridge. Generally, this is done in response to an
inspector’s work recommendation and is used for zinc-based paint systems only.
Slope repair/reinforcement: The terrain on either side of the bridge that slopes down toward the
channel is called the slope. At times, it is necessary to repair the slope. Situations that call for slope
repair include when the slope is degraded, when the slope has significant areas of distress or failure,
when the slope has settled, or if the slope is in fair or poor condition (NBI rating of 5 or less). Other
times, it is necessary to reinforce the slope. Reinforcement can be added by installing Riprap, which
is a side-slope covering made of stones. Riprap protects the stability of side slopes of channel banks
when erosion threatens the surface.
Vegetation control and debris removal: Keeping the area around a bridge structure free of
vegetation and debris safeguards the bridge structure from these potentially damaging forces.
Removing or restricting vegetation around bridges prevents damage to the structure. Vegetation
control is done in response to an inspector’s work recommendation or when vegetation traps
moisture on structural elements or is growing from joints or cracks. Debris in the water channel or
in the bridge can also cause damage to the structure. Removing this debris is typically done in
response to an inspector’s work recommendation or when vegetation, debris, or sediment
accumulates on the structure or channel.
Miscellaneous repairs: These are uncategorized repairs in response to an inspector’s work
recommendation.
7
Page 166 of 228
1. BRIDGE ASSETS
The City of Muskegon seeks to implement an asset management program for its bridge structures. This
program balances the decision to perform reconstruction, rehabilitation, preventive maintenance, scheduled
maintenance, or new construction, with the City’s bridge funding in order to maximize the useful service
life and to ensure the safety of the City’s bridges.
Like most agencies, the City has limited funds for improving the bridge network. Since preservation
strategies like preventive maintenance are generally a more effective use of these funds than costly
alternative management strategies like major rehabilitation or replacement, the City has identified the
bridge that will benefit from planned maintenance and has been addressing the bridges that pose usability
and/or safety concerns.
The three-fold goal of the City’s asset management program is to preserve and ensure the safety of its
bridge network, extend the useful service life of bridge assets by maintaining structures in good and fair
condition, and reduce future maintenance costs. In support of this goal, the City has made the decision to
close and remove bridge structures that could not be safely maintained or economically rebuilt. To quantify
this objective, the City established a plan in 2022 to remove the two structurally deficient bridges within
five years while maintaining the remaining bridge structure that was in good condition.
The City’s objectives in implementing the preservation plan will:
Establish the current condition of the City’s bridges.
Develop a “mix of fixes” that will:
o Program scheduled maintenance actions to impede deterioration of bridge in good
condition.
o Implement removal of degraded bridges rather than restore functionality.
Identify available funding sources, such as:
o Dedicated city resources.
o City funding through Michigan’s Local Bridge Program.
o Opportunities to obtain other
8
Page 167 of 228
Prioritize the programmed actions within available funding limitations.
Preserve bridge currently rated fair (5) or higher in it’s current condition in order to extend it’s useful
service life.
Inventory
The City is currently responsible for two local bridges. Table 2 summarizes the City’s bridge assets by type,
sizes, and condition. The bridge inventory data was obtained from MDOT MiBRIDGE and other sources,
and the inspector’s summary report. See Appendix B-1.
Table 2: Bridge Assets by Type: Inventory, Size, and Condition
Condition: Structurally
Total Total
Deficient, Posted, Closed 2025 Condition
Number Deck
of Area (sq Struct.
Bridge Type Bridges ft) Defic Posted Closed Poor Fair Good
Concrete – Culvert 1 1,316 0 0 0 0 0 1
Steel – Multistringer 1 2,007 1 0 1 1 0 0
Total SD/Posted/Closed 1 0 1
Total 2 3,323 1 0 1
Percentage (%) 50% 0 50 50 0 50
Types
Of the City’s two structures, one is a concrete structure and the other is a steel multistringer bridge.
Locations and Sizes
Figure 7 illustrates the locations of bridge assets owned by the City. Details about the locations and sizes of
each individual asset can be found in the MiBRIDGE database.
Figure 7: Map illustrating locations of the City’s bridge assets.
9
Page 168 of 228
Condition
The City evaluates its bridges biennially according to the National Bridge Inspection Standards rating scale,
with a rating of 9 to 7 being like new to good condition, a rating of 6 and 5 being fair condition, and a rating
of 4 or lower being poor or serious/critical condition. The current condition of the City’s bridge network has
one bridge in good condition and one bridge in poor or lower.
Another layer of classification of the City’s bridge inventory classifies the poor bridge as structurally
deficient and is currently closed. Structurally deficient bridges are those with a deck, superstructure or
substructure rated as “poor” according to the NBI rating scale, with a load-carrying capacity significantly
below design standards, or with a waterway that regularly overtops the bridge during floods. Closed bridges
are those that are closed to all traffic; closing a bridge is contingent upon its ability to carry a set minimum
live load.
The City of Muskegon has no posted bridges. Posted bridges are those that have declined in condition to a
point where a restriction is necessary for what would be considered a safe vehicular or traffic load passing
over the bridge; designating a bridge as “posted” has no influence on its condition rating.
Comparison
Statewide, MDOT’s statistics for local agency bridges show that 14% are poor and 86% are good/fair,
indicating that the City currently has a greater percentage of poor bridges compared to the statewide
average for local agencies. The City has 50% of its bridges in fair/good condition versus the statewide
average of 86% for local agency bridges.
Statewide, 97% of local agency bridge deck area classifies as structurally deficient which is greater than the
City’s 50%.
Goals
The goal of the City’s asset management program is the preservation and safety of the City’s bridge
network. In 2022, the City established a plan to remove two bridges from it’s system while continuing to
maintain the remaining bridge structure. This decision was based on evaluations of network connectivity,
structural condition, replacement costs, and available funding.
In support of this goal, the City has chosen to close and remove bridge structures that cannot be safely
maintained or economically rebuilt, while maintaining remaining bridge assets in good condition.
The objective translates into the long-range goal of having 100% of the City’s bridges rated fair/good
condition and 0% classified as structurally deficient within the next five years. One of the structurally
deficient bridges has already been removed and the remaining poor bridge is planned for removal in 2026.
10
Page 169 of 228
Prioritization, Programmed/Funded Projects, and Planned
Projects
Prioritization
The City’s asset management program aims to address the structures of critical concern by targeting
elements rated as being in poor condition and to improve and maintain the overall condition of the bridge
network to good or fair condition through a “mix of fixes” strategy. Therefore, the City prioritizes bridges
for projects by evaluating five factors and weighting them as follows: condition –20%, load capacity –20%,
traffic volume –20%, Emergency service response/safety –20%, and detour –20%. There are several
components within each factor that are used to arrive at its score. Each project under consideration is
scored, and its total score is then compared with other proposed project to establish a priority order.
The City reviews the current condition of each bridge based on its required frequency using the NBIS
inspection data contained in the MDOT Bridge Safety Inspection Report and the inspector’s work
recommendations contained in MDOT’s Bridge Inspection Report. The inspector’s notes and repair
recommendations based on condition are consolidated in Appendix B-2. The City then determines
management and preservation needs and corresponding actions for each bridge. The management and
preservation actions are selected in accordance with criteria contained in the Summary of Preservation
Criteria table (below) and adapted to the City’s specific bridge network.
Table 3: Summary of Preservation Criteria
Expected
Preservation Action Bridge Selection Criteria
Service Life
Replacement
Total Replacement NBI rating of 3 or less [1] [2] 70 years
OR Cost of rehabilitation exceeds cost of replacement [1]
OR Bridge is scour critical with no counter-measures available [1]
Rehabilitation
Superstructure NBI rating of 4 or less for the superstructure [1] [2] 40 years [1]
Replacement OR Cost of superstructure and deck rehabilitation exceeds cost of
replacement [1]
Deck Replacement Use guidelines in MDOT’s Bridge Deck Preservation Matrix [3] [4] 60+ years [3] [4]
Epoxy Coated Steel NBI rating of 4 or less for the deck surface and deck bottom [1] [2]
Black Steel Deck bottom has more than 25% total area with deficiencies [1]
OR Replacement cost of deck is competitive with rehabilitation [1]
[1*]
Substructure NBI rating of 4 or less for abutments, piers, or pier cap [1] [2] 40 years
Replacement Has open vertical cracks, signs of differential settlement, or active
(Full or Partial) movement [1]
Pontis rating of 3 or 5 for more than 30 percent of the substructure [1]
[5]
OR Bridge is scour critical with no counter-measures available
[1*]
Steel Beam Repair More than 25% section loss in an area of the beam that affects load 40 years
carrying capacity [1]
OR To correct impact damage that impairs beam strength [1]
11
Page 170 of 228
Table 3: Summary of Preservation Criteria
Expected
Preservation Action Bridge Selection Criteria
Service Life
[1*]
Prestressed Concrete More than 5% spalling at ends of prestressed I-beams [1] 40 years
Beam Repair OR Impact damage that impairs beam strength or exposes
prestressing strands [1]
Substructure Concrete NBI rating of 5 or 4 for abutments or piers, and surface has less than
Patching and Repair 30% area spalled and delaminated [1] [2]
OR Pontis rating of 3 or 4 for the column or pile extension, pier wall,
and/or abutment wall and surface has between 2% and 30% area
with deficiencies [1] [5]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation for substructure
patching [1]
Abutment NBI rating of 4 or less for the abutment [1] [2]
Repair/Replacement OR Has open vertical cracks, signs of differential settlement, or active
movement
Railing/Barrier NBI rating greater than 5 for the deck [1] [2]
Replacement NBI rating less than 5 for the railing with more than 30% total area
having deficiencies [1] [2]
OR Pontis rating is 4 for railing [1] [5]
OR Safety improvement is needed [1]
Culvert NBI rating of 4 or less for culvert or drainage outlet structure
Repair/Replacement OR Has open vertical cracks, signs of deformation, movement, or
differential settlement
Preventive Maintenance
Shallow Concrete NBI rating is 5 or less for deck surface, and deck surface has more 12 years
Deck Overlay than 15% area with deficiencies [1] [2]
NBI rating of 4 or 5 for deck bottom, and deck bottom has between
5% and 30% area with deficiencies [1] [2]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation [1]
Deep Concrete Deck NBI rating of 5 or less for deck surface, and deck surface has more 25 years
Overlay than 15% area with deficiencies [1] [2]
NBI deck bottom rating is 5 or 6, and deck bottom has less than 10%
area with deficiencies [1] [2]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation [1]
HMA Overlay with NBI rating of 5 or less for deck surface, and both deck surface and
Waterproofing bottom have between 15% and 30% area with deficiencies [1] [2]
Membrane OR Bridge is in poor condition and will be replaced in the near future
and the most cost-effective fix is HMA overlay [1]
HMA Overlay Cap Note: All HMA caps should have membranes unless scheduled for 3 years
without Membrane replacement within five years.
NBI rating of 3 or less for deck surface and deck bottom, and deck
surface and deck bottom have more than 30% area with deficiencies.
Temporary holdover to improve ride quality for a bridge in the five-
year plan for rehab/replacement. [1] [2]
Concrete Deck NBI rating of 5, 6, or 7 for deck surface, and deck surface has 5 years
Patching between 2% and 5% area with delamination and spalling [1] [2]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation [1]
12
Page 171 of 228
Table 3: Summary of Preservation Criteria
Expected
Preservation Action Bridge Selection Criteria
Service Life
Steel Bearing NBI rating of 5 or more for superstructure and deck, and NBI rating 4
Repair/Replacement or less for bearing [2]
Deck Joint Always include when doing deep or shallow concrete overlays [1]
Replacement NBI rating of 4 or less for joints [1] [2]
OR Joint leaking heavily [1]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation for replacement
[1]
Pin and Hanger NBI rating of 4 or less for superstructure for pins and hangers [1] [2] 15 years
Replacement Pontis rating of 1, 2, or 3 for a frozen or deformed pin and hanger [1]
[5]
OR Presence of excessive section loss, severe pack rust, or out-of-
plane distortion [1]
Zone Repainting NBI rating of 5 or 4 for paint condition, and paint has 3% to 15% total 10 years
area failing [1] [2]
OR During routine maintenance on beam ends or pins and hangers
[1]
OR less than 15% of existing paint area has failed and remainder of
paint system is in good or fair condition [1]
Complete Repainting NBI rating of 3 or less for paint condition [1] [2]
OR Painted steel beams that have greater than 15% of the existing
paint area failing [1]
Partial Repainting See Zone or Spot Painting
Channel Removal of vegetation, debris, or sediment from channel and banks
Improvements to improve channel flow
OR in response to inspector’s work recommendation
Scour Pontis scour rating of 2 or 3 and is not scheduled for replacement [1]
Countermeasures [5]
OR NBI comments in abutment and pier ratings indicate presence of
scour holes [1] [2]
Approach Repaving Approach pavement relief joints should be included in all projects that
contain a significant amount of concrete roadway (in excess of 1000’
adjacent to the structure). The purpose is to alleviate the effects of
pavement growth that may cause distress to the structure. Signs of
pavement growth include:
o Abutment spalling under bearings [1]
o Beam end contact [1]
o Closed expansion joints and/or pin and hangers [1]
o Damaged railing and deck fascia at joints [1]
o Cracking in deck at reference line (45 degree angle) [1]
[2*]
Guard Rail Guard rail missing or damaged
[2*]
Repair/Replacement OR Safety improvement is needed
13
Page 172 of 228
Scheduled Maintenance
Superstructure When salt contaminated dirt and debris collected on superstructure is 2 years
Washing causing corrosion or deterioration by trapping moisture [1]
OR Expansion or construction joints are to be replaced and the steel
is not to be repainted [1]
OR Prior to a detailed replacement [1]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation [1]
Drainage System When drainage system is clogged with debris [1] 2 years
Clean-Out/Repair OR Drainage elements are broken, deteriorated, or damaged [1]
OR NBI rating comments for drainage system indicate need for
cleaning or repair [1] [2]
Spot Repainting For zinc-based paint systems only. Do not spot paint with lead-based 5 years
paints.
Less than 5% of paint area has failed in isolated areas [1]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation [1]
Slope Paving Repair NBI rating is 5 or less for slope protection [1] [2]
OR Slope is degraded or sloughed
OR Slope paving has significant areas of distress, failure, or has
settled [1]
Riprap Installation To protect surface when erosion threatens the stability of side slopes
of channel banks
Vegetation Control When vegetation traps moisture on structural elements [1] 1 year
OR Vegetation is growing from joints or cracks [1]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation for brush cut [1]
Debris Removal When vegetation, debris, or sediment accumulates on the structure or 1 year
in the channel
OR In response to inspectors work recommendation
Deck Joint Repair Do not repair compression joint seals, assembly joint seals, steel
armor expansions joints, and block out expansion joints; these should
always be replaced. [1]
NBI rating is 5 for joint [1] [2]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation for repair [1]
Concrete Sealing Top surface of pier or abutments are below deck joints and, when
contaminated with salt, salt can collect on the surface [1]
OR Surface of the concrete has heavy salt exposure. Horizontal
surfaces of substructure elements are directly below expansion joints
[1]
Concrete Crack Concrete is in good or fair condition, and cracks extend to the depth 5 years
Sealing of the steel reinforcement [1]
OR NBI rating of 5, 6, or 7 for deck surface, and deck surface has
between 2% and 5% area with deficiencies [1] [2]
OR Unsealed cracks exist that are narrow and/or less than 1/8” wide
and spaced more than 8’ apart [1]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation [1]
Minor Concrete Repair minor delaminations and spalling that cover less than 30% of
Patching the concrete substructure [1]
14
Page 173 of 228
OR NBI rating of 5 or 4 for abutments or piers, and comments
indicate that their surface has less than 30% spalling or delamination
[1] [2]
OR Pontis rating of 3 or 4 for the column or pile extension, pier wall
and/or abutment wall, and surface has between 2% and 30% area
with deficiencies [1] [5]
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation [1]
HMA Surface HMA surface is in poor condition
Repair/Replacement OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation
Seal HMA HMA surface is in good or fair condition, and cracks extend to the
Cracks/Joints surface of the underlying slab or sub course
OR In response to inspector’s work recommendation
Timber Repair NBI rating of 4 or less for substructure for timber members
OR To repair extensive rot, checking, or insect infestation
Miscellaneous Repair Uncategorized repairs in response to inspector’s work
recommendation
This table was produced by TransSystems and includes information from the
following sources:
[1] MDOT, Project Scoping Manual, MDOT, 2019.
[2] MDOT, MDOT NBI Rating Guidelines, MDOT, 2017.
[3] MDOT, Bridge Deck Preservation Matrix - Decks with Uncoated "Black"
Rebar, MDOT, 2017.
[4] MDOT, Bridge Deck Preservation Matrix - Decks with Epoxy Coated
Rebar, 2017.
[5] MDOT, Pontis Bridge Inspection Manual, MDOT, 2009.
* From source with interpretation added.
In terms of management and preservation actions, the City’s asset management program uses a “mix of
fixes” strategy that is made up of replacement.
Replacement involves substantial changes to the existing structure, such as bridge deck
replacement, superstructure replacement, or complete structure replacement, and is intended to
improve critical or closed bridges to a good condition rating.
Rehabilitation is undertaken to extend the service life of existing bridges. The work will restore
deficient bridges to a condition of structural or functional adequacy, and may include upgrading
geometric features. Rehabilitation actions are intended to improve the poor or fair condition bridges
to fair or good condition.
Preventive maintenance work will improve and extend the service life of fair bridges, and will be
performed with the understanding that future rehabilitation or replacement projects will contain
appropriate safety and geometric enhancements. Preventive maintenance projects are directed at
limited bridge elements that are rated in fair condition with the intent of improving these elements
to a good rating. Most preventive maintenance projects will be one-time actions in response to a
condition state need. Routine preventive work will be performed by contracted agencies.
15
Page 174 of 228
The City’s scheduled maintenance program is an integral part of the preservation plan, and is intended to
extend the service life of fair and good structures by preserving the Lakeshore Drive bridge in it’s current
condition for a longer period of time. Scheduled maintenance is proactive and not necessarily condition
driven. In-house maintenance crews and contractors will perform work as necessary.
Needs for funding will be programmed in the City of Muskegon’s annual budget. Depending on inspector
biennial reports, when certain preventive maintenance fixes are necessary, the City will submit an
application to procure Local Agency bridge funds to finance the necessary repairs.
To achieve its goals, the City’s asset management program incorporates preservation of bridges currently
rated fair (5) or higher in their current condition in order to extend their useful service life. The primary
work activities used to meet this preservation objective include preventive maintenance.
Programmed/Funded Projects
The City received commitment of $250,000 from MDOT’s Local Bridge Program towards the removal of
Bridge #7700 Ottawa Street over the Muskegon River. The City has plans to remove this bridge in 2026.
The City will provide a local match. The projected cost for this project is $500,000.
16
Page 175 of 228
2. FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Anticipated Revenues
The City has a programmed project and has been granted MDOT Local Agency funding for the purpose of
removing Bridge #7700, Ottawa Street bridge. This funding is intended for use in 2026.
Anticipated Expenses
The City has a match requirement for the removal of Bridge #7700 of approximately $250,000. This total
will depend on Contractor bids.
Scheduled maintenance activities and minor repairs that are not affiliated with any applications, grants, or
other funded projects will be performed by the agency’s in-house maintenance forces or hired contractors
and are funded through the City’s annual operating budget.
17
Page 176 of 228
3. RISK MANAGEMENT
18
The City recognizes that the potential risks associated with bridges generally fall into several categories:
Personal injury and property damage resulting from a bridge collapse or partial failure.
Loss of access to a region or individual properties resulting from bridge closures, restricted
load postings, or extended outages for rehabilitation and repair activities; and
Delays, congestion, and inconvenience due to serviceability issues, such as poor-quality riding
surface, loose expansion joints, or missing expansion joints.
The City addresses these risks by implementing regular bridge inspections and a preservation strategy
consisting of preventive maintenance.
In the past, the City administered the biennial inspection of its bridges in accordance with NBIS
and MDOT requirements. The inspection reports document the condition of the City’s bridges and
evaluates them in order to identify new defects and monitor advancing deterioration. The
inspection reports in Appendix B-3 identifies items needing follow-up, special inspection actions,
and recommended bridge-by-bridge maintenance activities.
In the future, for the next 5 years, MDOT will be responsible for handling the bridge inspection
contract. Reports and inspection summaries will be delivered to the City after each inspection. The
reports and results will be loaded into MiBridge.
Bridges that are considered “scour critical” pose a risk to the City’s road and bridge network. Scour is the
depletion of sediment from around the foundation elements of a bridge commonly caused by fast-moving
water. According to MDOT’s Michigan Structure Inventory and Appraisal Coding Guide, a scour critical
bridge is one that has unstable abutment(s) and/or pier(s) due to observed or potential (based on an
evaluation study) scour. Bridges receiving a scour rating of 3 or less are considered scour critical. The City
of Muskegon has no scour critical bridges.
18
Page 177 of 228
PRESERVATION STRATEGY
The preservation strategy identifies actions in the operations and maintenance plan that are preventive or
are responsive to specific bridge conditions. The actions are prioritized to correct critical structural safety
and traffic issues first, and then to address other needs based on the operational importance of each bridge
and the long-term preservation of the network. The inspection results serve as a basis for modifying and
updating the operations and maintenance plan annually.
Preventative maintenance work is the strategy the City of Muskegon will now employ for the next 20+
years. Preventative Maintenance work will improve and extend the service life of good and fair bridges,
and will be performed with the understanding that future rehabilitation or replacement projects will contain
appropriate safety and geometric enhancements. Preventative maintenance projects are directed at limited
bridge elements that are rated in fair condition with the intent of improving these elements to a good
rating. Most preventative maintenance projects will be one-time actions in response to a condition need.
Routine preventive work will be performed by the City’s in-house maintenance crews, while larger
complex work will be contracted.
Scheduled maintenance activities are those activities or treatments that are regularly scheduled and intend
to maintain serviceability while reducing the rate of deterioration. Activities include cleaning decks,
superstructure washing, drainage repairs, spot painting, slope repairs, vegetation control and debris
removal.
The replacement, rehabilitation, and preventive maintenance projects are generally eligible for funding
under the local bridge program, and request for funding will be submitted with the City’s annual
applications.
The City’s scheduled maintenance program is an integral part of the preservation plan, and is intended to
extend the service life of fair and good structures by preserving the bridges in their current condition for a
longer period of time. Scheduled maintenance is proactive and not necessarily condition driven. In-house
maintenance crews will perform much of this work.
Culverts, which typically are buried structures, have less maintenance activities, and hence tend to be
overlooked. Rehabilitation options are available, including full and partial liners, but are most effective if
used when a pipe is in the early stages of deterioration.
COST ESTIMATES
The City computes the estimated cost of each typical preservation action using unit prices in the latest
Bridge Repair Cost Estimate spreadsheet contained in MDOT’s Local Bridge Program Call for Projects.
The cost of items of varying complexity, such as maintenance of traffic, staged construction, scour
counter-measures, and so forth, are computed on a bridge-by-bridge basis. The cost estimates should be
reviewed and updated annually.
19
Page 178 of 228
APPENDIX B-1 – Inventory
Inventory Data
Structure
Bridge Type Facility Carried Features Intersected
Number
Concrete – Culvert 7698 LAKESHORE DRIVE RUDDIMAN CREEK
Steel – Multistringer 7700 OTTAWA ST MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH
20
Page 179 of 228
APPENDIX B-2 – Summary of Inspection Fix
Recommendations
City of Muskegon Bridge Inspection Report Executive Summary
General Recommendations
Structure #7698 - 2024
- Remove heavy vegetation from retaining walls.
-Continue to watch gap at southside sheeting, cracks in block retaining walls and cracking in arch
legs at abutments
-Grout the cracks in the retaining walls
Structure #7700 - 2024
-Beams and deck are too far gone to repair, replacement or removal is the best option
The plan is to remove this bridge.
21
Page 180 of 228
APPENDIX B-3 – Bridge Inspection Reports
22
Page 181 of 228
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7698 CULVERT SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
LAKESHORE DRIVE 43.2182 / -86.2847 614461800016B02 Good Condition(7)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
RUDDIMAN CREEK 29.9 / 65.9 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.1 MI N OF ADDISON AVE 1900 / 1986 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 1 Concrete / 19 Culvert 08/22/2024 / 3U4N 5 Stable w/in footing
CULVERT INSPECTION 3U4N
Inspector Name Agency / Company Name Insp. Freq. Insp. Date
Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering 24 08/22/2024
GENERAL NOTES
Pavement, curb & gutter, sidewalk, and barrier walls all remain good. Monitor southside sheeting gaps, remain the same over last few
inspections.
NBI INSPECTION
08/20 08/22 08/24
1. Culvert 7 7 7 (08/24)
Rating (08/22)
(SIA-62) (08/20)
2. Channel 7 7 7 Gravel bottom with scattered stone along each stem wall, water depth over 3.5ft at center of
(SIA-61) channel. Pond upstream, brushy banks downstream. (08/24)
Gravel bottom with scattered stone along each stem wall, water depth over 4ft at center of
channel. Pond upstream, brushy banks downstream. (08/22)
Riprap has been thrown into the stream to create weir, underwater at the time of the
inspection. Higher water due to high lake level. (08/20)
3. Scour 8 8 8 none noted (08/24)
none noted (08/22)
none noted (08/20)
AASHTO ELEMENTS (English Units)
Element Element Total Unit Good Fair Poor Severe
Number Name Quantity CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4
Culvert
241 Re Conc Culvert 98 ft 80 18 0 0
82% 18% 0% 0%
Section 8S has small section of wire reinforcement exposed along south edge of west side of arch, no joint leakage. Cracks were noted
along the bottom of sections 1S, 2S, 4S, & 5S at west abutment, 1S east abutment. No increase in cracks noted.
857 Culvert Joints 15 15 0 0 0
100% 0% 0% 0%
Joints remain good, no leakage noted
861 Culvert Wingwall 4 4 0 0 0
100% 0% 0% 0%
fine vertical cracks noted. Some spalling of concrete footing under precast walls, SW & SE quads. Gap under SW, SE, & NE between
precast footing and concrete behind steel sheeting. Stone veneer piece has fallen off from end of SW wingwall.
862 Culvert Footing 196 ft 196 0 0 0
100% 0% 0% 0%
footings remain buried, fine vertical cracks in stems below the precast arch sections.
863 Culvert Headwall 2 2 0 0 0
100% 0% 0% 0%
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 08/23/2024 Printed on 08/23/2024 Page 1 of 2
Page 182 of 228
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7698 CULVERT SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
LAKESHORE DRIVE 43.2182 / -86.2847 614461800016B02 Good Condition(7)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
RUDDIMAN CREEK 29.9 / 65.9 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.1 MI N OF ADDISON AVE 1900 / 1986 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 1 Concrete / 19 Culvert 08/22/2024 / 3U4N 5 Stable w/in footing
Headwalls remain good. Some cracking in block retaining walls outside of wingwalls in each quadrant areas of settlement noted. Heavy
vegetation covers sections of walls. Gaps in sheeting along retaining and wingwalls. SW sheeting gaps have been monitored, 1.5" at 9th
sheeting corrugation and 1.25" at 6th corrugation. The flange of SW wale is bent at tie-back rods, which have been present over many
inspection cycles. SE wingwall sheet gap measured 2 3/8" at first inner corrugation from end of culvert. Sheeting gaps measured the
same in 2024. Block retaining walls are becoming overgrown with vines and brush.
MISCELLANEOUS
Guard Rail Other Items
Item Rating Item Rating
36A. Bridge Railings 1 71. Water Adequacy 8
36B. Transitions N 72. Approach Alignment 8
36C. Approach Guardrail 1 Special Insp. Equipment 2
36D. Approach Guardrail Ends N Underwater Insp. Method 1
RECOMMENDATIONS & ACTION ITEMS
Recommendation Type Priority Description
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 08/23/2024 Printed on 08/23/2024 Page 2 of 2
Page 183 of 228
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7698 STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
LAKESHORE DRIVE 43.2182 / -86.2847 614461800016B02 Good Condition(7)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
RUDDIMAN CREEK 29.9 / 65.9 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.1 MI N OF ADDISON AVE 1900 / 1986 / / Muskegon(21) A Open, no restriction(A)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 1 Concrete / 19 Culvert 08/22/2024 / 3U4N 5 Stable w/in footing
Bridge History, Type, Materials Route Carried By Structure(ON Record) Route Under Structure (UNDER Record)
27 - Year Built 1900 5A - Record Type 1 5A - Record Type
106 - Year Reconstructed 1986 5B - Route Signing 5 5B - Route Signing
202 - Year Painted 5C - Level of Service 0 5C - Level of Service
203 - Year Overlay 5D - Route Number 02007 5D - Route Number
43 - Main Span Bridge Type 1 19 5E - Direction Suffix 0 5E - Direction Suffix
44 - Appr Span Bridge Type 10L - Best 3m Unclr-Lt 0 0 10L - Best 3m Unclr-Lt
77 - Steel Type 0 10R - Best 3m Unclr-Rt 99 99 10R - Best 3m Unclr-Rt
78 - Paint Type 0 PR Number PR Number
79 - Rail Type 1 Control Section Control Section
80 - Post Type 0 11 - Mile Point 0 11 - Mile Point
107 - Deck Type 1 12 - Base Highway Network 0 12 - Base Highway Network
108A - Wearing Surface 6 13 - LRS Route-Subroute 0000008639 10 13 - LRS Route-Subroute
108B - Membrane 2 19 - Detour Length 4 19 - Detour Length
108C - Deck Protection 1 20 - Toll Facility 3 20 - Toll Facility
Structure Dimensions 26 - Functional Class 16 26 - Functional Class
28A - Lanes On 3 28B - Lanes Under
34 - Skew 0
29 - ADT 12520 29 - ADT
35 - Struct Flared 0
30 - Year of ADT 2002 30 - Year of ADT
45 - Num Main Spans 1
32 - Appr Roadway Width 44 42B - Service Type Under 5
46 - Num Apprs Spans 0
32A/B - Ap Pvt Type/Width 4 44 47L - Left Horizontal Clear
48 - Max Span Length 26.9
42A - Service Type On 1 47R - Right Horizontal Clear
49 - Structure Length 29.9
47L - Left Horizontal Clear 0.0 54A - Left Feature
50A - Width Left Curb/SW 5.9
47R - Right Horizontal Clear 44.0 54B - Left Underclearance 99 99
50B - Width Right Curb/SW 5.9
53 - Min Vert Clr Ov Deck 99 99 54C - Right Feature
33 - Median 0
100 - STRAHNET 0 54D - Right Clearance 99 99
51 - Width Curb to Curb 47.9
102 - Traffic Direct 2 Under Clearance Year
52 - Width Out to Out 65.9
109 - Truck % 0 55A - Reference Feature N
112 - NBIS Length Y
110 - Truck Network 0 55B - Right Horiz Clearance 99.9
Inspection Data 114 - Future ADT 15100 56 - Left Horiz Clearance 0
90 - Inspection Date 08/22/2024 115 - Year Future ADT 2022 100 - STRAHNET
91 - Inspection Freq 24 Freeway 0 102 - Traffic Direct
92A - Frac Crit Req/Freq N Structure Appraisal 109 - Truck %
93A - Frac Crit Insp Date 110 - Truck Network
36A - Bridge Railing 1
92B - Und Water Req/Freq N 114 - Future ADT
36B - Rail Transition N
93B - Und Water Insp Date 115 - Year Future ADT
36C - Approach Rail 1
92C - Oth Spec Insp Req/Freq N Freeway
36D - Rail Termination N
93C - Oth Spec Insp Date Proposed Improvements
67 - Structure Evaluation 7
92D - Fatigue Req/Freq N
68 - Deck Geometry 5 75 - Type of Work
93D - Fatigue Insp Date
69 - Underclearance N 76 - Length of Improvement
176A - Und Water Insp Method 1
71 - Waterway Adequacy 8 94 - Bridge Cost
58 - Deck Rating N
72 - Approach Alignment 8 95 - Roadway Cost
58A/B - Deck Surface/Bottom
103 - Temporary Structure 96 - Total Cost
59 - Superstructure Rating N
113 - Scour Criticality 5 97 - Year of Cost Estimate
59A - Paint Rating
60 - Substructure Rating N Miscellaneous Load Rating and Posting
61 - Channel Rating 7 37 - Historical Significance 1 31 - Design Load 5
62 - Culvert Rating 7 98A - Border Bridge State 41 - Open, Posted, Closed A
Navigation Data 98B - Border Bridge % 63 - Fed Oper Rtg Method 0
101 - Parallel Structure N 64F - Fed Oper Rtg Load 1.67
38 - Navigation Control 0
EPA ID 64MA - Mich Oper Rtg Method 0
39 - Vertical Clearance 0
Stay in Place Forms 64MB - Mich Oper Rtg 77
40 - Horizontal Clearance 0
143 - Pin & Hanger Code 64MC - Mich Oper Truck 18
111 - Pier Protection
148 - No. of Pin & Hangers 65 - Inv Rtg Method 0
116 - Lift Brdg Vert Clear 0
66 - Inventory Load 1
70 - Posting 5
141 - Posted Loading
193 - Overload Class N
Printed on 08/23/2024 Page 1 of 1
Page 184 of 228
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/22/2024 / HVMD U Unknown Scour
NBI INSPECTION HVMD
Inspector Name Agency / Company Name Insp. Freq. Insp. Date
Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering 24 08/22/2024
GENERAL NOTES
Bridge is closed. Concrete barriers remain in place across each approach. Deck continues to leak, days after last rain event.
Weight limit signs in place on both ends of bridge NO
Required advance warning weight limit signs in place NO
Frequency Justification Comments (required when Poor Condition and frequency is equal to 24 months)
Bridge is closed to traffic
DECK
08/21 08/22 08/24
1. Surface 4 4 4 HMA cracks thoughout with active leakage through the deck. Vegetation growing along
(SIA-58A) sidewalks and within HMA cracks, tree growing along east sidewalk. Heavy HMA alligator
cracking along reference lines. (08/24)
HMA cracks thoughout with active leakage through the deck. Vegetation growing along
sidewalks and within HMA cracks. Heavy HMA alligator cracking along reference lines.
(08/22)
HMA cracks thoughout with active leakage through the deck. Vegetation growing along
sidewalks and within HMA cracks. Heavy HMA alligator cracking along reference lines.
(08/21)
2. Expansion N N N (08/24)
Joints (08/22)
(08/21)
3. Other N N N (08/24)
Joints (08/22)
(08/21)
4. Railings 5 5 5 Rails appear to be precast with visible joints at the posts. Concrete railings have spalled
sections with rusting smooth surface reinforcing bars. More spalling along the east railing top
horizontal member. One spot on the west. (08/24)
Rails appear to be precast with visible joints at the posts. Concrete railings have spalled
sections with rusting smooth surface reinforcing bars. More spalling along the east railing top
horizontal member. One spot on the west. (08/22)
Rails appear to be precast with visible joints at the posts. Concrete railings have spalled
sections with rusting smooth surface reinforcing bars. More spalling along the east railing top
horizontal member. One spot on the west. (08/21)
5. Sidewalks 4 4 4 Sidewalks are cracked with many small popouts. No approach sidewalk in any quad. SW
or Curbs sidewalk has an exposed edge and has undermined cause the sidewalk to settle. Spalls
noted along the west sidewalk face. Trees and weeds growing in joints. (08/24)
Sidewalks are cracked with many small popouts. No approach sidewalk in any quad. SW
sidewalk has an exposed edge and has undermined cause the sidewalk to settle. Spalls
noted along the west sidewalk face. Trees and weeds growing in joints. (08/22)
Sidewalks are cracked with many small popouts. No approach sidewalk in any quad. SW
sidewalk has an exposed edge and has undermined cause the sidewalk to settle. Spalls
noted along the west sidewalk face. Trees and weeds growing in joints. (08/21)
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 08/23/2024 Printed on 08/23/2024 Page 1 of 5
Page 185 of 228
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/22/2024 / HVMD U Unknown Scour
6. Deck 4 4 4 All bays, deck actively leaking along all beam top flanges, also hairline cracks in every bay.
Bottom Efflorescence buildup on beams bottom flanges with long stalactites along the deck bottom,
Surface up to 1.5ft long. Bay 6W has spalls/popouts with exposed steel along the length. Spalling and
(SIA-58B) exposed resteel around scuppers. Active leakage through deck cracks even after days
without rain. (08/24)
All bays, deck actively leaking along all beam top flanges, also hairline cracks in every bay.
Efflorescence buildup on beams bottom flanges with long stalactites along the deck bottom,
up to 1.5ft long. Bay 6W has spalls/popouts with exposed steel along the length. Spalling and
exposed resteel around scuppers. Active leakage through deck cracks even after days
without rain. (08/22)
All bays, deck actively leaking along all beam top flanges, also hairline cracks in every bay.
Efflorescence buildup on beams bottom flanges with long stalactites along the deck bottom,
up to 1.5ft long. Bay 6W has spalls/popouts with exposed steel along the length. Spalling and
exposed resteel around scuppers. Active leakage through deck cracks even after days
without rain. (08/21)
7. Deck 3 3 3 Many HMA cracks along the surface. Full depth deck cracks are leaking throughout. Noted
(SIA-58) cracking in every bay in bottom of deck. Efflorescence throughout. Bay 6W having spalls with
exposed steel and delaminated concrete. Deck fascia spalled along bottom south side.
Spalling around deck drains. (08/24)
Many HMA cracks along the surface. Full depth deck cracks are leaking throughout. Noted
cracking in every bay in bottom of deck. Efflorescence throughout. Bay 6W having spalls with
exposed steel and delaminated concrete. Deck fascia spalled along bottom south side.
Spalling around deck drains. (08/22)
Many HMA cracks along the surface. Full depth deck cracks are leaking throughout. Noted
cracking in every bay in bottom of deck. Efflorescence throughout. Bay 6W having spalls with
exposed steel and delaminated concrete. Deck fascia spalled along bottom south side.
Spalling around deck drains. (08/21)
8. Drainage poor, scuppers plugged, deck profile is flat. (08/24)
poor, scuppers plugged, deck profile is flat. (08/22)
poor, scuppers plugged, deck profile is flat. (08/21)
SUPERSTRUCTURE
08/21 08/22 08/24
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 08/23/2024 Printed on 08/23/2024 Page 2 of 5
Page 186 of 228
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/22/2024 / HVMD U Unknown Scour
9. Stringer 1 1 1 Water continues to penetrate the deck and pack rust continues to grow. All beams are rusted
(SIA-59) with scale, heavy scale at concrete diaphragms. 6 east beams are the worst with heavy scale
along bottom flange. Beam 2E bottom web hole 4.5ft long at the south end. Beam 3E & 4E
are considered failed likely holes full length, thus the northbound lane has been closed.
Beam 3W has heavy pack rust along bottom of the web with section loss at both ends, north
end web is very thin above the bottom flange. Beam 4W near north abutment has a hole
along bottom of the web 5ft x 1". Beams 1W,2W,5W&6W have lighter rusting with pack rust
forming at backwalls. Concrete diaphragms are cracked and spalled, bottom of west side
diaphragms nearly gone with exposed rebar. Many acts as a sponge with water seeping out
of cracks when hit with a hammer. Closed bridge due to severe steel deterioration. (08/24)
Water continues to penetrate the deck and pack rust continues to grow. All beams are rusted
with scale, heavy scale at concrete diaphragms. 6 east beams are the worst with heavy scale
along bottom flange. Beam 2E bottom web hole 4.5ft long at the south end. Beam 3E & 4E
are considered failed likely holes full length, thus the northbound lane has been closed.
Beam 3W has heavy pack rust along bottom of the web with section loss at both ends, north
end web is very thin above the bottom flange. Beam 4W near north abutment has a hole
along bottom of the web 5ft x 1". Beams 1W,2W,5W&6W have lighter rusting with pack rust
forming at backwalls. Concrete diaphragms are cracked and spalled, bottom of west side
diaphragms nearly gone with exposed rebar. Many acts as a sponge with water seeping out
of cracks when hit with a hammer. Closed bridge due to severe steel deterioration. (08/22)
Water continues to penetrate the deck and pack rust continues to grow. All beams are rusted
with scale, heavy scale at concrete diaphragms. 6 east beams are the worst with heavy scale
along bottom flange. Beam 2E bottom web hole 4.5ft long at the south end. Beam 3E & 4E
are considered failed likely holes full length, thus the northbound lane has been closed.
Beam 3W has heavy pack rust along bottom of the web with section loss at both ends, north
end web is very thin above the bottom flange. Beam 4W near north abutment has a hole
along bottom of the web 5ft x 1". Beams 1W,2W,5W&6W have lighter rusting with pack rust
forming at backwalls. Concrete diaphragms are cracked and spalled, bottom of west side
diaphragms nearly gone with exposed rebar. Many acts as a sponge with water seeping out
of cracks when hit with a hammer. Closed bridge due to severe steel deterioration. (08/21)
10. Paint 0 0 0 20% of the paint is left of the total beam area. (08/24)
(SIA-59A) 20% of the paint is left of the total beam area. (08/22)
20% of the paint is left of the total beam area. (08/21)
11. Section 0 0 0 Holes in webs of B2E-B4E. 25% loss of section on B5E. Holes in 4W north end, 5ft section.
Loss (08/24)
Holes in webs of B2E-B4E. 25% loss of section on B5E. Holes in 4W north end, 5ft section.
(08/22)
Holes in webs of B2E-B4E. 25% loss of section on B5E. Holes in 4W north end, 5ft section.
(08/21)
12. Bearings 4 4 3 Continue to rust mostly embedded in backwalls (08/24)
Continue to rust mostly embedded in backwalls (08/22)
Continue to rust mostly embedded in backwalls (08/21)
SUBSTRUCTURE
08/21 08/22 08/24
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 08/23/2024 Printed on 08/23/2024 Page 3 of 5
Page 187 of 228
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/22/2024 / HVMD U Unknown Scour
13. Abutments 5 5 5 Existing plans were found at the City. Abutments are on timber piles with steel sheeting toed
(SIA-60) approximately 29ft below first concrete ledge above the water level. Steel sheet piling has
uniform light rust scale above the water. The cantilever sidwalk design does a poor job of
holding the approach slopes. South beam seat spalled under beam 3E with rusting rebar.
Rust staining and efflorescence from leaking deck. (08/24)
Existing plans were found at the City. Abutments are on timber piles with steel sheeting toed
approximately 29ft below first concrete ledge above the water level. Steel sheet piling has
uniform light rust scale above the water. The cantilever sidwalk design does a poor job of
holding the approach slopes. South beam seat spalled under beam 3E with rusting rebar.
Rust staining and efflorescence from leaking deck. (08/22)
Existing plans were found at the City. Abutments are on timber piles with steel sheeting toed
approximately 29ft below first concrete ledge above the water level. Steel sheet piling has
uniform light rust scale above the water. The cantilever sidwalk design does a poor job of
holding the approach slopes. South beam seat spalled under beam 3E with rusting rebar.
Rust staining and efflorescence from leaking deck. (08/21)
14. Piers N N N (08/24)
(SIA-60) (08/22)
(08/21)
15. Slope N N N (08/24)
Protection (08/22)
(08/21)
16. Channel 5 5 5 Bridge is too small and has poor alignment with stream. Banks are stable. Sand bottom.
(SIA-61) Flow velocity has increased with the lower lake level. (08/24)
Bridge is too small and has poor alignment with stream. Banks are stable. Sand bottom.
Flow velocity has increased with the lower lake level. (08/22)
Bridge is too small and has poor alignment with stream. Banks are stable. Sand bottom.
Flow velocity has increased with the lower lake level. (08/21)
17. Scour 5 5 5 Ex. plans indicate that the abutments are on timber piles and steel sheeting extends 29'
Inspection below the first concrete ledge. Channel bottom is deeper under the bridge than downstream.
No issues with the sheeting noted. (08/24)
Ex. plans indicate that the abutments are on timber piles and steel sheeting extends 29'
below the first concrete ledge. Left Item #113 as is. Channel bottom is deeper under the
bridge than downstream. No issues with the sheeting noted. (08/22)
Ex. plans indicate that the abutments are on timber piles and steel sheeting extends 29'
below the first concrete ledge. Left Item #113 as is. Channel bottom is deeper under the
bridge than downstream. No issues with the sheeting noted. (08/21)
APPROACH
08/21 08/22 08/24
18. Approach 5 5 5 Cracks in HMA, 1/2" or less of settlement at abutments, sealant no longer effective. Trees
Pavement and weeds growing out of cracks along reference lines. (08/24)
Cracks in HMA, 1/2" or less of settlement at abutments, sealant no longer effective. Trees
and weeds growing out of cracks along reference lines. (08/22)
Cracks in HMA, 1/2" or less of settlement at abutments, sealant no longer effective. Trees
and weeds growing out of cracks along reference lines. (08/21)
19. Approach N N 5 No approach sidewalk beyond the bridge. In the past, a piece of sidewalk was present at the
Shoulders bridge only. (08/24)
Sidewalks No approach sidewalk beyond the bridge. In the past, a piece of sidewalk was present at the
bridge only. (08/22)
No approach sidewalk beyond the bridge. In the past, a piece of sidewalk was present at the
bridge only. (08/21)
20. Approach slopes look stable with vegetation growth within older erosion areas. No approach railing.
Slopes (08/24)
slopes look stable with vegetation growth within older erosion areas. No approach railing.
(08/22)
slopes look stable with vegetation growth within older erosion areas. No approach railing.
(08/21)
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 08/23/2024 Printed on 08/23/2024 Page 4 of 5
Page 188 of 228
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 BRIDGE SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/22/2024 / HVMD U Unknown Scour
21. Utilities Comcast conduit attached to the east railing. Overhead electric and communications. (08/24)
Comcast conduit attached to the east railing. Overhead electric and communications. (08/22)
Comcast conduit attached to the east railing. Overhead electric and communications. (08/21)
22. Drainage none noted (08/24)
Culverts none noted (08/22)
none noted (08/21)
MISCELLANEOUS
Guard Rail Other Items
Item Rating Item Rating
36A. Bridge Railings 0 71. Water Adequacy 3
36B. Transitions 0 72. Approach Alignment 8
36C. Approach Guardrail 0 Temporary Support 0 No Temporary Supports
36D. Approach Guardrail Ends 0 High Load Hit (M) No
Special Insp. Equipment 1
Underwater Insp. Method 2
False Decking (Timber) Removed to Complete Inspection N/A - No False Decking
Critical Feature Inspections (SIA-92)
Freq Date
92A. Fracture Critical
92B. Underwater
92C. Other Special
92D. Fatigue Sensitive
Modified by: WORDENR1132 on 08/23/2024 Printed on 08/23/2024 Page 5 of 5
Page 189 of 228
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/22/2024 / HVMD U Unknown Scour
Bridge History, Type, Materials Route Carried By Structure(ON Record) Route Under Structure (UNDER Record)
27 - Year Built 1929 5A - Record Type 1 5A - Record Type
106 - Year Reconstructed 5B - Route Signing 5 5B - Route Signing
202 - Year Painted 5C - Level of Service 0 5C - Level of Service
203 - Year Overlay 5D - Route Number 00000 5D - Route Number
43 - Main Span Bridge Type 3 02 5E - Direction Suffix 0 5E - Direction Suffix
44 - Appr Span Bridge Type 10L - Best 3m Unclr-Lt 0 0 10L - Best 3m Unclr-Lt
77 - Steel Type 2 10R - Best 3m Unclr-Rt 99 99 10R - Best 3m Unclr-Rt
78 - Paint Type 9 PR Number PR Number
79 - Rail Type 7 Control Section Control Section
80 - Post Type _ 11 - Mile Point 0 11 - Mile Point
107 - Deck Type 1 12 - Base Highway Network 0 12 - Base Highway Network
108A - Wearing Surface 6 13 - LRS Route-Subroute 0000036114 85 13 - LRS Route-Subroute
108B - Membrane 0 19 - Detour Length 2 19 - Detour Length
108C - Deck Protection 0 20 - Toll Facility 3 20 - Toll Facility
Structure Dimensions 26 - Functional Class 19 26 - Functional Class
28A - Lanes On 2 28B - Lanes Under
34 - Skew 0
29 - ADT 599 29 - ADT
35 - Struct Flared N
30 - Year of ADT 2002 30 - Year of ADT
45 - Num Main Spans 1
32 - Appr Roadway Width 40 42B - Service Type Under 5
46 - Num Apprs Spans 0
32A/B - Ap Pvt Type/Width 5 39.99 47L - Left Horizontal Clear
48 - Max Span Length 35.8
42A - Service Type On 1 47R - Right Horizontal Clear
49 - Structure Length 37.3
47L - Left Horizontal Clear 0.0 54A - Left Feature
50A - Width Left Curb/SW 5.9
47R - Right Horizontal Clear 39.7 54B - Left Underclearance 99 99
50B - Width Right Curb/SW 5.9
53 - Min Vert Clr Ov Deck 99 99 54C - Right Feature
33 - Median 0
100 - STRAHNET 0 54D - Right Clearance 99 99
51 - Width Curb to Curb 40
102 - Traffic Direct 2 Under Clearance Year
52 - Width Out to Out 53.8
109 - Truck % 0 55A - Reference Feature N
112 - NBIS Length Y
110 - Truck Network 0 55B - Right Horiz Clearance 99.9
Inspection Data 114 - Future ADT 1000 56 - Left Horiz Clearance 0
90 - Inspection Date 08/22/2024 115 - Year Future ADT 2022 100 - STRAHNET
91 - Inspection Freq 24 Freeway 0 102 - Traffic Direct
92A - Frac Crit Req/Freq N Structure Appraisal 109 - Truck %
93A - Frac Crit Insp Date 110 - Truck Network
36A - Bridge Railing 0
92B - Und Water Req/Freq N 114 - Future ADT
36B - Rail Transition 0
93B - Und Water Insp Date 115 - Year Future ADT
36C - Approach Rail 0
92C - Oth Spec Insp Req/Freq N Freeway
36D - Rail Termination 0
93C - Oth Spec Insp Date Proposed Improvements
67 - Structure Evaluation 0
92D - Fatigue Req/Freq N
68 - Deck Geometry 8 75 - Type of Work
93D - Fatigue Insp Date
69 - Underclearance N 76 - Length of Improvement
176A - Und Water Insp Method 2
71 - Waterway Adequacy 3 94 - Bridge Cost
58 - Deck Rating 3
72 - Approach Alignment 8 95 - Roadway Cost
58A/B - Deck Surface/Bottom 4 4
103 - Temporary Structure 96 - Total Cost
59 - Superstructure Rating 1
113 - Scour Criticality U 97 - Year of Cost Estimate
59A - Paint Rating 0
60 - Substructure Rating 5 Miscellaneous Load Rating and Posting
61 - Channel Rating 5 37 - Historical Significance 1 31 - Design Load 3
62 - Culvert Rating N 98A - Border Bridge State 41 - Open, Posted, Closed K
Navigation Data 98B - Border Bridge % 63 - Fed Oper Rtg Method 1
101 - Parallel Structure N 64F - Fed Oper Rtg Load 5
38 - Navigation Control 0
EPA ID 64MA - Mich Oper Rtg Method 1
39 - Vertical Clearance 0
Stay in Place Forms 64MB - Mich Oper Rtg 3.7
40 - Horizontal Clearance 0
143 - Pin & Hanger Code 64MC - Mich Oper Truck 1
111 - Pier Protection
148 - No. of Pin & Hangers 65 - Inv Rtg Method 1
116 - Lift Brdg Vert Clear 0
66 - Inventory Load 3
70 - Posting 0
141 - Posted Loading 03NNNN
193 - Overload Class N
Printed on 08/23/2024 Page 1 of 1
Page 190 of 228
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STR 7700 WORK RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Latitude / Longitude MDOT Structure ID Structure Condition
OTTAWA ST 43.2518 / -86.235 614461800205B01 Critical Condition(1)
Feature Length / Width / Spans Owner
MUSKEGON RIVER S BRANCH 37.3 / 53.8 / 1 City: MUSKEGON(4618)
Location Built / Recon. / Paint / Ovly. TSC Operational Status
0.25 MI N OF BAYOU ST 1929 / / / Muskegon(21) K Closed to all traffic(K)
Region / County Material / Design Last NBI Inspection Scour Evaluation
Grand(3) / Muskegon(61) 3 Steel / 02 Multi Str Non Comp 08/22/2024 / HVMD U Unknown Scour
WORK RECOMMENDATIONS HVMD
Inspector Name Agency / Company Name Insp. Freq. Insp. Date
Ryan Worden Scott Civil Engineering 24 08/22/2024
RECOMMENDATIONS & ACTION ITEMS
Recommendation Type Priority Description
Bridge Repl. H Replace bridge or remove.
Printed on 08/23/2024 Page 1 of 1
Page 191 of 228
APPENDIX C. CULVERT ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
SUPPLEMENT
Culvert Primer
Culverts are structures that lie underneath roads, enabling water to flow from one side of the roadway to
the other (Figure C-1 and Figure C-2). The important distinguishing factor between a culvert and a bridge
is the size. Culverts are considered anything under 20 feet while bridges, according to the Federal
Highway Administration, are 20 feet or more. While similar in function to storm sewers, culverts differ
from storm sewers in that culverts are open on both ends, are constructed as straight-line conduits, and
lack intermediate drainage structures like manholes and catch basins. Culverts are critical to the service
life of a road because of the important role they play in keeping the pavement layers well drained and free
from the forces of water building up on one side of the roadway.
Figure C-1: Diagram of a culvert structure
Figure C-2: Examples of culverts. Culverts allow water to pass under the roadway (left), they are straight-line conduits with no
intermediate drainage structures (middle), and they come in various materials (left: metal; middle and right: concrete) and shapes
(left: arch; middle: round; right: box).
31
Page 192 of 228
Culvert Types
Michigan conducted its first pilot data collection on local agency culverts in the state in 2018. Of almost
50,000 culverts inventoried as part of the state-wide pilot project, the material type used for constructing
culverts ranged from (in order of predominance) corrugated steel, concrete, plastic, aluminum, and
masonry/tile, to timber materials. The shapes of the culverts were (in order of predominance) circular,
pipe arch, arch, rectangular, horizontal ellipse, or box. The diameter for the majority of culverts ranged
from less than 12 inches to 24 inches; a portion, however, ranged from 30 inches to more than 48 inches.
Culvert Condition
Several culvert condition assessment practices exist. The FHWA has an evaluation method in its 1986
Culvert Inspection Manual. In conjunction with descriptions and details in the Ohio Department of
Transportation’s 2017 Culvert Inspection Manual and Wisconsin DOT’s Bridge Inspection Field Manual,
the FHWA method served as the method for evaluating Michigan culverts in the pilot. In 2018, Michigan
local agencies participated in a culvert pilot data collection, gathering inventory and condition data; full
detail on the condition assessment system used in the data collection can be found in Appendix G of the
final report (https://www.michigan.gov/documents/tamc/TAMC_2018_Culvert_Pilot_Report_Complete_634795_7.pdf).
The Michigan culvert pilot data collection used a 1 through 10 rating system, where 10 is considered a
new culvert with no deterioration or distress and 1 is considered total failure. Each of the different culvert
material types requires the assessment of features unique to that material type, including structural
deterioration, invert deterioration, section deformation, blockage(s) and scour. Corrugated metal pipe,
concrete pipe, plastic pipe, and masonry culverts require an additional assessment of joints and seams.
Slab abutment culverts require an additional assessment of the concrete abutment and the masonry
abutment. Assessment of timber culverts only relied on blockage(s) and scour. The assessments come
together to generate condition rating categories of good (rated as 10, 9, or 8), fair (rated as 7 or 6), poor
(rated as 5 or 4), or failed (rated as 3, 2, or 1).
Culvert Treatments
The MDOT Drainage Manual addresses culvert design and treatments. Of most importance to the
longevity of culverts is regular cleaning to prevent clogs. More extensive treatments may include re-
positioning the pipe to improve its grade and lining a culvert to achieve more service life after structural
deterioration has begun.
32
Page 193 of 228
APPENDIX D. TRAFFIC SIGNALS ASSET
MANAGEMENT PLAN SUPPLEMENT
Traffic Signals Primer
Types
Electronic traffic control devices come in a large array of configurations, which include case signs (e.g.,
keep right/left, no right/left turn, reversible lanes), controllers, detection (e.g., cameras, push buttons),
flashing beacons, interconnects (e.g., DSL, fire station, phone line, radio), pedestrian heads (e.g., hand-
man), and traffic signals. This asset management plan is only concerned with traffic signals (Figure D-1)
as a functioning unit and does not consider other electronic traffic control devices.
Figure D-1: Example of traffic signals
Condition
Traffic signal assessment considers the functioning of basic tests on a pass/fail basis. These tests include
battery backup testing, components testing, conflict monitor testing, radio testing, and underground
detection.
Treatments
Traffic signals are maintained in accordance with the Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices. Maintenance of traffic signals includes regular maintenance of all components, cleaning and
servicing to prevent undue failures, immediate maintenance in the case of emergency calls, and provision
of stand-by equipment. Timing changes are restricted to authorized personnel only.
33
Page 194 of 228
APPENDIX E. GLOSSARY & ACRONYMS
Glossary
Alligator cracking: Cracking of the surface layer of an asphalt pavement that creates a pattern of
interconnected cracks resembling alligator hide. This is often due to overloading a pavement, sub-base
failure, or poor drainage.5
Asset management: A process that uses data to manage and track road assets in a cost-effective manner
using a combination of engineering and business principles. Public Act 325 of 2018 provides a legal
definition: “an ongoing process of maintaining, preserving, upgrading, and operating physical assets cost
effectively, based on a continuous physical inventory and condition assessment and investment to achieve
established performance goals”.6
Biennial inspection: Inspection of an agency’s bridges every other year, which happens in accordance
with National Bridge Inspection Standards and Michigan Department of Transportation requirements.
Bridge inspection program: A program implemented by a local agency to inspect the bridges within its
jurisdiction systematically in order to ensure proper functioning and structural soundness.
Capital preventative maintenance: Also known as CPM, a planned set of cost-effective treatments to
address of fair-rated infrastructure before the structural integrity of the system has been severely
impacted. These treatments aim to slow deterioration and to maintain or improve the functional condition
of the system without significantly increasing the structural capacity. Light capital preventive
maintenance is a set of treatments designed to seal isolated areas of the pavement from water, such as
crack and joint sealing, to protect and restore pavement surface from oxidation with limited surface
thickness material, such as fog seal; generally, application of a light CPM treatment does not provide a
corresponding increase in a segment’s PASER score. Heavy capital preventive maintenance is a set of
surface treatments designed to protect pavement from water intrusion or environmental weathering
without adding significant structural strength, such as slurry seal, chip seal, or thin (less than 1.5-inch)
overlays for bituminous surfaces or patching or partial-depth (less than 1/3 of pavement depth) repair for
concrete surfaces.
Chip seal: An asphalt pavement treatment method consisting of, first, spraying liquid asphalt onto the old
pavement surface and, then, a single layer of small stone chips spread onto the wet asphalt layer.
City major: A road classification, defined in Michigan Public Act 51, that encompasses the generally
more important roads in a city or village. City major roads are designated by a municipality’s governing
body and are subject to approval by the State Transportation Commission. These roads do not include
roads under the jurisdiction of a county road commission or trunkline highways.
City minor: A road classification, defined in Michigan Public Act 51, that encompasses the generally
less important roads in a city or village. These roads include all city or village roads that are not city
major road and do not include roads under the jurisdiction of a county road commission.
5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile_cracking
6
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
34
Page 195 of 228
Composite pavement: A pavement consisting of concrete and asphalt layers. Typically, composite
pavements are old concrete pavements that were overlaid with HMA in order to gain more service life.
Concrete joint resealing: Resealing the joints of a concrete pavement with a flexible sealant to prevent
moisture and debris from entering the joints. When debris becomes lodged inside a joint, it inhibits proper
movement of the pavement and leads to joint deterioration and spalling.
Concrete pavement: Also known as rigid pavement, a pavement made from portland cement concrete.
Concrete pavement has an average service life of 30 years and typically does not require as much periodic
maintenance as HMA.
Cost per lane mile: Associated cost of construction, measured on a per lane, per mile basis. Also see
lane-mile segment.
County local: A road classification, defined in Michigan Public Act 51, that encompasses the generally
less important and low-traffic roads in a county. This includes all county roads that are not classified as
county primary roads.
County primary: A road classification, defined in Michigan Public Act 51, that encompasses the
generally more important and high-traffic roads in a county. County primary roads are designated by
board members of the county road commissions and are subject to approval by the State Transportation
Commission.
CPM: See Capital preventive maintenance.
Crack and seat: A concrete pavement treatment method that involves breaking old concrete pavement
into small chunks and leaving the broken pavement in place to provide a base for a new surface. This
provides a new wear surface that resists water infiltration and helps prevent damaged concrete from
reflecting up to the new surface.
Crack seal: A pavement treatment method for both asphalt and concrete pavements that fills cracks with
asphalt materials, which seals out water and debris and slows down the deterioration of the pavement.
Crack seal may encompass the term “crack filling”.
Crush and shape: An asphalt pavement treatment method that involves pulverizing the existing asphalt
pavement and base and then reshaping the road surface to correct imperfections in the road’s profile.
Often, a layer of gravel is added along with a new wearing surface such as an HMA overlay or chip seal.
Crust: A very tightly compacted surface on an unpaved road that sheds water with ease but takes time to
be created.
Culvert: A pipe or structure used under a roadway that allows cross-road drainage while allowing traffic
to pass without being impeded; culverts span up to 20 feet.7
Dowel bar retrofit repair: A concrete pavement treatment method that involves cutting slots in a
cracked concrete slab, inserting steel bars into the slots, and placing concrete to cover the new bars and
fill the slots. It aims to reinforce cracks in a concrete pavement.
7
Adapted from Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
35
Page 196 of 228
Dust control: A gravel road surface treatment method that involves spraying chloride or other chemicals
on the gravel surface to reduce dust loss, aggregate loss, and maintenance. This is a relatively short-term
fix that helps create a crusted surface.
Expansion joint: Joints in a bridge that allow for slight expansion and contraction changes in response to
temperature. Expansion joints prevent the build up of excessive pressure, which can cause structural
damage to the bridge.
Federal Highway Administration: Also known as FHWA, this is an agency within the U.S. Department
of Transportation that supports state and local governments in the design, construction, and maintenance
of the nation’s highway system.8
Federal-aid network: Portion of road network that is comprised of federal-aid routes. According to Title
23 of the United States Code, federal-aid-eligible roads are “highways on the federal-aid highways
systems and all other public roads not classified as local roads or rural minor collectors”.9 Roads that are
part of the federal-aid network are eligible for federal gas-tax monies.
FHWA: See Federal Highway Administration.
Flexible pavement: See hot-mix asphalt pavement.
Fog seal: An asphalt pavement treatment method that involves spraying a liquid asphalt coating onto the
entire pavement surface to fill hairline cracks and prevent damage from sunlight and oxidation. This
method works best for good to very good pavements.
Full-depth concrete repair: A concrete pavement treatment method that involves removing sections of
damaged concrete pavement and replacing it with new concrete of the same dimensions in order to restore
the riding surface, delay water infiltration, restore load transfer from one slab to the next, and eliminate
the need to perform costly temporary patching.
Geographic divides: Areas where a geographic feature (e.g., river, lake, mountain) limits crossing points
of the feature.
Grants: Competitive funding gained through an application process and targeted at a specific project type
to accomplish a specific purpose. Grants can be provided both on the federal and state level and often
make up part of the funds that a transportation agency receives.
Gravel surfacing: A low-cost, easy-to-maintain road surface made from aggregate and fines.
Heavy capital preventive maintenance: See Capital preventive maintenance.
HMA: See hot-mix asphalt pavement.
Hot-mix asphalt overlay: Also known as HMA overlay, this a surface treatment that involves layering
new asphalt over an existing pavement, either asphalt or concrete. It creates a new wearing surface for
traffic and to seal the pavement from water, debris, and sunlight damage, and it often adds significant
structural strength.
Hot-mix asphalt pavement: Also known as HMA pavement, this type of asphalt creates a flexible
pavement composed of aggregates, asphalt binder, and air voids. HMA is heated for placement and
8
Federal Highway Administration webpage https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
9
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
36
Page 197 of 228
compaction at high temperatures. HMA is less expensive to construct than concrete pavement, however it
requires frequent maintenance activities and generally lasts 18 years before major rehabilitation is
necessary. HMA makes up the vast majority of local-agency-owned pavements.
IBR: See IBR element, IBR number, and/or Inventory-based Rating System™.
IBR element: A feature used in the IBR System™ for assessing the condition of roads. The system relies
on assessing three elements: surface width, drainage adequacy, and structural adequacy.10
IBR number: The 1-10 rating determined from assessments of the weighted IBR elements. The
weighting relates each element to the intensity road work needed to improve or enhance the IBR element
category.11
Interstate highway system: The road system owned and operated by each state consisting of routes that
cross between states, make travel easier and faster. The interstate roads are denoted by the prefix “I” or
“U.S.” and then a number, where odd routes run north-south and even routes run east-west. Examples are
I-75 or U.S. 2.12
Inventory-based Rating System™: Also known as the IBR System™, a rating system designed to
assess the capabilities of gravel and unpaved roads to support intended traffic volumes and types year
round. It assesses roads based on how three IBR elements, or features—surface width, drainage adequacy,
and structural adequacy—compare to a baseline, or “good”, road.13
Investment Reporting Tool: Also known as IRT, a web-based system used to manage the process for
submitting required items to the Michigan Transportation Asset Management Council. Required items
include planned and completed maintenance and construction activity for roads and bridges and
comprehensive asset management plans.
IRT: See Investment Reporting Tool.
Jurisdiction: Administrative power of an entity to make decisions for something. In Michigan, the three
levels of jurisdiction classification for transportation assets are state highways, county roads, and city and
village streets. State highways are under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Transportation,
county roads are under the jurisdiction of the road commission for the county in which the roads are
located, and city and village streets are under the jurisdiction of the municipality in which the roads are
located.
Jurisdictional borders: Borders between two road-owning-agency jurisdictions, or where the roads
owned by one agency turn into roads owned by another agency. Examples of jurisdictional borders are
township or county lines.
Lane-mile segment: A segment of road that is measured by multiplying the centerline miles of a roadway
by the number of lanes present.
Lane-mile-years: A network’s total lane-miles multiplied by one year; a method to quantify the
measurable loss of pavement life.
10
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
11
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
12
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.cfm#question3
13
Adapted from Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
37
Page 198 of 228
Light capital preventive maintenance: See Capital preventive maintenance.
Limited access areas: Areas—typically remote areas—serviced by few or seasonal roads that require
long detours routes if servicing roads are closed.
Main access to key commercial districts: Areas where large number or large size business will be
significantly impacted if a road is unavailable.
Maintenance grading: A surface treatment method for unpaved roads that involves re-grading the road
to remove isolated potholes, washboarding, and ruts, and then restoring the compacted crust layer.
MDOT: See Michigan Department of Transportation.
MDOT’s Local Bridge Program Call for Projects: A call for project proposals for replacement,
rehabilitation, and/or preventive maintenance of local bridges that, if granted, receives bridge funding
from the Michigan Department of Transportation. The Call for Projects is made by the Local Bridge
Program.
MGF: See Michigan Geographic Framework.
Michigan Department of Transportation: Also known as MDOT, this is the state of Michigan’s
department of transportation, which oversees roads and bridges owned by the state or federal government
in Michigan.
Michigan Geographic Framework: Also known as MGF, this is the state of Michigan’s official digital
base map that contains location and road information necessary to conduct state business. The Michigan
Department of Transportation uses the MGF to link transportation assets to a physical location.
Michigan Public Act 51 of 1951: Also known as PA 51, this is a Michigan legislative act that served as
the foundation for establishing a road funding structure by creating transportation funding distribution
methods and means. It has been amended many times.14
Michigan Public Act 325 of 2018: Also known as PA 325, this legislation modified PA 51 of 1951 in
regards to asset management in Michigan, specifically 1) re-designating the TAMC under Michigan
Infrastructure Council (MIC); 2) promoting and overseeing the implementation of recommendations from
the regional infrastructure asset management pilot program; 3) requiring local road three-year asset
management plans beginning October 1, 2020; 4) adding asset classes that impact system performance,
safety or risk management, including culverts and signals; 5) allowing MDOT to withhold funds if no
asset management plan submitted; and 6) prohibiting shifting finds from a country primary to a county
local, or from a city major to a city minor if no progress toward achieving the condition goals described in
its asset plan.15
Michigan Public Act 499 of 2002: Also known as PA 499, this legislation requires road projects for the
upcoming three years to be reported to the TAMC.
Michigan Transportation Asset Management Council: Also known as the TAMC, a council comprised
of professionals from county road commissions, cities, a county commissioner, a township official,
regional and metropolitan planning organizations, and state transportation department personnel. The
14
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
15
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
38
Page 199 of 228
council reports directly to the Michigan Infrastructure Council.16 The TAMC provides resources and
support to Michigan’s road-owning agencies, and serves as a liaison in data collection requirements
between agencies and the state.
Michigan Transportation Fund: Also known as MTF, this is a source of transportation funding
supported by vehicle registration fees and the state’s per-gallon gas tax.
Microsurface treatment: An asphalt pavement treatment method that involves applying modified liquid
asphalt, small stones, water, and portland cement for the purpose of protecting a pavement from damage
caused by water and sunlight.
Mill and hot-mix asphalt overlay: Also known as a mill and HMA overlay, this is a surface treatment
that involves the removal of the top layer of pavement by milling and the replacement of the removed
layer with a new HMA layer.
Mix-of-fixes: A strategy of maintaining roads and bridges that includes generally prioritizes the spending
of money on routine maintenance and capital preventive maintenance treatments to impede deterioration
and then, as money is available, performing reconstruction and rehabilitation.
MTF: See Michigan Transportation Fund.
National Bridge Inspection Standards: Also known as NBIS, standards created by the Federal Highway
Administration to locate and evaluate existing bridge deficiencies in the federal-aid highway system to
ensure the safety of the traveling public. The standards define the proper safety for inspection and
evaluation of all highway bridges.17
National Center for Pavement Preservation: Also known as the NCPP, a center that offers education,
research, and outreach in current and innovative pavement preservation practices. This collaborative
effort of government, industry, and academia entities was established at Michigan State University.
National Functional Class: Also known as NFC, a federal grouping system for public roads that
classifies roads according to the type of service that the road is intended to provide.
National highway system: Also known as NHS, this is a network of roads that includes the interstate
highway system and other major roads managed by state and local agencies that serve major airports,
marine, rail, pipelines, truck terminals, railway stations, military bases, and other strategic facilities.
NBIS: See National Bridge Inspection Standards.
NCPP: See National Center for Pavement Preservation.
NCPP Quick Check: A system created by the National Center for Pavement Preservation that works
under the premise that a one-mile road segment loses one year of life each year that it is not treated with a
maintenance, rehabilitation, or reconstruction project.
NFC: See National Functional Class.
Non-trunkline: A local road intended to be used over short distances but not recommended for long-
distance travel.
16
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
17
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis/
39
Page 200 of 228
Other funds: Expenditures for equipment, capital outlay, debt principal payment, interest expense,
contributions to adjacent governmental units, principal, interest and bank fees, and miscellaneous for
cities and villages.
PA: See Michigan Public Act 51, Michigan Public Act 325, and/or Michigan Public Act 499.
Partial-depth concrete repair: A concrete pavement treatment method that involves removing spalled or
delaminated areas of concrete pavement, usually near joints and cracks, and replacing with new concrete.
This is done to provide a new wearing surface in isolated areas, to slow down water infiltration, and to
help delay further freeze-thaw damage.
PASER: See Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating system.
Pavement reconstruction: A complete removal of the old pavement and base and construction of an
entirely new road. This is the most expensive rehabilitation of the roadway and also the most disruptive to
traffic patterns.
Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating system: Also known as the PASER system, the PASER
system rates surface condition on a 1-10 scale, where 10 is a brand new road with no defects, 5 is a road
with distress but that is structurally sound and requires only preventative maintenance, and 1 is a road
with extensive surface and structural distresses that is in need of total reconstruction. This system
provides a simple, efficient, and consistent method for evaluating the condition of paved roads.18
Pothole: A defect in a road that produces a localized depression.19
Preventive maintenance: Planned treatments to an existing asset to prevent deterioration and maintain
functional condition. This can be a more effective use of funds than the costly alternative of major
rehabilitation or replacement.
Proactive preventive maintenance: Also known as PPM, a method of performing capital preventive
maintenance treatments very early in a pavement’s life, often before it exhibits signs of pavement defect.
Public Act 51: See Michigan Public Act 51 of 1951
Public Act 325: See Michigan Public Act 325 of 2018
Public Act 499: See Michigan Public Act 499 of 2002
Reconstruction and rehabilitation programs: Programs intended to reconstruct and rehabilitate a road.
Restricted load postings: A restriction enacted on a bridge structure when is incapable of transporting a
state’s legal vehicle loads.
Rights-of-way ownership: The owning of the right-of-way, which is the land over which a road or
bridge travels. In order to build a road, road agencies must own the right-of-way or get permission to
build on it.
Rigid pavement: See concrete pavement.
18
Adapted from Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
19
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
40
Page 201 of 228
Road infrastructure: An agency’s road network and assets necessary to make it function, such as traffic
signage and ditches.
Road: The area consisting of the roadway (i.e., the travelled way or the portion of the road on which
vehicles are intended to drive), shoulders, ditches, and areas of the right of way containing signage.20
Roadsoft: An asset management software suit that enables agencies to manage road and bridge related
infrastructure. The software provides tools for collecting, storing, and analyzing data associated with
transportation infrastructure. Built on an optimum combination of database engine and GIS mapping
tools, Roadsoft provides a quick, smooth user experience and almost unlimited data handling
capabilities.21
Ruts/rutting: Deformation of a road that usually forms as a permanent depression concentrated under the
wheel path parallel to the direction of travel.22
Scheduled maintenance: Low-cost, day-to-day activities applied to bridges on a scheduled basis that
mitigates deterioration.23
Sealcoat pavement: A gravel road that has been sealed with a thin asphalt binder coating that has stone
chips spread on top.
Service life: Time from when a road or treatment is first constructed to when it reaches a point where the
distresses present change from age-related to structural-related (also known as the critical distress
point).24
Slurry seal: An asphalt pavement treatment method that involves applying liquid asphalt, small stones,
water, and portland cement in a very thin layer with the purpose of protecting an existing pavement from
being damaged by water and sunlight.
Structural improvement: Pavement treatment that adds strength to the pavement. Roads requiring
structural improvement exhibit alligator cracking and rutting and are considered poor by the TAMC
definitions for condition.
Subsurface infrastructure: Infrastructure maintained by local agencies that reside underground, for
example, drinking water distribution systems, wastewater collection systems, and storm sewer systems.
TAMC: See Michigan Transportation Asset Management Council.
TAMC pavement condition dashboard: Website for viewing graphs of pavement and bridge
conditions, traffic and miles travelled, safety statistics, maintenance activities, and financial data for
Michigan’s cities and villages, counties, and regions, as well as the state of Michigan.
TAMC’s good/fair/poor condition classes: Classification of road conditions defined by the Michigan
Transportation Asset Management Council based on bin ranges of PASER scores and similarities in
defects and treatment options. Good roads have PASER scores of 8, 9, or 10, have very few defects, and
require minimal maintenance. Fair roads have PASER scores of 5, 6, or 7, have good structural support
but a deteriorating surface, and can be maintained with CPM treatments. Poor roads have PASER scores
20
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
21
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
22
Paving Class Glossary
23
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
24
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
41
Page 202 of 228
of 1, 2, 3, or 4, exhibit evidence that the underlying structure is failing, such as alligator cracking and
rutting. These roads must be rehabilitated with treatments like heavy overlay, crush and shape, or total
reconstruction.
Tax millages: Local tax implemented to supplement an agency’s budget, such as road funding.
Thin hot-mix asphalt overlay: Application of a thin layer of hot-mix asphalt on an existing road to re-
seal the road and protect it from damage caused by water. This also improves the ride quality and
provides a smoother, uniform appearance that improves visibility of pavement markings.25
Transportation infrastructure: All of the elements that work together to make the surface transportation
system function including roads, bridges, culverts, traffic signals, and signage.
Trigger: When a PASER score gives insight to the preferred timeline of a project for applying the correct
treatment at the correct time.
Trunkline abbreviations: The prefixes M-, I-, and US indicate roads in Michigan that are part of the
state trunkline system, the Interstate system, and the US Highway system. These roads consist of anything
from 10-lane urban freeways to two-lane rural highways and even one non-motorized highway; they
cover 9,668 centerline miles. Most of the roads are maintained by MDOT.
Trunkline bridges: Bridge present on a trunkline road, which typically connects cities or other strategic
places and is the recommended rout for long-distance travel.26
Trunkline maintenance funds: Expenditures under a maintenance agreement with MDOT for
maintenance activities performed on MDOT trunkline routes.
Trunkline: Major road that typically connects cities or other strategic places and is the recommended
route for long-distance travel.27
Washboarding: Ripples in the road surface that are perpendicular to the direction of travel.28
Wedge/patch sealcoat treatment: An asphalt pavement treatment method that involves correcting the
damage frequently found at the edge of a pavement by installing a narrow, 2- to 6-foot-wide wedge along
the entire outside edge of a lane and layering with HMA. This extends the life of an HMA pavement or
chip seal overlay by adding strength to significantly settled areas of the pavement.
Worst-first strategy: Asset management strategy that treats only the problems, often addressing the
worst problems first, and ignoring preventive maintenance. This strategy is the opposite of the “mix of
fixes” strategy. An example of a worst-first approach would be purchasing a new automobile, never
changing the oil, and waiting till the engine fails to address any deterioration of the car.
25
[second sentence] http://www.kentcountyroads.net/road-work/road-treatments/ultra-thin-overlay
26
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_road
27
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_road
28
Inventory-based Rating System for Gravel Roads: Training Manual
42
Page 203 of 228
List of Acronyms
CPM: capital preventive maintenance
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration
HMA: hot-mix asphalt
I: trunkline abbreviation for routes on the Interstate system
IBR: Inventory-based Rating
M: trunkline abbreviation for Michigan state highways
MDOT: Michigan Department of Transportation
MTF: Michigan Transportation Fund
NBIS: National Bridge Inspection Standards
NCPP: National Center for Pavement Preservation
NHS: National Highway System
PA 51: Michigan Public Act 51 of 1951
PASER: Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating
R&R: reconstruction and rehabilitation programs
TAMC: (Michigan) Transportation Asset Management Council
US: trunkline abbreviation for routes on the US Highway system
43
Page 204 of 228
APPENDIX F. MAPS FROM FIGURES
PASER Ratings West
PASER Ratings East
Unpaved Roads West
Unpaved Roads East
List of Planned Projects
Planned Projects
Culverts West
Culverts East
Signals West
Signals East
Key Routes
44
Page 205 of 228
Page 206 of 228
Page 207 of 228
Page 208 of 228
Page 209 of 228
List of Planned Projects
Project Owner Fiscal Year Calendar Year Road Name Project Name Proj Class Treatment Description Project ID
City of Muskegon 2027 2026 Catherine Ave Catherine Ave Reconstruction Bituminous Reconstruction 115137
City of Muskegon 2027 2026 Lakeshore Dr Lakeshore Dr; Beach to 600 feet west of Sherin Heavy CPM Cold milling and overlay 105556
City of Muskegon 2027 2025 Western Ave 92507 Western Mill and Fill Rehabilitation Bituminous Resurfacing 112443
City of Muskegon 2027 2026 Western Ave W Western Reconstruction Reconstruction Reconstruction 112444
City of Muskegon 2028 2026 Muskegon Ave 92523 Muskegon Webster Ramps Rehabilitation Bituminous Resurfacing 112445
City of Muskegon 2028 2026 Webster Ave 92523 Muskegon Webster Ramps Rehabilitation Bituminous Resurfacing 112445
Page 210 of 228
Page 211 of 228
Page 212 of 228
Page 213 of 228
Page 214 of 228
Page 215 of 228
Page 216 of 228
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: February 10, 2026 Title: Beach Warning System Update — Proposal
Submitted by: Kyle Karczewski, Parks and Department: DPW- Parks
Recreation Director
Brief Summary:
Staff requests authorization to contract with SwimSmart Technology based on their proposal for
upgraded electronic beach safety signage and notification systems.
Detailed Summary & Background:
The City of Muskegon has utilized electronic beach safety signage at Pere Marquette Beach for
several years as part of its layered water safety and public notification strategy. As the existing
equipment approaches the end of its expected service life and maintenance needs increase, staff
has been exploring options to improve reliability, expand public communication, and modernize
beach safety operations in a cost-predictable manner.
This proposal presents a partnership with SwimSmart Technology to upgrade and expand electronic
beach safety signage and associated software using a Hardware-as-a-Service (HaaS) model. The
system relies on automated updates driven by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) weather advisories to provide real-time hazard communication, automate public and inter-
agency notifications, and improve data collection and reporting. The HaaS model reduces long-term
maintenance uncertainty by bundling hardware, software, support, and upgrades into a single
annual cost. Costs may be paid annually or bundled into a four-year lump-sum payment, which
aligns with the City’s budgeted beach safety improvements identified in the 2024 Parks Master Plan
Capital Improvement Plan.
The pilot includes options ranging from migration of the City’s existing signage into the new service
model to a full expansion of seven strategically located beach safety signs, with optional cameras,
weather sensors, and public-facing web tools. Participation as a pilot community provides
discounted pricing and included software features in exchange for feedback during system
development.
The proposed signs are standalone units that resemble the existing stop-light style warning systems
currently located at the Pere Marquette concession stand and Mack Kite building. Proposed
locations include near Margaret Drake Elliot Park (as you round the ovals area), an additional sign
between the two existing signs, one sign at each end of Lake Michigan Park (south of the filtration
plant), and a sign at Kruse Park. A location map is included in the proposal.
Goal/Action Item:
2027 Goal 1: Destination Community & Quality of Life - Parks and Recreation Department and
Services
Page 217 of 228
Is this a repeat item?:
Explain what change has been made to justify bringing it back to Commission:
Amount Requested: Budgeted Item:
$99,510 Yes x No N/A
Fund(s) or Account(s): Budget Amendment Needed:
445-901-801-092338 Yes No x N/A
Recommended Motion:
Move to authorize staff to contract with SwimSmart Technology based on their proposal for
upgraded electronic beach safety signage and notification systems.
Approvals: Name the Policy/Ordinance Followed:
Immediate Division x
Head
Information x
Technology
Other Division Heads
Communication x
Legal Review x
Page 218 of 228
Page 219 of 228
CITY OF MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
2026 BEACH SAFETY TECHNOLOGY PILOT PROGRAM
JANUARY 7, 2026
SWIMSMART TECHNOLOGY LLC | P.O. Box 152, Marquette Michigan 49855
Page 220 of 228
City of Muskegon Officials,
We’re excited for the opportunity to propose a major improvement to your beach safety program.
Over the past 5 years SwimSmart has continued to learn from beaches around the country to improve its
offering. As our first customer we look forward to implementing the next round of improvements to the City of
Muskegon’s beaches. After learning from some of the needs of the Muskegon team, we’re pleased to provide
the following pilot proposal.
We typically find that the “last mile” of communication — actually informing families before or when they
arrive at the beach — remains the weakest link in a layered water safety strategy. Having a robust public
notification process is crucial to any effective water safety policy.
Key issues we consistently hear:
• Manual aluminum signage is often delayed, inconsistent, or simply ignored
• Weak, multiple click, or unrelated online portals are used by <10 % of visitors (89–95 % of beachgoers
in peer studies never check ahead or see posted signs)
• Coordination across state, county, academic, and sometimes non-profit organizations is time-
consuming and error-prone
Page 221 of 228
Beach Safety Program Ecosystem:
Our vision is to bring interconnected technological improvements to the typical beach safety program. From data
collection and reporting, notifying internal and external partners, and swapping out beach warning flags or
creating social media posts – we are working hard to improve the entire ecosystem.
The technology will be designed around a centralized platform for beach managers, health and parks
departments, and emergency management to collaborate more efficiently. The platform will perform useful tasks
such as logging data, generating reports, receiving weather advisories, sending out online notifications, and
updating electronic signage.
Improving data collection and reporting:
• Software will automatically pull online weather data for data collection.
• Equipped camera snapshots taken at the time of light color changes for data collection.
• Equipped weather stations would bring real-time onsite weather data.
• Electronic signage automatically logs light colors and timestamps for reporting.
• Monthly, seasonal, or other periodic reports show trends, events, and more.
Automating internal and public notifications:
• Set automatic thresholds or event driven notifications such as when advisories are issued.
• Automatically generate (and post) social media or email notifications - (e.g. rip current advisory)
• Notify staff of high hazard days after Beach Hazard Statement or other weather events.
• Notify other agencies or departments of beach advisories, send reports, or other data bundles.
• Integrations with existing CodeRed and Emergency Management city/county notification systems.
Better online engagement with your beaches:
• Live online viewer of public beaches is a critical part of the Public Education ecosystem.
• The one stop shop for the public to access online City of Muskegon real time beach information.
• Integrated camera footage collected from signage attachment.
• Including weather advisories, recent beach tester data, and beach status.
Page 222 of 228
Summer 2026 Implementation:
1. Renovate the current 2 beach safety signs at Pere Marquette.
2. Moving the kite shack unit to the new bathroom for better visibility.
3. Establish networking mast on water treatment plant roof.
4. Custom City of Muskegon electronic beach safety signage at the specified 5 new locations.
5. Software applications to control and monitor the signs remotely.
Summer 2027 Pilot Improvements:
1. Expanding software dashboard to:
a. Track data, sign color timestamps, and weather in a portal.
b. Generate social media posts, emails, and interface with message notification services for
public advisories.
c. Send internal stakeholder notifications such as email, app notifications, and tool integration
based upon events: NWS advisories, closures, etc.
2. Coastal camera system for weather forecasting, public viewing, and public safety operations.
a. Specialty pan-tilt-zoom, thermal, or infrared cameras if desired. Please note that specialty
cameras (or additional cameras) would be at an additional cost.
3. Dynamic beach webpage for Pere Marquette Beach public viewing with real time beach data, camera
feeds, and park information.
4. Creation of a real-time beach forecasting system using weather sensors and cameras to estimate wave
action and people counting.
a. Nearshore wave and condition tracking and estimation.
b. People counting, patterns, and forecasting for visitor data collection.
Page 223 of 228
Proposed Muskegon Pilot – 2026 and 2027 Overview
• 7 signs at the locations specified by City of Muskegon.
• Upgrading and improving current signage.
• Upgrading traffic lights to new warning light versions.
• Base station, camera, and weather station mast installed on roof of water treatment plant.
• Addition of coastal forecasting software.
• Full software dashboard to improve your current workflow and collaboration.
• Dynamic webpage for real-time online beach information.
The new developments in the pilot program will come out in phases over the next two swim seasons. We have
parallel teams working on each of the major projects: dashboard improvements, forecasting sensors, cameras,
alerting platforms, etc.
It’s estimated that the yearly savings of being a pilot partner on the equivalent software would be
approximately $6,000, notification integration $2,000, webcams $3,600, and dynamic webpage $2,400 per
year. The savings based on this pilot program would range from $8,000 to $14,000 a year in included ancillary
software/services. We will honor these included pilot features for the duration of the signed pilot contract.
Upfront Est. Yearly
Package Yearly Cost Discount Pilot Features
Cost Pilot Savings
Full 7 Sign Package + $ 23,253.23 15 % $ 6,498.02 $ 14,000 Above features plus Weather
Base Station (4-Year Sensors, Cameras, Web Portal
paid in advance)
The following quote is a one-time discounted (4-year renewal term) offer to become a pilot partner
community. The four-year renewal discount is 15%, bringing the 4-year price to $93,012.92. The initial setup
cost is $6,498.02. This brings the quote to $99,510.94.
We’re working hard to implement technology to improve critical aspects of a comprehensive water safety
strategy such as data collection, reporting, and public notification processes. Your participation in this program
will offer large discounts in return for critical beta tester feedback as we develop out these features.
We hope to have City of Muskegon be our partner for this new technology pilot!
Thank you.
Jacob Soter
Managing Director jacob.soter@swimsmarttech.com +1-(734)-819-8789
Page 224 of 228
E S TI MATE
SwimSmart Technology LLC support@swimsmarttech.com
PO Box 152 +1 (734) 819-8789
Marquette, MI 49855-0152 www.swimsmarttech.com
Bill to Ship to
Kyle Karczewski Kyle Karczewski
City of Muskegon, MI (60419) City of Muskegon, MI (60419)
City of Muskegon DPW City of Muskegon DPW
1350 East Keating Ave. 1350 East Keating Ave.
Muskegon, Michigan 49442 Muskegon, Michigan 49442
Estimate details
Estimate no.: SSQ-60419-260128
Estimate date: 01/28/2026
Expiration date: 03/28/2026
# Product or service Description Qty Rate Amount
1. SwimSmart Safety Bundle - Per Year SwimSmart Safety Bundle (Per Year) - 4 4 $27,356.74 $109,426.96
YEAR
2. Implementation Fee Implementation of services, training, 1 $6,498.02 $6,498.02
configuration, etc.
Subtotal $115,924.98
Ways to pay Discount -$19,214.04
Shipping $2,800.00
Pay by Credit Card, ACH, or Checks mailed to:
SwimSmart Technology LLC P.O. Box 152, Marquette Michigan
49855
Total $99,510.94
Deposit
$49,7 55.47
due
Expiry
03/28/2026
date
Accepted date Accepted by
Page 225 of 228
Agenda Item Review Form
Muskegon City Commission
Commission Meeting Date: February 10, 2026 Title: Approve CRC Recommendations
Submitted by: Jessica Grimm, Elections Department: City Clerk
Coordinator
Brief Summary:
Recommendations from the February 9, 2026, CRC meeting.
Detailed Summary & Background:
Goal/Action Item:
Is this a repeat item?:
Explain what change has been made to justify bringing it back to Commission:
Amount Requested: Budgeted Item:
Yes X No X N/A X
Fund(s) or Account(s): Budget Amendment Needed:
Yes X No X N/A X
Recommended Motion:
Approve the CRC recommendations for board positions.
Approvals: Name the Policy/Ordinance Followed:
Immediate Division
Head
Information
Technology
Other Division Heads
Communication
Legal Review
Page 226 of 228
The Community Relations Committee recommends to the City Commission approval of the following:
Member Resignation:
• John Wiegers – Citizens District Council – Community Development Block Grant
• Derika Nichols – Citizens District Council – Community Development Block Grant
Member Appointments and *Member Reappointments
Citizens Police Review Board
Eric Hood – term expiring 01/31/2028
Downtown Development Authority – Brownfield Redevelopment Authority Board – TIFA
Brad Hastings – moved to “A” member who has an interest in the property in the district – term expiring
01/31/2027
Kathryn Lynnes – appointed to position “B” – term expiring 01/31/2030
Equal Opportunity Committee
Kiara McCain Ward 3 Representative – term expiring 01/31/2027
Farmers Market Advisory Board
Jon Visser – term expiring 01/31/2029
Sabryna Benmark – term expiring 01/31/2029
Housing Code Board of Appeals
Benjamin Carson – term expiring 01/31/2027
Lakeside Business Improvement District
Louise Hopson – term expiring 01/31/2029
Page 227 of 228
Local Officers Compensation Commission
Gregory Borgman – term expiring 1/31/2030
Planning Commission
Shonie Blake – term expiring 1/31/2029
Page 228 of 228
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails