Muskegon County Comprehensive Plan
2013
Prepared by
Contents
Acknowledgements ...... i Chapter 1: Muskegon Area-Wide Plan ...... 1-1 Chapter 2: Gaining a Feel for the Community ...... 2-1 Chapter 3: Trends and Analysis ...... 3-1 Chapter 4: Alternative Development Scenarios ...... 4-1 Chapter 5: Smart Growth: the Preferred Scenario ...... 5-1 Chapter 6: Implementation Strategies ...... 6-1 Chapter 7: Implementation & Evaluation ...... 7-1 Chapter 8: Sustainability ...... 8-1 Chapter 9: Conclusions ...... 9-1 Appendices Appendix A: SWOT Analysis Results Appendix B: Key Person Interview Summary Report Appendix C: Phone Survey Executive Summary Appendix D: Muskegon County Sustainability Plan Appendix E: Evaluation Survey Appendix F: References
Acknowledgements
Map Advisory Committee Members Alcoa City of Muskegon City of Muskegon Heights City of North Muskegon City of Norton Shores City of Whitehall County of Muskegon – Board County of Muskegon – Clerk Funding for this project made possible through the County of Muskegon – Community Michigan Community Pollution Development Prevention Grant Program, County of Muskegon – Grants Coordinator Michigan Department of
County of Muskegon – Public Health Environmental Quality County of Muskegon – Public Works/Sustainability County of Muskegon – Wastewater Management Grand Valley State University – Annis Water Resources Institute Laketon Township Muskegon Area First Muskegon Community College Muskegon County Road Commission Muskegon Township Senator Geoff Hansen’s Office United Way of Muskegon County
i
Chapter 1: Muskegon Area-Wide Plan
1-1
MAP Update In 2011, the County of Muskegon received a It is important to note that neither the MAP Pollution Prevention (P2) grant from the Steering Committee nor the County of Michigan Department of Environmental Muskegon has the land use authority under Quality (DEQ). The West Michigan Michigan law to implement the shared Shoreline Regional Development county-wide vision through zoning. Commission (WMSRDC) was a sub- However, the local jurisdictions who have recipient of the grant to update the been full participants in the planning process Muskegon Area-wide Plan. Since the have that authority. Therefore, the completion of the original MAP document implementation of land use policies will in 2005, numerous changes had occurred in ultimately be under the control of the the county including the redevelopment of townships, cities and villages in Muskegon downtown Muskegon and the economic County. Other policies included in the MAP effects of the 2008 recession to name a few. can be implemented through partnerships In October 2011, WMSRDC with guidance between a wide range of partners within the from the MAP Advisory Committee, began community. the two year process of updating the document. The update was completed in How the MAP Project Began September 2013. The MAP project began in 1999 when the supervisors of Dalton, Laketon, and What is the Muskegon Townships were discussing the MAP? updates of their existing comprehensive The Muskegon plans. During that conversation, it was Area-wide Plan suggested to include more communities and (MAP) is a develop a regional plan. As the discussion comprehensive county-wide process continued, it was quickly decided to invite integrating land use and other regional every unit of government in the County of concerns. The process is a true grassroots Muskegon to participate in the process. effort to develop a county-wide vision for Muskegon County. The process was The three township supervisors then initiated and is being lead by local units of approached the West Michigan Shoreline government and community leaders. As a Regional Development Commission result, each city, township, village, and the (WMSRDC) for assistance in coordinating county all have an equal voice in the the effort. The WMSRDC is a regional development of the county-wide vision. planning agency that promotes and fosters regional development in West Michigan The mission of the Muskegon Area-wide through cooperation amongst local Plan is to involve citizens in creating a governments. WMSRDC, under the shared vision for the future of Muskegon direction of the three supervisors, called a County. multi-jurisdictional planning meeting with the 27 units of government plus the County The MAP establishes visions and goals for of Muskegon to discuss the development of the county, based on analysis of existing a county-wide plan in early 2000. The data sources, extensive mapping, and public meeting was successful with overwhelming participation during the process. An support for the idea. By the end of 2000, a implementation plan enhances the MAP 40-member steering committee was formed process. with each jurisdiction, as well as many community agencies and organizations,
1-2
appointing a member and alternate to serve comparison to the counties surrounding on the committee. The MAP Steering Muskegon County. Committee members are community leaders representing agriculture, environmental Muskegon County shares boarders with the interests, business development, local fast-growing counties of Kent, Ottawa, and government, education, and public interest Newaygo. In addition, the past decade has groups. been marked by growing public concern over increasing traffic congestion, air Once the MAP Steering Committee was pollution, loss of farmland and green space, formed, WMSRDC was designated to as well as infrastructure costs flowing from coordinate the project and act as staff to the the current urban development patterns in committee. After several months of Muskegon County. These development organizational meetings and fundraising patterns are dominated by low-density efforts, the project officially kicked off single-use residential, business, and during the summer of 2002. commercial development, usually on prime agricultural lands, with the automobile being Why is the MAP Project Important? the only viable means of transportation. The Muskegon area combines economic opportunity with an exceptional quality of Muskegon County’s urban areas struggle to life and unique natural resources. For attract residents and retain jobs. Township generations, Muskegon County’s inland governments are challenged to finance lakes, miles of rivers, and spectacular Lake public improvements and to provide services Michigan waterfront have attracted with limited resources. Sensitive individuals from throughout the Midwest environmental and agricultural lands are and beyond. Over the next 20 years, increasingly encroached upon. Resolving Muskegon County’s population was this problem requires a comprehensive expected to grow by 13.3 percent to nearly approach: i.e., the MAP project. Simply 195,064 people. Although this does not expanding services such as roads and water seem startling, the amount of land that is and sewer lines is not feasible. predicted to be developed during that same time period is alarming. The rate of land One obstacle to crafting effective solutions consumption in Muskegon County over the lies in the existing structure of our next 20 years is nearly 20,000 acres of land. governments: most land use plans guiding This disproportional consumption of land in future development are prepared and Muskegon County is much greater in adopted by local units of government, while most transportation and infrastructure planning is conducted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which is the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission, and the County Wastewater Authority. The region needs to view new development, land use, transportation, and infrastructure systems at the same level to ensure any public investment
Figure 1.1: Muskegon County Population and Land Use Projections
1-3
decisions are smart decisions. In addition, Michigan Law, townships have the potential such issues as the loss of open space and to develop into cities, and many are over- agricultural lands are directly affected by zoned. The term over-zoned means that if a how and where Muskegon County grows. jurisdiction were to completely develop based on its current zoning ordinance, there The major challenges before Muskegon would be more people and buildings than County are how to plan the best use of the existing infrastructure and land could undeveloped and agricultural land, how to handle. protect our natural environment, how to maximize urban redevelopment and infill Planning and Zoning in Muskegon opportunities, and how to coordinate these County efforts throughout Muskegon County. Muskegon County was incorporated in 1859 with a total population of 3,947. At the A History of Planning and Zoning in time, the county was divided into six the State of Michigan townships that consisted of Muskegon, During the mid 1900s, the Michigan state Norton, Ravenna, White River, Dalton, and legislature passed numerous acts granting Oceana. Today, nearly 150 years later, counties, cities, townships, and villages the Muskegon County consists of seven cities, ability to regulate land use within their four villages, and 16 townships totaling a jurisdiction. These acts include the population of more than 172,000. following: All 27 local units of government in • MCL 125.201 et seq. County Muskegon County have an active Land Zoning Act Use/Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance in • MCL 125.101 et seq. County place as allowed by Michigan Law. Planning Act However, local units of government are • MCL 125.31 et seq. Municipal facing planning issues that cross Planning Act jurisdictional boundaries including roads, • MCL 125.271 et seq. Township water, sewer, air quality, school districts, Zoning Act etc. Until the development of the MAP in • MCL 125.321 et seq. Township 2005, Muskegon County was the only Planning Act county in western Michigan from the Traverse Bay area to the Indiana border that Currently under the above planning and did not have an active county-wide zoning acts, Michigan townships, cities, and comprehensive development plan as allowed villages cannot practice exclusionary by Michigan Law. Since 2005, local zoning. This means that each jurisdiction governments and community leaders have has to allow for a number of different land been attempting to work together to address use categories including residential, these challenges through the MAP project, commercial, industrial, and open space. For which will shape and direct the future of example, a jurisdiction, by law, is required Muskegon County for the next 20 years. to allow for industrial land within its borders, even if the residents do not wish to have that form of development in their community. This reality causes the biggest concern for the 1,241 townships in Michigan. In theory, based on current
1-4
Chapter 2: Gaining a Feel for the Community
2-1
Gaining a Feel for the Community During the first phase of the MAP project, an extensive public participation program was conducted in order to gain an understanding of the community’s perception about the past, present, and future of Muskegon County. A number of public involvement techniques were undertaken as a result. The techniques include the following activities:
• Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis, • Stakeholder Interviews, • Community Survey, and • Community Forums.
The results of these public participation techniques are outlined below and summary reports are included in the Appendix. The results of the public participation efforts have had a tremendous effect on the formulation of the MAP Visions and Goals.
SWOT Analysis During the summer of 2002, the MAP Steering Committee conducted a SWOT
Analysis exercise to assess the existing and future conditions of Muskegon County. A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis is a highly effective way to identify a community’s existing conditions/attitudes and possible future direction, as well as assist a community to focus on the areas where it is strong and where its greatest opportunities lie. Following is a list of the top issues identified by the Steering Committee for each of the four SWOT Analysis categories. A complete report of the SWOT Analysis can be found in the Appendix.
2-2
2-3
The Muskegon area needs an identity Stakeholder Interviews that celebrates and encompasses all In August 2002, 19 persons who have a that Muskegon has to offer. vested interest in the future of the Muskegon area were interviewed by HNTB Michigan The quality of life in the Muskegon Inc. The list of persons interviewed was area is outstanding and therefore generated and agreed upon by the MAP must be protected and enhanced in Steering Committee and includes individuals order to be recognized as a great that have been highly involved in Muskegon place to visit, work, live, and play. County from both the public and private sectors. The purpose of the stakeholder There is a necessity for a interviews was to gain additional collaborative approach to this information about the area’s history along project – the entire community and with the existing conditions. The 19 all decision makers must take stakeholders interviewed, collectively have ownership in order to make the 830 years of experience in the county and Muskegon Area-wide Plan a local knowledge of the Muskegon area. successful document that will lead to They were generous with their time and Muskegon’s future identity and eager to see the potential of the Muskegon health. area be realized.
The majority of the stakeholders interviewed Community Survey were aware that many planning studies have A community phone survey was conducted taken place, not only in Muskegon County, in November 2002. The survey was but also at the regional level. The prepared with assistance and final approval stakeholders were eager to see the outcomes from the MAP Steering Committee. EPIC- of these studies and plans, as well as the MRA, a full service firm with expertise in MAP project. For this reason, public opinion research and analysis implementation became a primary focus of conducted the survey. A total of 302 adult the MAP. The stakeholders also noted that residents of Muskegon County participated there have been positive strides towards a in the 20-minute phone survey. collaborative atmosphere between the Respondents were selected utilizing an municipalities, but also noted that there is interval method of randomly selected still room for improvement. Of all the records of households with publicly listed issues identified during the interview phone numbers. The sample was stratified process, the five that were heard most so that every area of the county was frequently are identified below, in no represented in the sample, proportionate to particular order. A complete report of the its population within the county. stakeholder interviews can be found in the Appendix. The results of the survey now serve as a clearing house for the concerns, likes, and Key Issues dislikes of the residents of Muskegon County. This information is an invaluable What is the future of Downtown source of data to help plan for future growth Muskegon? and development in the county. The following are some of the main results from What will become of the Muskegon the community survey. Mall property?
2-4
When respondents were asked what they liked most about Muskegon County, 34 Water pollution ...... 78% percent of respondents cited, “water” (the proximity of lakes, rivers, and activities The quality of schools in the area ...... 73% related to them) as their top choice. In a related question, when asked what they Air pollution ...... 68% disliked most about Muskegon County, 21 percent of respondents stated that there was, Future planning and development of the “nothing” they disliked about Muskegon, downtown and lakefront areas ...... 68% and 16 percent were undecided or did not know what they disliked about the county. The ability to expand and develop the existing manufacturing base ...... 68% According to EPIC-MRA, it is indeed good news for Muskegon County to have one feature identified by more than one third of Most important factors that would attract all respondents as something they liked, future development to the county: with no particular items jumping out as something they disliked about Muskegon Many beautiful beaches...... 94% County. A skilled labor force ...... 94% Results of the survey are summarized in the chart below. The Executive Summary and Good retail opportunities...... 92% Demographic Analysis of the Community Survey can be found in Appendix C. People willing to work together ...... 92%
Survey Results Strong school system and opportunity for higher education ...... 92% Why do you live in the community where you reside? Top policy goals identified by residents: To live in a place that is quiet ...... 88% Encourage the creation and expansion of Safety from crime ...... 79% businesses and industries creating new jobs ...... 96% A strong sense of community ...... 77% Continue to provide more investments in Less traffic congestion ...... 76% higher education and job training ...... 91%
The availability and quality of affordable Provide tax and financial incentives for the housing ...... 73% reuse and redevelopment of the inner city areas ...... 81%
Community issues of highest personal Strengthen Muskegon County’s image as a concern: tourist attractions ...... 81%
The out-migration of good paying jobs.. 79%
2-5
attendees were asked to respond to the Community Forums (First Set) exercise by stating what they liked and A total of seven community forums were disliked about how the map looked with the held through the duration of the MAP future development in place. Below are the process. The first set of three community top reactions from the map exercise: forums was held in January 2003, with approximately 175 community members Top Reactions attending. The forums were held in three different locations throughout the county which included Ravenna Township, There is too much sprawl. Muskegon Township, and Whitehall We need to preserve open space and Township. The purpose of the first set of farmland. forums was to gain additional knowledge and viewpoints of Muskegon County Density should be increased. residents and to concentrate on establishing We need to redevelopment the inner a vision for the future of Muskegon County. cities. During the forums, attendees learned about What is the impact on existing past trends in Muskegon County and then infrastructure? participated in a highly effective mapping exercise. The map exercise was based on What is the cost of new infrastructure? past trends and growth rates in which future We need to develop around existing development trends were projected. infrastructure Attendees were informed that by the year 2020, an additional 20,500 acres of land was projected to be developed in Muskegon County, in three major land use categories: Upon the completion of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats Land Use Categories (SWOT) Analysis; Stakeholder Interviews; Community Survey; and Community
Forums, it was evident that the hundreds of Residential Land 18,000 acres participants who provided the valuable Commercial Land 1,800 acres information have extremely strong opinions Industrial Land 700 acres and ideas about the past, present, and future of Muskegon County. Some of the main Attendees, grouped into tables of between underlying themes that arose during this six and eight people, were given a map of process are the need to capitalize on the Muskegon County with currently developed area’s assets, including Muskegon County’s land identified and color-coded into land use proximity to water and its high quality of categories. Participants were then given life, protection and preservation of the packages of Legos® in three different colors county’s abundant natural resources, secure representing the projected residential, economic viability, and the creation of commercial, and industrial lands to be balance between development in urban and developed. With each round peg of a Lego® rural areas. representing 40 acres, the groups were asked to place the Legos® on a map of Muskegon County where they believed the development should occur in the county. Once the exercise was completed, the
2-6
county and community leaders have made Defining the MAP Principles great strides to diversify the area’s economy. However, in order to foster economic The following graphic was created based viability within Muskegon County, leaders upon the compiled information from the should also provide better choices in public participation process. It identifies the transportation, housing, and jobs for all four MAP principles, the five visions areas, residents. and key focus areas addressed in the objectives. Social Equity Muskegon County is blessed with ethnic and The four guiding principles encircling the social diversity. In order to embrace and outer ring of the graph serve as the achieve social equity within Muskegon framework and foundation for the visions County, it is necessary to provide fair and goals of the MAP. Every vision and growth outcomes and shared benefits for all goal was written with the idea of striving for people. each of the four guiding principles within Muskegon County. Public Involvement GUIDING PRINCIPLES Public involvement is critical not only in creating a vision for Muskegon County, but Economic Viability also for making that vision a reality in the Muskegon County has rode on an economic years to come. Therefore, greater citizen roller coaster over the past few decades as participation must be encouraged in local have many counties across the United government and community planning. States. This is further described in Chapter 3, Trends and Analysis. In recent years,
2-7
GOALS: Healthy Environment • Managing Future Development: Muskegon County’s unique and abundant encouraging development to occur in natural resources are one if its greatest areas with existing infrastructure, being assets. Because of this, it is crucial to aware of environmental impacts, protect and preserve the area’s natural incorporating sustainable practices, and resources and provide livable, safe, and promoting public-private partnerships. healthy communities. • Strengthening Downtowns: encourage mixed-use development, increase Creating a Vision and Identifying availability of healthy foods/grocery Goals stores, and enhance arts/cultural activities. The five visions were established during the • Planning & Zoning: improve initial development of the MAP. The related intergovernmental cooperation, goals were reestablished during the update communication, and collaboration; process as a result of information gathered education of local elected officials and during the five community forums held planning commissioners; and minimize during October 2012, and the input of the zoning impediments/encourage MAP Advisory Committee. flexibility. • Improve Community Image: including VISION 1: Land Use and Growth not only the county’s physical appearance, but also the community’s Encourage and promote land use and prevailing self-image. growth patterns that sustain and improve quality of life in Muskegon County, while VISION 2: Natural Resources, Open maintaining a strong sense of place, Space, and the Environment community, and responsibility. Protect and preserve natural resources and continually improve the quality of air, water, Coordinating land-use planning poses and land resources found in Muskegon challenges for both urban and rural County. communities alike. Small communities may lack the resources and urban communities may be overcome by development decisions Recognition and wise use of natural and pressures by neighboring communities. resources defines what many people value The goals are designed to strengthen local about Muskegon County. Each goal seeks land use planning by supporting to enhance development in local coordination across political jurisdictions. jurisdictions and quality of life for all New strategies such as open space residents. State, federal, and local programs preservation programs and in-fill will leverage coordination to achieve the redevelopment are promoted. goals. Best practices, such as conservation zones, would incorporate preservation and protection in new development. In addition, the protection and enhancement of both the quantity and quality of natural resources will be emphasized in the implementation strategies of the MAP.
2-8
and natural resources attributes, rural areas can develop local strategies to strengthen economic opportunity.
GOALS: • Brownfields: identify and remediate contaminated sites, extend infrastructure GOALS: to areas of known contamination, and prepare sites for redevelopment. • Workforce Development/Education: • Green Infrastructure and Greenspace promote collaboration between Protection: develop greenspace targets, educational providers and area business encourage infill development to to provide an educated workforce, preserve greenspace, increase green promote existing partnerships and infrastructure, and promote public programs, and develop life/critical access to public lands. thinking skills in our young people. • • Watershed and Habitat Business Retention and Attraction: Protection/Restoration: increase expand existing efforts, foster collaboration, continues education on cooperation/collaboration, embrace and restoration activities, and continued promote the agricultural industry. habitat restoration • Environmental Revitalization: identify, • Surface Water and Groundwater prioritize, and remediate area Quality: continued efforts to manage brownfields; and continue Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS), environmental cleanup efforts. promote groundwater protection efforts, • Infrastructure: develop a county-wide and seek funding for sewer and water approach to improve and maintain infrastructure. infrastructure, promote the usage of the Port of Muskegon, provide multi-modal VISION 3: Economy and Jobs transportation options, and address water and sewer issues.
• Commercial Area and Neighborhood Promote economic development and Revitalization: increase efforts to diversity that ensures access to jobs, goods, revitalize existing commercial and and services throughout Muskegon County. downtown areas, encourage
development of sense of place, and continue neighborhood revitalization It is vital to create a healthy balance between efforts. development in urban and rural areas. • Tourism: continue to promote and Abandoned main streets and employment market year-round tourism in Muskegon centers lead to dispersed development and County. community decline. To minimize sprawl and decline, urban communities will need to identify economic assets (land, skilled labor, etc.) to foster redevelopment and investment. By marketing historic, cultural,
2-9
VISION 4: Infrastructure System (MATS) and coordinate the efforts of all area transit providers. Develop a county-wide approach to • Water and Sewer Expansion: expand improving and maintaining infrastructure, water and sewer infrastructure into transportation, public facilities, and developed areas with contamination community services. issues, and encourage increased cooperation/collaboration. The quality and availability of existing infrastructure (water and sewer), VISION 5: Quality of Life transportation, public facilities, and services affects quality of life and determines where Promote high quality of life by recognizing development occurs. As development Muskegon County for its diversity, continues in rural areas, greater and environmental, educational, arts, cultural, expanded services are expected by residents. and recreational assets. New residents are often looking for a lifestyle that offers the best of both city and country living. Strategies to promote wise Quality of life overlaps both individual and investment, planning, and land use will be community needs and is closely intertwined encouraged to be utilized by local with the first four visions. It is important to governments to control costs and minimize promote a high quality of life by providing a impacts to the environment. better understanding of the health, education, cultural assets, and needs for all citizens. Coordination between local agencies, non-profits, service providers, and local governments would be strengthened.
GOALS: • Intergovernmental Cooperation: increase intergovernmental cooperation for the improvement and maintenance of GOALS: infrastructure. • Non-Motorized or Multimodal • New Downtown Development: Transportation: promote non-motorized encourage new development and start- and multi-modal transportation up business in downtowns, and promote alternatives, and encourage Complete activities and businesses that draw Streets to be implemented throughout young people. the county. • Adequate and Available Medical Care: • Port Development/Utilization: attract and retain quality doctors to the encourage public/private partnerships, area, and strive to improve the overall as well as enhance both commercial and health of Muskegon County. recreational port activities. • Promotion of Muskegon County • Mass Transit: continue to expand the Wastewater System: promote the services of the Muskegon Area Transit numerous recreational opportunities at the wastewater site.
2-10
• Educational Attainment: strive to improve the educational attainment level, encourage increased cooperation and collaboration. • Healthy Lifestyles: education on healthy lifestyle choices and promote existing recreational opportunities. • Bringing Young People to the Planning Table: encourage partnerships that incorporate youth with local government and planning efforts in the community and promote activities that engage children in the community planning process.
Update Process
During the MAP update, a set of five community forums were held to review and identify new implementation activities. Each forum focused on one of the five vision areas including Land Use and Growth, Natural Resources & Environment, Economy & Jobs, Infrastructure, and Quality of Life. The forums were held during the month of October 2012, and were held at various locations throughout Muskegon County. The original MAP visions did not change during the update, however, there were significant changes made to the goals and implementation strategies. These changes are reflected in this chapter, as well as in Chapter 6: Implementation and Chapter 7: Implementation & Evaluation.
2-11
Chapter 3: Trends and Analysis
3-1
Location Organization for Muskegon County and northern Ottawa County, among other roles. Muskegon County is located History on the western side of Michigan, The earliest recorded history of the along the Muskegon area reflects that it was inhabited shoreline of Lake by the Ottawa and Pottawatomi tribes. The Michigan, name “Muskegon” is derived from the midway up the Ottawa Indian term “Masquigon” meaning state’s Lower “marshy river” or “swamp.” The Peninsula. The “Masquigon” river is identified on French county has 27 Figure 3.1: Location Map maps as early as the 17th century, suggesting miles of Lake that French explorers had reached Western Michigan waterfront, 20 inland lakes and Michigan by that time (Yakes). more than 400 miles of rivers. The first known Frenchmen in the area were In 2000, Muskegon County was designated Father Jacques Marquette, who traveled by the US Census Bureau as a Metropolitan through the area in 1675 on his way to St. Statistical Area (MSA), the Muskegon- Ignace and a party of French soldiers under Norton Shores MSA. The county had LaSalle’s lieutenant, Henry de Tonty, who previously been part of the Grand Rapids- passed through in 1679 (Yakes). Muskegon-Holland MSA in the 1990 Census. The earliest known resident of the county was a fur trader and trapper named Edward Muskegon County is located 197 miles from Fitzgerald, who settled in the area in 1748. Detroit, 153 miles from Flint, and 107 miles Settlement of the area began in 1837 with from the state capitol in Lansing. the organization of Muskegon County from Additionally, it is 185 miles from Chicago, portions of Ottawa and Oceana Counties. At 276 miles (highway) from Milwaukee, and the time of its incorporation in 1859, 224 miles from Toledo. Muskegon County had six townships (Muskegon, Norton, Ravenna, White River, The county contains sixteen townships, four Dalton, and Oceana) (Yakes). villages, and seven cities as defined by Michigan law. The county seat is The lumbering era put Muskegon County on Muskegon, which is also the largest city in the map, in economic terms. Ravenna was the county. settled in 1844 when E.B. Bostwick built a sawmill. The city and township were named The county is part of the West Michigan after Ravenna, Ohio, the hometown of the Shoreline Regional Development surveyor who platted the land. Norton Commission (WMSRDC). The agency Shores was settled by Colonel S. Norton in incorporates a five county area, including: 1846. Casnovia was founded in 1850 by a Lake, Mason, Muskegon, Newaygo, and tavern keeper named Lot Fulkerson. Oceana counties. WMSRDC serves as an Montague was first settled in 1855 by Nat Economic Development District for the Sargent. Whitehall was platted in 1859 by region and as the Air Quality Planning Charles Mears and Giles B. Slocum. The Agency and Metropolitan Planning town was originally named after Mears. In 1864 the Muskegon Log Booming Company
3-2
was formed to sort logs and raft them to the mills. In 1868, Fruitport, originally The oil boom in Muskegon County was a Crawville, was founded by Edward Craw. It distinct period during the city’s industrial was renamed a year later when the Pere era. The oil was found by accident in 1869 Marquette Railroad built a station in the when Gideon Truesdell was looking for salt. town that was a fertile fruit growing area They had been drilling in various Muskegon and a port. In 1872 North Muskegon was County locations for salt between 1869 and recoded as Reedsville, named for the first 1886 but the salt they found was settler, Archibald Reed. It was renamed in contaminated with petroleum. In 1922, 1881 when it was incorporated as a village. Stanley Daniloff found oil seepage in the North Muskegon was later incorporated as a swampland near his home, within five years city in 1891 (Multi-Mag Michigan). he had amassed enough funds to have the site drilled and a “gusher” was located in 1890 marked the end of the lumber boom in Muskegon Township in 1927. The price of Muskegon County. Successful area crude oil fell with the depression in 1929 industrialists formed the Muskegon and the oil boom ended (Parrish). Improvement Company to stimulate the economy as it lagged at the end of the During the world war period, Muskegon lumber boom. The Muskegon Improvement became an “Arsenal of Democracy.” In the Company purchased 1,000 acres and sold post war housing boom, Roosevelt Park was the lots in a lottery, using the proceeds to formed as a residential suburb in 1949 and underwrite new businesses. The project was named after Franklin Delano Roosevelt. successful enough that a train station was The 1950s and 60s brought rough economic located in the area (Muskegon Heights) in times to Muskegon County. Many workers 1902 to serve the Chicago & West Michigan were laid off and several local companies Railroad (Yakes). closed. In the 1960s and 70s, consolidation and mergers with national corporations left The lumberman John Torrent built his 31- few locally-owned businesses in the county. room mansion in 1881-1892. He also served The local economy has been struggling to the community as an alderman, a justice of diversify since that time (Yakes). the peace, and as mayor for three terms. In 1972 the city purchased the home to save it Population from demolition. Union Depot was opened in 1885 to serve the Chicago & West Muskegon County was the 12th largest Michigan; Muskegon, Grand Rapids, & county in Michigan in 2010, with 172,188 Indiana; and the Toledo, Saginaw & residents. This population represented Muskegon railroads. It was designed by approximately 1.2 percent growth in A.W. Rush & Son of Grand Rapids in the population over 2000. Population growth in Richardsonian Romanesque style. The Muskegon County has not been constant station was closed in 1971 until it was over the past century. The county grew donated to the county in 1992, restored, and rapidly in the 1920s and 30s, and then again reopened as the visitor’s center and museum in the 1950s and 60s. Over the past thirty (Historical Markers). Lakewood Club was years, the county realized very little formed as a resort association in 1912 by the population change. Mayo brothers. It was popular enough by 1914 that a seasonal post office was set up, The largest age group in the county is the 50 which became permanent in the 1940s to 54 year old age group. The age groups in (Multi-Mag Michigan). early adulthood are smaller than the mid-
3-3
growth in the future, the increases are Percent Growth by Decade 1910 - 2010 expected to be minimal. (Source: Census Bureau) In 2010, 80 percent of the Muskegon County 60.0% population identified themselves as white, 50.0%
40.0% 14.5 percent as black, and 2.8 percent as
30.0% multi-racial. The remaining residents 20.0% identified themselves as American Indian, 10.0% Asian, or some other race not specified by 0.0% the Census. In the State of Michigan, 78.9 -10.0% 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 percent of residents identified themselves as
United States Michigan Muskegon County white, 14.2 percent as black, 2.4 percent as Asian, and 2.3 percent as multi-racial.
Figure 3.2: Percent Growth by Decade The Hispanic population in Muskegon County is 3.6 percent, the state average is career and youth groups. In terms of 4.4 percent. Approximately 91.4 percent of functional age groups, 24.8 percent of the the adult population statewide speaks only county population is under age 18. A small English, while 94.7 percent of Muskegon percentage of the county is college-aged adults, only 9.0 percent. The younger
working age (age 25 to 44) population Muskegon County Population Pyramid makes up 24.8 percent of the population. (Source: Census Bureau) The older workers (age 45 to 64) are another 27.7 percent of the population, and 13.6 90 and over percent of the county is older adults, over 85 to 89 age 65. 80 to 84
75 to 79 The population of Muskegon County was Figure 3.4: Population Projections 70 to 74 primarily urban, inside urbanized areas in 65 to 69 2010, with nearly 70 percent of the 60 to 64 population residing in urbanized areas. An 55 to 59 additional five percent lived in urban 50 to 54 clusters. Twenty-five percent of the county 45 to 49 population lived in rural areas. This Age 40 to 44 distribution is fairly consistent with the state 35 to 39 average. 30 to 34 The Muskegon County population is 25 to 29 expected to grow 1.8 percent by 2020. This 20 to 24 represents approximately 0.6 percent growth 15 to 19 every five years. The county population in 10 to 14 2025 is projected to be 175,214 5 to 9 (WMSRDC). The state of Michigan was the Under 5 only state in the nation to have a population -10 -5 0 5 10 decrease between 2000 and 2010. Although Percent the state population is expected to have Male Female
Figure 3.3: Population Pyramid
3-4
Muskegon County Population Projections (Source: WMSRDC)
180,000 178,000 176,000 174,000 172,000 170,000 168,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Total Population
Figure 3.4: Population Projections of its population. It is important to note that County residents speak only English. More the City of Norton Shores was the only city than two percent of the adult population in the county to realize a population increase statewide and in the county speak Spanish, between 2000 and 2010. more than three percent of children ages 5 to 17 speak Spanish both statewide and in the Households and Families county. There were 65,616 households in Muskegon The black population in Muskegon County County in 2010. Approximately 68 percent is heavily concentrated in the cities of were family households, with spouses, Muskegon and Muskegon Heights. More children under 18 years, or other relatives than 34 percent of the population in the City (persons of 60 years) living in the of Muskegon is black and 78.3 percent of household. Nearly 12 percent of households the population in Muskegon Heights is black. Marital Status of Muskegon County Residents Movement within the county was toward (Source: Census Bureau) decentralization of the population away 15.1% from the urban centers. The largest 29.4% population increases in the county occurred 6.1% in the Village of Lakewood Club with an 1.7% increase of 28.3% between 2000 and 2010. Both Blue Lake and Dalton Townships also realized population growth of 20.5 and 15.6 percent respectively percent 2000 to 2010.
However, Muskegon Heights lost 9.9 47.6%
percent, Whitehall City lost 6.2 percent, and Never Married Married Separated Widowed Divorced the City of North Muskegon lost 6.1 percent Figure 3.5: Marital Status
3-5
were males living alone, and 14.8 percent Housing Units were females living alone. There was a slightly larger percentage of family There were 73,515 housing units in households in Muskegon County than in the Muskegon County in 2010. More than 89.6 state or nation. percent of the units were occupied, a higher occupancy rate than either the state or the More than 26 percent of households were nation. Most townships and municipalities people living alone in the county in the 2010 in the county also had high occupancy rates. Census. Approximately another 37.6 were Nearly three quarters of Muskegon County married couple families with their own housing units were owner occupied in 2010, children under 18 living at home. which is fairly consistent with the state. However, this number is considerably higher In regards to marital status, 29.4 percent of than the national figure. Exceptions to the Muskegon County residents over age 15 had high owner-occupancy rates were in the City never married as of 2010. Nearly half of of Muskegon, Muskegon Heights, Roosevelt county residents over age 15 were currently Park, and Whitehall. Each of these married, approximately six percent were communities had a higher average of widowed, and just over 15 percent were occupied housing units being rented out. In divorced. The county divorced population Muskegon County, approximately 15,500 was somewhat higher than the state and housing units were occupied by renters. The national averages. median monthly rent being paid for these units in 2010 was $642.
Nearly three-quarters of the housing units in Muskegon County were in urban areas, similar to the national and state average.
Like most homes in Michigan (72.8%), just over 76.1 percent of Muskegon County homes were single unit structures. Only a small percentage of the housing in the county is in multi-family units with greater than ten units. Approximately 6.6 percent of Muskegon County housing units were mobile homes, which is above the state average of 5.0 percent.
3-6
Housing units in Muskegon County Value of Ower Occupied Housing Units are a little older, (Source: Census Bureau) on average than in the state or nation. 18,000 The average year 16,000 built of the 14,000 housing stock in 12,000
2010 was 1965 for 10,000 the county, 1969 8,000 for the state, and 6,000 Number Units of 1975 nationally. 4,000
2,000
Owner occupied 0 housing units in Less than $50,000 to $100,000 to $150,000 to $200,000 to $300,000 to $500,000 to $1,000,000 $50,000 $99,999 $149,999 $199,999 $299,999 $499,999 $999,999 or more the county had a median value of $85,900, while the state and national Figure 3.6: Value of Owner Occupied Housing Units values were $115,600 and $119,600 respectively. Most Using these classifications for Muskegon owner-occupied houses in Muskegon County, very low income households earn County had a value between $40,000 and less than $11,586 annually, low income $150,000 in 2010. Homes that were vacant households $11,586 to $19,310, because they were for sale had a median low/moderate income households $19,310 to asking price of $64,700 in the county, $30,897, moderate income households compared to $88,400 statewide and $89,600 $30,897 to $46,345 and middle/upper nationally. The largest number of units income households earn more than $46,345. available was in the $100,000 to $124,999 range. These income levels translate into the ability Housing affordability is related to household to rent or buy housing. In terms of monthly income. Household incomes are divided payments, households in Muskegon County into five general classifications based on US can afford the following (based on 34.2% Department of Housing and Urban housing expense to income ratio): Development (HUD) standards: Affordable Rents • Very low income (<30% of area median Income Group Monthly Payments income) • Low income (30-50% of area median Very low income……………………...$330 income) Low income…………………………...$550 • Low/moderate income (50-80% of area median income) Low/moderate income……………….$880 • Moderate income (80-120% of area Moderate income……………………$1320 median income) • Middle/high income (>120% of area Middle/upper income…..More than $1320 median income) Table 3.7: Affordable rents
3-7
For home ownership, other factors need to wide, 69 permits were issued in 2010, be considered including the required compared to 760 in 2000. insurance, property taxes, and interest rates. Based on standard assumptions of zero monthly debt payments, 4.0% interest over Muskegon County Household Projections 30 years, a 1.25% property tax rate, and 1% (Source: Census Bureau) insurance, the following value homes are affordable in Muskegon County: 72,000 71,000 Affordable Home Values 70,000 Income Group Home Value 69,000 68,000 Very low income…………………..$53,650 67,000 Number of Households of Number Low income………………………..$89,350 66,000 Low/moderate income………..…$142,750 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Moderate income………………..$214,400 Figure 3.9: Household Projections Middle/upper income…………> $214.400 In 2010, 4 new multi-family permits were Table 3.8: Affordable home values issued for a total of 12 units. These multi- family units accounted for 15.6 percent of Household projections were made based on the units in 2010. This was a significant the population projections and the average increase from the previous years. For number of persons per household. The example, 31.4 percent of permits were for national, state, and local population per multi-family units in 2002. household in 2010 was 2.5 persons per household. This figure was used to project Educational Attainment the number of households, which served as a proxy for the needed number of housing Muskegon County young adults are units. pursuing higher education. In 2010, 38.8 percent of those county residents aged 18-24 The population in Muskegon County is expected to grow 1.8 percent by 2020. Muskegon County Educational Attainment Based on 2.5 people per household, that (Functional Age Groups) would mean that more than 71,317 (Source: Census Bureau) housing units would be needed in Muskegon County in 2040. This is an 100 increase of 2,442 units over 2010. 80 Meeting the projected housing need will require the construction of approximately 60 81 housing units per year. 40 Percentage 20 Residential Building Permits The number of residential building 0 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 64 years 65 years and over permits issued in Muskegon County decreased significantly in 2010 compared High school graduate or higher Bachelor's degree or higher to the level of activity in 2000. County-
Figure 3.10: Educational Attainment
3-8
had completed some college or an associate attainment than men due to the opportunities degree and 4.6 percent had completed a available to them as young adults and the bachelor degree. Of adults (over age 25) in culture of the time. Muskegon County, 86.6 percent had completed at least high school (or its However, in all age groups, Muskegon equivalent) and nearly 16.1 percent had County lags significantly behind the state in completed a bachelor’s degree or higher. the percentage of the population that has The county is comparable to the state in obtained at least a bachelor’s degree. On terms of the percentage of residents with a average, only 16 percent of Muskegon high school diploma, but lags the state in County working age residents have obtained residents who have completed at least a at least a bachelor’s degree. bachelor’s degree. It is important to note that the population over age 65 has a lower Labor Force educational attainment than the working age adults, and this reduces the overall The labor force is defined as those who are educational attainment level for the county employed or who are unemployed, but and the state. More than 86 percent of actively looking for work. The labor force adults between 25 and 64 have completed at is based on where people live, so it is those least high school, compared to about 77.6 individuals who live in the county and are percent of residents over age 65. The same employed, regardless of whether they work is true for bachelor’s degrees, more than 16 in the county or elsewhere. percent of working age adults in the county have obtained a bachelor’s degree while There is a labor force participation rate of 13.1 percent of those over age 65 have 60.8 percent among adults age 16 and over obtained them. In the over 65 population, in Muskegon County. Nearly 74 percent of women have significantly lower educational women over age 16 are participating in the Figure 3.12: Unemployment Rate Unemplyment Rate (Source: Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth)
16
14
12
10
8
Percentage 6
4
2
0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Muskegon County Michigan United States
Figure 3.11: Unemployment Rate
3-9
labor force. While, 74.7 percent of and Muskegon County occurred in 2009, Muskegon County males over age 16 are while it didn’t peak until 2010 nationally. participating in the labor force. The largest age groups not participating in the labor Unemployment is a major concern in some force are, not surprisingly, 16 to 19 year olds areas of Muskegon County. The older, more and those over age 65. Over 20 percent of urban cities of Muskegon and Muskegon residents aged 65 to 74 are participating in Heights, as well as Muskegon Township the labor force and nearly four percent of have experienced high unemployment from those over age 75 are participating in the time to time. The City of Muskegon has labor force. This is comparable with state consistently held a higher unemployment labor force participation of older adults and rate than Muskegon County, Michigan, and somewhat lower than national participation the United States. In 2000 unemployment rates. was at 5.4 percent in the city, it reached 18.4 percent in 2009 and declined to 13.4 percent Generally, Muskegon County has a higher in 2011. unemployment rate than either the State of Michigan or the United States. The local unemployment rate does tend to trend with Unemployment Rates the national and state economies, however. Recent When the economy is strong in the state and High Low (2011) Muskegon in the nation, it is strong in Muskegon 18.4 5.4 13.4 County and vice versa. From 1991 to 1998, City (2009) (2000) Muskegon County’s unemployment rate Muskegon 14.4 4.1 (1998 & 10.3 declined from 11.2 percent to 4.4 percent. County (2009) 2000) These were the best economic times in Michigan 13.3 3.7 10.4 recent memory in Muskegon County. The (2009) (2000) worst times were in 1992, and between 2009 United States 9.6 4.0 8.9 - 2011, unemployment rates ranging (2010) (2000) between 10.3 and 14.4 percent in those years. Table 3.12: Community Unemployment Rates Source: Michigan Labor Market Information The highest unemployment in the county corresponds with national recessions in the Employment by Major Industry early 1990s and early 21st century that impacted manufacturing states like Muskegon County traditionally has been Michigan in particular. Unemployment in heavily dependent on manufacturing as a the state was at 3.7 percent in 2000, peaked source of employment. Just over 13 percent (lowest employment) at 13.3 percent in of jobs in the county were in manufacturing 2009, and has gradually declined over the in 2009, compared to 9.6 percent statewide past two years. Nationally, the picture is and 7.1 percent nationally. These numbers similar. Unemployment was 4.0 percent in have been steadily declining over the past 2000, rose to 9.6 percent in 2010, and several years. declined slightly in 2011. High unemployment tends to peak earlier in Other significant employment sectors in manufacturing dependent states than in the Muskegon County include health care and national economy as a whole, explaining social services (15.5 percent) and Retail why the worst unemployment in Michigan Trade (15.8 percent). Muskegon County has
3-10
more employment in those sectors than the one quarter of jobs, while services grew state or national average. from 27.8 percent to 32.5 percent. In Muskegon County there was a shift similar Muskegon County has not experienced the in magnitude to the statewide and national structural shift in the economy from a shift, but manufacturing was still the largest manufacturing economy to a service employment sector at 30.8 percent. economy as intensely as the state or the nation. In the 1980s more than 20 percent of In 1997, the US federal government changed jobs in the United States were in the way industries were classified, moving manufacturing. Historically, in from the Standard Industrial Classification manufacturing dependent states like (SIC) system that had remained unchanged Michigan, nearly 30 percent of the jobs were since 1987 (then only modified) to the new in manufacturing as late as 1989. Industrial North American Industrial Classification counties like Muskegon County had nearly System (NAICS). NAICS codes more 35 percent of their employment in accurately reflect the products and services manufacturing. available in the modern economy, but they do not correspond well with SIC codes. By 1997, the economy had shifted away Therefore, a different system is used in from a manufacturing base to a service base. measuring the continued economic shift. In the national economy, the service sector accounted for 21 percent of jobs in 1997, compared to 17.7 percent in manufacturing. Statewide manufacturing had declined to
Employment by Industry 2009 (Source Regional Economic Information System)
16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% Figure 3.15: Projected Employment Change 2011 to 2015 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Health Care Health Retail Trade Government Construction Other Services Administrative Manufacturing Accommodation Finance and Insurance Finance Professional/Technical Muskegon County Michigan United States
Table 3.13: Employment by Industry
3-11
In 2001 approximately 15.2 Muskegon County Employment Changes 2011 to 2015 percent of jobs (Source: WMSRDC, 2011) statewide were in manufacturing 12.0% according to the 10.0% 8.0% Regional Economic 6.0% Information System 4.0% (REIS Data), 2.0% compared with 0.0% -2.0% nearly 10.2 percent -4.0% nationally. In Muskegon County Real Estate Retail Trade Retail Government 18.1 percent of jobs Construction Administrative Accomodations were in manufacturing. Figure 3.14: Employment Changes 2011 to 2015 By 2009, at the end of that employed a large percentage of people the last business cycle, manufacturing in providing goods for export and were accounted for 13.3 percent of jobs in strong performers from 1989 to 1997. These Muskegon County, compared to 9.6 percent industries were: primary metal industries, statewide and 7.1 percent nationally. miscellaneous manufacturing industries, fabricated metal industries, chemicals and Targeted industry analysis is a means of allied products, and rubber and evaluating trends in the local economy to miscellaneous plastics products. Two identify those industries that are current industries that usually serve only markets strengths, emerging strengths, high priority also had sufficient employment to be retention targets, and poor performers due to considered basic employers and were strong local factors or to limited overall prospects performers: general merchandise stores and for the industry. holding/investment offices. Locally two basic manufacturing industries performed The major components of targeted industry poorly from 1989 to 1997: industrial analysis are location quotient and shift- machinery and equipment, and furniture and share. Location quotients reveal whether an fixtures. These are of concern because their industry is a basic (exporting) industry in the poor performance is due to local local economy. The shift-share examines weaknesses. Local industry specializations changed in local employment to determine that lag in performance are considered high how much of the change can be attributed to priority retention targets. Locally these national trends, the industry itself, and local included eating and drinking places, factors. furniture and home furnishing stores, and health services. Due to the change in classification system, the 1989 through 2001 business cycle is The industries that are not current analyzed in two periods, 1989-1997 and specializations but performed well are 1998-2001. considered emerging strengths.
Of basic (exporting) industries in Muskegon County, five were manufacturing sectors
3-12
Muskegon County Employment Projections by Sector (Source: WMSRDC, 2011)
14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Insurance Finance & Finance Real Estate Health Care Health Technical Retail Trade Government Construction Other Services Professional & Administrative Manufacturing Accommodations
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Figure 3.15: Employment Projections by Sector
The local retail industry had strong Poor performance among industries that are employment performance in several sectors. not local specializations indicates structural Service industries including information, problems in those industries nationally and real estate, and health and social services they have limited prospects for employment also performed well. A high-priority growth. retention target identified was the security and commodity contracts sector of the More recently the local economy is finance and insurance industry. evaluated in terms of NAICS classifications. This section of analysis covers 1998 to There were also a number of poor 2009. The economy was at its strongest performers. It is likely that attention can between 1989 and 2001 before the recession better be targeted elsewhere unless these that began in 2002. sectors are considered to be of overriding importance to the local economy. Locally strong performers were found in most industries. Construction sectors were Several sectors in transportation and other more than meeting local demand. services showed promise as emerging Machinery manufacturing and electrical industries including transportation support equipment, appliance, and component services and air transportation. Poor manufacturing performed well, as did performers in these other local industries miscellaneous manufacturing and have limited prospects overall and should nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing. not be considered as employment targets.
3-13
24.8 percent. Next, the Retail Trade sector It is important to remember that this analysis which as been experiencing growth in total only studies the local economy in terms of payroll since 1980, accounted for 9.5 employment. If a local business has percent of the payroll in the county. Finally, invested in technology rather than Wholesale Trade along with construction employment then their strength will be finished off the top five sectors at 5.2 and discounted in this analysis. 4.6 percent respectively.
Employment Projections
Employment projections illustrate further the direction of the local economy. WMSRDC prepares population projections for each county in their jurisdiction. The 2011-2015 projections were released in late 2011.
Total employment in the county is projected to grow 0.8 percent between 2011 and 2015, creating more than 600 new jobs in the local economy. Between 2010 and 2015, the population is expected to grow only 0.6 percent while 1.0 percent job growth is projected. This means that some Muskegon County residents who are unemployed or employed in other counties will likely be able to find work in Muskegon County over the coming years.
Manufacturing employment is expected to continue declining, while professional & technical services; health care & social assistance; and real estate, rental & leasing are expected to increase in employment levels. The construction sector is projected to grow approximately 10 percent by 2015.
In 2009, the Manufacturing sector accounted for the largest portion of Muskegon County’s total payroll at 29.9 percent. Similar to the State of Michigan, payroll in this sector has been on the decline since 1980 when the percentage of total payroll was approximately 52 percent in Muskegon County.
The Health Care sector represented the second largest payroll sector in the county at
3-14
Number of Business Establishments in Muskegon County in 2009
Payroll (1,000) Number of Establishments By Employment-Size Class Number of Employees Total Number 1,000 NAICS First 100- 250- 500- Industry for week Annual of 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 or Code Quarter 249 499 999 including Establishments more March 12 Total 49,479 389,504 1,616,223 3,406 1,702 744 468 318 99 56 14 2 3 11 F.F.H. & A. Support 0 – 19 S 508 5 3 2 ------21 Mining 20 – 99 D D 1 ------1 ------22 Utilities 250 – 499 D D 7 3 1 -- -- 1 2 ------23 Construction 1,579 17,609 74,288 280 205 42 21 8 2 1 1 -- -- 31 Manufacturing 11,045 124,032 481,772 263 72 49 47 46 22 18 7 1 1 42 Wholesale Trade 1,771 19,880 84,243 127 58 27 21 14 4 3 ------44 Retail Trade 7,581 36,626 154,181 586 256 169 78 62 11 5 5 -- -- 48 Transportation 754 7,262 29,747 77 39 18 9 9 1 1 ------51 Information 678 10,152 29,264 59 27 14 9 6 2 1 ------52 Finance & Insurance 1,108 11,617 45,253 207 117 55 27 7 1 ------53 Real Estate 470 3,528 13,723 98 62 23 11 2 ------54 Professional Serv. 1,308 12,842 58,056 229 152 37 29 10 -- 1 ------55 Management 406 6,458 27,612 20 4 6 4 3 3 ------56 Admin. Services 2,929 11,349 53,825 131 75 23 10 9 7 6 -- 1 -- 61 Education Services 652 4,045 15,295 33 18 5 6 2 1 -- 1 -- -- 62 Health Care 10,322 89,882 400,730 399 155 109 63 34 19 17 -- -- 2 71 Arts, Ent., & Rec. 972 3,288 18,664 67 27 14 9 14 3 ------72 Accom. & Food Serv. 5,350 14,384 62,501 323 93 49 83 76 21 1 ------81 Other Services 2,103 9,778 40,261 403 245 101 41 15 1 ------99 Unclassified 20 – 99 S 333 91 91 ------Source: County Business Patterns D: Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual companies; data are included in higher level totals. *Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, and Agriculture Support S: Withheld because estimate did not meet publication standards. Table 3.16: Number of Business Establishment & Major Sector Payroll 3-15
Tax Rates • Eliminated locally levied school operating taxes on most homestead The General Property Tax Act of 1893 property established property taxes as the main • Allowed school districts to levy up to 3 source of revenue for local government in mills of “enhancement” mileage from Michigan. The basis for the tax is real and 1994 to 1996. tangible personal property value that is not • New 6 mill State Education Tax (SET) exempt. Exemptions include: property levied on all property owned by religious and nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, government property, and certain Between 1993 and 2001 non-school agricultural property. Exempt personal property taxes increased an average of three property includes: inventories, special tools, percent statewide, while total mills and air and water pollution control decreased nearly 30 percent. The local equipment. Homestead property is exempt school operating and state education tax from the 18-mill basic local school district mileage was reduced by 57.9 percent during operating tax. that period. The dramatic shift was caused by the changes to state tax law under Beginning in 1995 the property tax base was Proposal A. changed from state equalized value (SEV, equal to 50 percent of the true cash value) to In Muskegon County the 1993 tax rate was taxable value. The taxable value is capped 58.23 mills. In 2001 the rates were 30.68 at five percent growth per year, or the rate of mills for homestead property and 51.29 inflation, whichever is less (unless the mills for non-homestead property. During property is transferred). Once transferred a property’s taxable value rises to its SEV. 2010 Earnings Beginning in 2001, the taxable (Source: Census) value of agricultural land that remains in agricultural use after transfer remains capped. $60,000 $40,000 In 1994, Proposal A brought $20,000 sweeping changes to property tax law in Michigan. The $0 effects of Proposal A include: Muskegon Ottawa State of County County Michigan • Lower property tax rates on
homestead and qualified Figure 3.17: 2010 Earnings agricultural land • Restraints on growth of taxable value the period from 1993 to 2001, homestead • Reduced differences in school operating property mills decreased 47.3 percent in the mileage rates across districts county while non-homestead mills decreased • Divided property tax into two groups: nearly 12 percent. homestead (and qualified agriculture) and non-homestead The local millage rates for 2011 vary depending on a number of factors including the governmental unit and the school
3-16
district. The average tax rate for non- Income homestead property was 51.58 mills, while the average millage rate for homestead The 2010 median household income for property was 33.56 mills. Muskegon County was $38,621, an increase of approximately 1.6 percent in real terms Commuting Patterns over 2000. This is less growth than the State of Michigan experienced. The state as a According to the 2010 Census of workers whole experienced a 9 percent increase in living in the county, 74.4 percent worked in median household income between 2000 the county. Also 25 percent of people living and 2010, with a 2010 median income of in Muskegon County worked outside the $48,669. county. In Muskegon County, 47.1% of households Eighty three percent of workers in the had a median income of less than $35,000, county in 2010 drove a car, truck, or van while 28.4% of households had a median alone to work. This group alone accounts income of between $50,000 and $100,000 for nearly 55,000 vehicles on the roads in according to the 2010 census. Nearly 62 Muskegon County per day for the purpose percent of all households in Muskegon of getting to work. An additional 10 percent County had income below $50,000 in 2010. carpooled. Cost of Living Most Muskegon County residents, more than 77%, enjoyed reasonable commute In terms of cost of living, Muskegon County times of less than 30 minutes in 2010. is more expensive than the Flint, Jackson, Nearly 57% travel less than 20 minutes. Kalamazoo, Lansing, and Saginaw areas. However, it is more affordable than the Ann
Median Household Income 2010 (Source: Census)
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0 Less than $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000 $60,000 $75,000 $100,000 $125,000 $150,000 $200,000 $10,000 to $ to to to to to to to to to to to to to or more 14,999 $19,999 $24,999 $29,999 $34,999 $39,999 $44,999 $49,999 $59,999 $74,999 $99,999 $124,999 $149,999 $199,999
Figure 3.18: Median Income
3-17
Arbor, Benton Harbor, or Detroit areas in activities; however, the success of the state’s Michigan and the Chicago, Illinois or Pure Michigan campaign, launched in 2006, Milwaukee, Wisconsin area. The mean has made headway in attracting new out-of- home purchase cost in 2009 was $124,047 in state visitors to Michigan. In 2010, out-of- Muskegon County compared to $168,888 state visitation was up 21.1% to $6.4 billion, for the State of Michigan as a whole. the first year ever that non-resident leisure visitation exceeded resident leisure Tourism visitation. Visitor spending statewide was $17.2 billion in 2010, a $2.1 billion increase Tourism has a long history of activity in from 2009. Michigan, based on its abundant natural resources and recreational opportunities. Why Muskegon County? The nation’s first convention and visitors bureau was established in Detroit in 1896, Muskegon County has 26 miles of Lake and in the 1920’s, the West Michigan Pike Michigan shoreline, 400 miles of rivers, and (current day US-31) was marketed as a 11,400 acres of inland lakes for outdoor quick and convenient way for Chicagoans to recreation and other activities. The Lake enjoy the beaches, dunes and the “Fruit Michigan shoreline is accessible with eleven Belt” of West Michigan. public parks along the lakefront.
Muskegon County is also home to a number Visitors to Muskegon County Events 2011 of state parks, a state game area, and
Manistee National Forest. The county offers Event Number of year-round outdoor recreation opportunities Visitors with mild summers for water-based Summer Celebration…………..…...88,500 recreation, camping, and hiking, and an Parties in the Park………….……….6,300 array of color in the fall, attracting fall color tour participants. Approximately 80 – 100 Unity Christian Music Fest………..60,000 Irish Music Fest…………….………17,000 WMUS “Moosefest”……...………...11,000 MayFest………………….…………...3,000 Miss Michigan Pageant……………...4,000 Fruitport Old Fashioned Days…...175,000 Hot Rod Power Tour……….……...20,000 Muskegon Bike Time………..……..90,000 Total……………………………….474,800
Table 3.19: Events Families (with children under 18) and corporate travelers are the primary tourists in Michigan. Lodging with friends or relatives remains the most popular form of accommodation statewide, and the state relies heavily on resident travel for tourism
3-18
Table 3.20: Attractions concerts, dance performances, and national Visitors to Muskegon County Attractions tours of Broadway and off Broadway shows. Attraction Number of Visitors It is also home to the Miss Michigan Pageant and associated events, generating Muskegon State Park & Duck Lake State significant tourism activities in the county. Park (day use & camping)……..…..…958,970 Michigan’s Adventure……….…....…850,000+ The former Summer Celebration was a ten- P.J. Hoffmaster State Park & Gillette Visitor day event that has developed a tradition of Center (day use & camping)………….425,406 excellence in music performance and other County Parks: entertainment. Summer Celebration ended Pioneer Park………………………..154,691 in 2011, and a new festival titled Coast West Meinert Park…………………………43,800 was established in 2013. Similarly, the Twin lake Park………………………22,582 Unity Fest brings Christian musicians and Blue Lake Park………………………..4,291 the Moose Fest brings Country musicians to Frauenthal Theater Center……….…....71,000 Heritage Landing each August. The Michigan Irish Music Festival closes out Lakeshore Museum Center Heritage Landing’s festival calendar in mid- Museum………………………………39,000 September. Other destinations include the Hackley & Hume Historic Site……….7,500 USS Silversides Museum and the Great Fire Barn………………………………5,500 Lakes Naval Memorial and Museum. Depression House……………………..4,000
Muskegon Museum of Art……………..30,053 Visitors to Muskegon County USS Silversides…….……………………25,000 Events and attractions in the county bring a LST393 Veteran’s Museum…….……....30,000 significant number of visitors during the Blue Lake Fine Arts Camp….………….18,000 year. In 2011, events and attractions Total…………………………………..2,689,793 brought more than 450,000 visitors to the county. The largest event was the Fruitport inches of snow falls on Muskegon County, Old Fashioned Days, bringing 175,000 providing a myriad of winter outdoor visitors to Muskegon County. In terms of recreational activities including cross attractions, Muskegon State Park has the country skiing, snowmobiling, sledding, largest number of visitors in 2011, with skating, hockey, and ice fishing. The 958,970. Michigan’s Adventure Muskegon Winter Sports Complex offers Amusement and Water Park (850,000+ the United States’ most publically accessible visitors in 2010), P.J. Hoffmaster State Park luge, plus lighted cross country skiing trails (425,406 visitors in 2011), and the county and a lighted skating trail through Muskegon parks (225,000), also attract significant State Park. numbers of visitors each year.
There are also a variety of man-made Visitor spending in Muskegon County in recreational and tourism destinations that 2010 is estimated at $320,820,000. make Muskegon County attractive to According to 2010 figures by the Michigan visitors. Michigan’s Adventure Amusement Economic Development Corporation, Park is the largest amusement park in the Muskegon County was ranked 13th in the state, and the county is home to the Blue state in visitor spending. Lake Fine Arts Camp, attracting young musicians from around the state and world each summer. The Frauenthal Theater hosts
3-19
Economic Impact of Travel 2006 - Financial Tourism Benefits 2010 Muskegon Dollars in Muskegon Local County Millions County Hotel/Motel Tax FY2006…………………...$316.28 Revenue FY2005…………………...$653,087 FY2007…………………...$320.42 FY2006…………………...$842,191 Fy2008…………………...$300.79 Fy2007…………………...$840,309 FY2009…………………...$284.77 FY2008…………………...$829,904 FY2010…………………...$320.82 FY2009…………………...$746,819 Table 3.21: Economic Impact of Travel FY2010…………………...$841,503 Source: Michigan Economic Development Corporation/Travel Michigan FY2011…………………...$854,447
Benefits of Tourism to Muskegon County Table 3.22: Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Source: Muskegon County The benefits of tourism to Muskegon County extend beyond the revenue Seasonal homes generated by area businesses. There are jobs that are created due to tourist activity, and There is a significant amount of second wages paid to those workers. home, seasonal home, recreational housing market in Muskegon County. According to Additionally, the county collects a the 2010 Census, 27 percent of the vacant hotel/motel accommodations tax that housing units in the county were vacant for benefits the county. The covered seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. employment and wages for 2011 in the The number of units specified in that tourism related sectors of arts, category was 2,004. entertainment, and recreation and the accommodations and food service sector Community Facilities provide an indicator of the impact of the tourism industry, even though all of the jobs Police, Fire, & Emergency Services are not solely dependent on visitors to the county (locals dine in restaurants and use The Michigan State Police (MSP) is the entertainment venues as well as tourists). state’s leading law enforcement providing Muskegon County is one of eight Michigan public safety and law enforcement services counties that can collect an excise tax of up for Michigan’s citizens. Along with the to five percent on hotel/motel stays. The police counterparts at the local, county, and Accommodations Tax Rate for Muskegon federal levels of government, the MSP County is five percent and it is collected on assists in preventing crime, apprehending hotel and motel room fees. The revenues fugitives, improving traffic safety, ensuring from the tax can be used for tourism homeland security, providing quality operations and promotion. In fiscal year support services, pursue resources for 2011, the local revenue from this tax was expanded use of technology, and $854,447. maintaining basic police services for local communities in Michigan. State Police law enforcement services for Muskegon County
3-20
are provided by MSP District #6 division also transports inmates to the headquartered in Grand Rapids, MI. The Michigan Department of Corrections. nearest MSP Post is located in Grand Haven, MI, about five miles south of the county Muskegon County Emergency Services is line. the coordinating agency for Muskegon County's preparedness and response to Muskegon County is served by a county disasters and/or emergencies. Emergency sheriff’s department. The county sheriff is Services directs the implementation of the an elected every four years. The Department Muskegon County disaster preparedness also has an Undersheriff, which is appointed activity and is responsible for establishing by the Sheriff. The Patrol Division is the and maintaining effective control and most visible branch of the Muskegon emergency services planning. Its mission, in County Sheriff's Office. The Patrol Division cooperation with the Emergency provides law enforcement service to over Management Division of the Michigan State 70,000 people living in unincorporated areas Police (EMD/MSP) and the Federal throughout the County. The division has 20 Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), deputies, two shift commanders, and a is to save lives and protect property in this division commander. County. This will be accomplished by having an emergency plan and program that The Muskegon County Jail houses 370 is developed and exercised according to inmates managed by 46 full time correction State and Federal guidelines and which takes officers. The main jail houses the holding, into account any unique circumstances minimum to maximum security, as well as within our County. female and juvenile inmates. The Ernest W. Muskegon County Emergency Services Heikkila addition houses work release and include: minimum security inmates. The jail has a redundant state-of-the-art surveillance and • Muskegon County Local cell door locking system needed to maintain Emergency Planning Committee the many levels of security to ensure (LEPC) employee, public and inmate safety. The • Muskegon County's Hazardous Marine Division patrols Lake Michigan and Materials Response Team the inland waters during the summer (HAZMAT) months. The Marine Division handles search and rescues and recoveries in In cases where the situation is jurisdiction- Muskegon County. The Division also wide or extremely severe, and Emergency teaches young people how to become safe Operations Center (EOC) will be activated. boat operators. Classes are held during the The EOC is capable of operating on a school year in cooperation with local continuous or intermittent basis for as long schools. The Division has a sergeant and as the situation requires. When a disaster or four seasonal deputies. The fleet of the large-scale emergency occurs, a Marine Division is made up of 7 patrol boats representative of each agency will be and 1 jet ski including the new Pursuit notified to report to the EOC. At that time, Enforcement 2470cc. The Sheriff's Office the entire EOC staff will be briefed on the provides security, swears warrants and incident. Those not immediately involved serves subpoenas for the Muskegon County will be released on a stand-by basis. District, Circuit and Probate Courts. Court Services is responsible for providing inmates with their time in court. The
3-21
EOC Locations maintenance of public records. The Police Primary EOC Alternate EOC Services Division operates within the Location Locations context of community policing i.e., forming Muskegon County City of Whitehall community partnerships to reduce crime and Emergency Police/Fire Building enhance the quality of life within the city. Services Complex The police department currently has 91 1611 Oak Ave., sworn positions and 11 non-sworn positions. Muskegon, MI Muskegon County 49442 Road Commission In addition to the City of Muskegon, the cities of Montague, Muskegon Heights, Norton Shores City North Muskegon, Norton Shores, Roosevelt Hall Park, Whitehall, and Muskegon Township all maintain their own police departments, Figure 3.23: EOC Locations although some of them utilize part-time personnel. These departments handle day to day emergencies, regularly patrol areas of Muskegon Central Dispatch 911, housed the local jurisdictions to prevent crime, within the new fire station in Downtown maintain public safety and order by Muskegon, dispatches all fire, police, and enforcing local, state, and federal laws and emergency calls for Muskegon County. Its ordinances, and provide other public mission is to serve, without prejudice or services. In Spring 2012, the estimated total favoritism, all of Muskegon's citizens and number of full time law enforcement visitors by providing prompt, accurate and officers in Muskegon County was 235. reliable access to the county's public safety agencies.
The Muskegon Police Department is the local law enforcement arm in the city of Muskegon. In the spring of 2004, the Muskegon Fire Department, the Muskegon Police Department, and Muskegon Inspection Services were combined at the administrative level into the Muskegon Public Safety Department. This consolidation places the three departments under the supervision of the Director of Public Safety with a Deputy Director overseeing the daily operations of both fire and inspections.
The Police Services Division consists of the following Bureaus: Patrol, Investigations, and Administration. Each bureau encompasses units of related functions that contribute toward the division’s overall goals accomplishment. Primary responsibilities of the division include law enforcement, investigations, and the
3-22
Table 3.24: Emergency Services Fire Protection Services & Emergency Medical Services Emergency Services Fire Departments Police Departments The City of Muskegon Fire Department is the largest single department in the County, Blue Lake Township Fire Michigan State Police & The Muskegon Fire Department is charged Department # 1/2 WEMET with fire suppression, fire prevention, public Casnovia Township Fire Muskegon County Sheriff's fire safety education, medical first Department # 1/2 Department responder, confined space rescue, ice/water Dalton Township Fire City of North Muskegon rescue, and hazardous materials incident Department Police Department response within the city limits of Muskegon and as an aid to other area departments. The Egelston Township Fire City of Montague Police Muskegon Fire Department provides these Department Department services through a balanced program of Fruitport Township Fire City of Muskegon Police customer awareness, personnel training, and Department # 1/2 Department service delivery. Fire services for the rest of the county are provided by the cities of Holton Township Fire City of Muskegon Heights Muskegon Heights, North Muskegon, Department Police Department Norton Shores; the townships of Blue Lake, Montague Fire Authority City of Roosevelt Park Casnovia, Dalton, Egelston, Fruitport, Police Department Holton, Moorland, Muskegon, and Ravenna; and Fire Authorities of White Lake and Moorland Township Fire City of Norton Shores Department Police Department Montague.
City of Muskegon Fire City of Whitehall Police In Spring of 2012, the estimated total Department # 3/4/5 Department number of firefighters in Muskegon County Muskegon Township Fire Fruitport Township Police was 330. Department # 1/2 Department Emergency ambulance services are provided City of North Muskegon Muskegon Township Police to Muskegon County by two services, Fire Department Department Professional Med Team, Inc., (Pro Med) and City of Norton Shores Fire White Lake Ambulance Authority. Pro Med Other Department # 1/2/3/4 is a not-for-profit advanced life support ambulance and health transportation service. City of Muskegon Heights Muskegon Central Dispatch Fire Department 911 It was founded in 1986 and offers advanced life support, basic life support, and non- Ravenna Fire Department Pro-Med Ambulance emergent transportation services. Pro-Med Service is the medical communications provider for White Lake Fire Authority # White Lake Ambulance Muskegon County, responsible for 1/2 Authority dispatching ambulances in Muskegon County. The service responds to over 14,000 ambulance requests per year and provides over $55,000 annually in charitable care for patients who cannot afford to pay for service. Pro-Med receives no local government subsidies or local tax dollars for its service. Pro Med operates 15 ambulances and three wheel chair vans.
3-23
White River townships. White Lake In addition to Pro Med, White Lake Ambulance Authority provides four Ambulance Authority provides additional advanced life support ambulances and a support for Muskegon County. It was mass casualty trailer. Two units are staffed formed in 1968 by seven municipalities: at all times, while the other two units are Whitehall and Montague cities, and Blue staffed on an as needed basis. Lake, Fruitland, Montague, Whitehall and
Table 3.25: Fire Departments Muskegon County Fire Department Average Response Time Department Average Response Department Average Response Time (minutes) Time (minutes) Blue Lake 6 – 10 City of Muskegon 3 – 4 Casnovia 3.67 Muskegon Heights 3 Dalton 7 Muskegon Township 3 – 5 Scenic Rd. area 7 – 8 Egelston 4 – 5 North Muskegon 4.48 Fruitport 3 Norton Shores 4 Holton Ravenna 5 Montague 5.12 White Lake Fire Authority 5.49 – 8.39 Moorland
3-24
Figure 3.26: Fire Department Service Areas
3-25
• General Campus: a 25-bed critical Medical/Health Facilities care hospital and urgent care facility in Muskegon Township. Muskegon County’s local hospital is Mercy • Lakeshore Medical Center: an Health partners which is the result of a 2008 urgent care facility in the City of merger of Hackley Health System and Whitehall. Mercy General Health Partners who joined • Johnson Family Cancer Center: forces to better serve the lakeshore located on the Mercy Campus. communities. Today, Mercy Health • Network of 10 laboratories: Partners is a teaching hospital and the including eight locations in the second largest health care organization in greater Muskegon Area, one in West Michigan. The system is the largest Whitehall, and one in Shelby, employer in Muskegon County, employing Oceana County. more than 4,000 associates. • Mercy VNS & Hospice Services: part of Trinity Home Health Mercy Health partners has five main Services located in downtown locations, including four hospitals, with Muskegon. approximately 21,000 inpatient discharges • Owned Physician Practices and and 137,000 emergency/urgent care visits Outpatient Departments: annually. Mercy Health partners is a unified including 400 primary care and system serving Muskegon and Oceana specialty physicians. Counties and portions of Newaygo and • Workplace Health Muskegon, North Ottawa Counties. Mercy Health Whitehall, and Grand Rapids: Partners maintain the Well Centive patient providing occupational health registry, which contains medical information services to area employers. for 95% of the patients in Muskegon
County. The organization employs over 400 The Mercy Health Partners system also physicians and offers a number of exclusive includes multiple subsidiaries including: specialty physician care services for the region. • Hackley Professional Center: a
professional office building lease Mercy Health Partners hospital and ancillary management company located on service locations include: the Hackely Campus.
• Hackley Professional Condos Co- • Mercy Campus: a 196-bed, full- Owners Association: a service hospital in the City of management company for Hackley Muskegon Professional Center. • Hackley Campus: a 213-bed, full- • Lakeshore Health Network: A service hospital in the City of physicians’ health organization. Muskegon • Healthcare Equipment: providing • Lakeshore Campus: a 24-bed home medical equipment with critical care hospital in rural Oceana timely response, technical support, County. and quality products. • Lakes Village: an urgent care • Health Management: a weight facility with physician specialty loss and nutrition company that sells offices in the City of Norton Shores. products and offers medically supervised programs.
3-26
• Life Counseling: an accredited Public Utilities behavioral and mental health counseling practice. Public utilities play an important role in the • Muskegon Community Health growth and management of Muskegon Project: a non-profit company that County. Through the delivery of reliable provides community benefit and plentiful water, and the safe and services for Mercy Health Partners. efficient disposal of wastewater, • Pharmacies: five locations in the communities in Muskegon County can City of Muskegon, City of Norton achieve an improved quality of life for local Shores, and Egelston Township. residents. Utility systems have the potential • Professional Med Team to aid in the growth of a community by Ambulance: a professional enabling greater densities in selected ambulance service. locations. In addition, and most importantly, • West Shore Professional Building: public utility systems give the County and a professional office building communities the ability to provide effective located on the Mercy Campus. stewardship over such important natural • Westshore Condo Association: features as surface water and groundwater providing business management features within the region. services for West Shore Professional Public Wastewater & Treatment Systems Building.
• Workplace Health of Grand The wastewater and treatment plant Haven: an occupational clinic, (WWTP) for the County is the Muskegon owned jointly with North Ottawa County Wastewater Management System Community Hospital located in the (See Figure 18). There are sixteen City of Grand Haven. communities in Muskegon County that send their wastewater to the Muskegon County Federally Qualified Health Centers Wastewater Management System
(MCWMS). The MCWMS currently treats Muskegon County also has two Federally approximately 12 million gallons per day at Qualified Health Centers which are local, an 11,000 acre site in Moorland and non-profit, community-owned providers for Egelston Township. The system design quality primary and preventive health care. capacity is 43 million gallons per day Each health clinic offers a full range of (MGD) of wastewater, 73 tons per day of primary care services to families including suspended solids, and 72 tons per day of immunizations and well-child care, biochemical oxygen demand. The site is pregnancy care and deliveries, family also designed to receive industrial hauled planning services and osteopathic waste and septic waste. The average hauled manipulation. Primary medical care waste is between 3 and 4 million gallons per services are provided for people of all ages, month. accepting Medicare, all types of Medicaid, some private insurances and uninsured who At the WWTP site, the treated waste is are offered a sliding fee scale for services. collected by an extensive network of
agricultural under drainage, with ultimate Established in 1992, Hackley Community discharge to the Muskegon River. The Care Center is located in the City of collection and transportation network Muskegon Heights. Muskegon Family consists of sewers, force mains, pumping Care, established in 2000, is located in the stations with generators and bypass pumping City of Muskegon.
3-27
capabilities at each pump station. There are recently made the necessary replacements, access points at 16 different communities repairs, and relines of the sewer collection where the existing sewage system and system. This process is ongoing. The City water-using industries enter the County sends their wastewater to the Muskegon system. The main pump station has the County Wastewater Management System. capacity of 55.4 MGD that transport the The City of Roosevelt Park treats combined wastewater 11 miles through a approximately .75 MGD of the City’s own 60” diameter ductile iron pipe to the wastewater. WWTP. The City of Norton Shores owns and The Wastweater Department has recently operates a sewer collection system that completed $80 million in renovations on its serves the entire City for stormwater. The collection system, main pump station, and City sends their wastewater to the Muskegon new irrigation strainers. County Wastewater Management System. The stormwater collection empties into The City of Roosevelt Park owns and Mona Lake or the County drain system, operates a sewer collection system that which empties into Black Lake, with the serves the entire city for stormwater. The entire system ultimately discharging into sewer collection system was installed in the Lake Michigan. 1940s and is in decent condition. The city
3-28
Figure 3.27: Muskegon County Sewer Network
3-29
Figure 3.28: Water System
3-30
Public Water Supply Systems of Muskegon Heights, City of Norton Shores and Fruitport Township. In recent Public water supply is the process of years, there has been a dispute between the withdrawing, treating, and distributing water City of Muskegon Heights and the City of for a variety of residential, public, Norton Shores and Fruitport Township. commercial, and industrial uses. Residential Both the City of Norton Shores and uses include water for drinking, household Fruitport Township have signed an activities, and lawn and garden watering. agreement with the City of Muskegon to be Public uses include fire fighting, street their water supply starting in 2015. washing, and supplying municipal parks, Therefore, starting in 2015 these golf courses, and swimming pools. communities will no longer be customers of Commercial and industrial uses include the Muskegon Heights water system. providing water for hotels, restaurants, laundries, office buildings, manufacturers, The City of Roosevelt Park purchases its and industrial complexes. Public water water from the City of Muskegon. The City supply systems are the sole source of water of Roosevelt Park owns and operates a water for many of these facilities, while others use distribution system that serves the entire a combination of public and self-supplied City. The water system was installed in the water sources. 1940s and is in need of replacement. Last year the City completed a reliability study The Muskegon Water Filtration Plant is a that recommended a 20 year replacement. conventional water treatment plant with a The City adjusted the commodity rates capacity of 40 million gallons per day accordingly and has begun this process. No (MGD). The average daily flow is 0.245 significant capacity changes are needed MGD and the peak daily flow is 20.744 other than increasing the minimum water MGD. Current excess capacity is 7.266 main size, from 6” to 8”, and 12” trunk MGD (accounting for peak demand), and lines. The City pays the same rate as the will be expanded to 19.266 MGD when the Muskegon customers with a 1.35 multiplier. expansion was completed in 2005. The City’s average daily demand is 0.455 Customers include not only the City of MGD. Muskegon, but also Muskegon Township, North Muskegon, Roosevelt Park and the The cities of Whitehall and Montague have County North side system. The system separate groundwater supplied water draws water from Lake Michigan and the systems. In 1997 a water main was intake pipe extends one mile out at a depth constructed under the White River to supply of forty feet. each other with water under emergency conditions. The Muskegon Heights Filtration Plant is located at the end of Seminole Road in the The City of Montague has five wells, two City of North Shores. It has a capacity of elevated storage tanks, and 28 miles of water 25.2 MGD. The average daily flow on an main. The City of Whitehall has five wells, annual basis is 5.41 MGD. During the two elevated storage tanks, and 32 miles of summer of 2012 (May – August) the plant water main. treated 8.31 MGD, with a peak day of 17.262 (July 15). The average for the The City of Montague has a total capacity of remainder of the year was 4.17 MGD with 5.01 MGD with a firm capacity of 3.57 the lowest day being January 28 at 2.614 MGD. The City of Whitehall has 3.93 MGD. Current customers include the City
3-31
MGD total capacity, with a firm capacity of approximately 3,050 students with 1.99 MGD. progressive educational programs and services. Known for outstanding academic Both cities are exploring alternatives for and co-curricular programs, Fruitport expanding their capacity at the request of the Community Schools provide an environment Michigan Department of Environmental that celebrates individuality, promotes Quality (MDEQ). Alternatives studied by problem solving through critical thinking Prein & Newhof include groundwater wells and encourages students to fulfill their east of US 31, surface water from Lake potential. Fruitport Community Schools Michigan, and supply from the Muskegon consists of one high school building, one County Northside System. middle school building and three elementary schools; Beach Elementary, Edgewood Schools Elementary and Shettler Elementary. There is also an Alternative High School, Adult School performance is of interest to the Education program and an Early Childhood County, not because of any great impact the Center. plan has on the quality of schools, but because performance is a significant factor Holton Public Schools in residential location decisions. In addition, Holton Public Schools is a pre K-12 rural education typically represents the single- public school district located in a close-knit largest local public expenditure. People community in the northeastern part of with children place a high priority on Muskegon County. It is known for its residing in a community with quality outstanding faculty, small class sizes, and schools. Many would say that schools quality facilities. The district operates one represent the most important community elementary building, one middle school, and facility in terms of home or business one high school, all located on one campus. relocation decisions. The magnitude and All schools are North Central Accredited. pattern of the County’s growth directly Studies are focused on four core areas: math, impact school needs, including facility size language arts, social studies, and science. and location, the number of staff needed, Health education is delivered through the supplies, and the level of required statewide Michigan Model lesson plans. investment for education. Muskegon Students at Holton are guided by a highly County is broken up into 12 Constituent trained team of people who work together to Districts, 3 Charter Schools and 9 Non- identify and meet the needs of each child. Public Schools. Holton Public Schools have a proud past and a promising future. Public Schools Mona Shores Public Schools Fruitport Community Schools Mona Shores Public Schools, Home of the Fruitport Community Schools is a district Sailors, is a lighthouse school district located in both Muskegon and Ottawa located on the beautiful shores of Lake counties and is near Hoffmaster State Park Michigan. The district serves the suburban and the beautiful Lake Michigan Shoreline. cities of Norton Shores and Roosevelt Park, The Village of Fruitport neighbors both acknowledged for their outstanding Muskegon, Spring Lake and Grand Haven. quality of life and commitment to education. It is about 30 minutes from both Grand The district operates four elementary Rapids and Holland. A qualified and buildings, one middle school, and one high dedicated staff and faculty serve school. Mona Shores has a highly
3-32
experienced Board of Education and have for hearing impaired students from the other been recognized as a national leader in the eleven school districts in Muskegon County, areas of technology, facilities and as well as a Vocational Consortium program architectural design, and performing arts. which also serves the area. The district has also received state recognition in curricular offerings, academic Muskegon Heights Public Schools achievement, athletics, and community Muskegon Heights Public Schools are services and support. located south of the City of Muskegon and north of the City of Norton Shores. The Montague Area Public Schools district operates six elementary schools, one The Montague Area Public School District middle school, and one high school. In 2001 encompasses 120 square miles and serves the district embarked on a multi-phased children from the City of Montague, enhancement project that included the Rothbury Village, Montague Township, construction of an award winning high White River Township and part of Grant, school facility. Otto, and Claybanks Townships. The district operates one elementary school, one Muskegon Heights Public Schools have middle school, and one high school, all been wrestling with rising expenses, funding located within the City of Montague. reductions, soaring health care and legacy Opportunities for academic excellence and costs, and declining enrollment which extracurricular programs abound in exhausted the district's fund balance and led Montague Area Public Schools. to a deficit of $8.5 million as of June 30, 2011. On December 7, 2011, the Muskegon Beginning in 1992, Montague Area Public School Districts Schools have undergone a series of major and Charter Schools improvements and additions. Achievement (2011-2012 School Year) is enhanced when students experience high expectations, hands on learning in safe School District # Students conditions and a quality environment. Fruitport 3,083 Muskegon Public Schools Holton 924 The Muskegon Public Schools, located in Mona Shores 3,801 the City of Muskegon, encompasses an area Montague 1,488 approximately 19.3 square miles. It includes Muskegon all of the City of Muskegon, as well as 4,932 portions of the City of Norton Shores and Muskegon Heights 1,425 Muskegon Township. The Muskegon North Muskegon 1,048 Public School District consists of eight Oakridge 1,892 elementary buildings, two middle schools, Orchard View 2,749 one high school, one community education Ravenna 1,067 school, and other district buildings. The Reeths Puffer 3,842 school district is unique in that it not only Whitehall 2,253 offers a comprehensive K-12 grade WayPoint 253 curriculum to its students, but it also Three Oaks 296 operates the Muskegon Museum of Art and Muskegon Training and Education Center Timberland 381 (MTEC). In addition, Muskegon Public Source: Muskegon Intermediate School Schools provides special education services District Figure 3.29: School Districts
3-33
Heights Board of Education voted to Orchard View Schools officially request an Emergency Financial Orchard View School District, with a Manager (EFM) from the Superintendent of population of approximately 17,000 Instruction for the State of Michigan, residents is located adjacent to Muskegon Michael P. Flanagan. This request was and represents both rural and urban living. granted by the Governor’s office during the This Class B district serves over 2,800 spring of 2012. The district was allowed to students K -12th grade. The curriculum is finish the school year. During the summer progressive and is aligned with the Michigan of 2012, The Muskegon Heights School Curriculum Frameworks and Grade Level District was the first district in the State of Content Standards. School staff is dedicated Michigan to become a charter school to student learning and strives to provide system. The district continues to be quality instruction for all students. In fall operated by the EFM. The Muskegon 2006, the Orchard View School District Heights Charter School is has entered its opened a new state-of-the-art high school. second year with the 2013/14 school year. The former high school was renovated and reopened as Cardinal Elementary. The North Muskegon Public Schools Orchard View Public Schools operate one The North Muskegon Public Schools is the preschool/kindergarten school, two smallest district in the county and operates elementary schools, one middle school, and one elementary school, one middle school, one high school. and one high school, which was built in 1932. The community of North Muskegon Ravenna Public Schools has a long tradition of providing excellent The Ravenna Public Schools operate one education for its children. The small size of elementary school, one middle school, and our school affords our students some very one high school. Ravenna is a progressive unique opportunities. Small class size community that values young people. The enables teachers to monitor the success of entire community strives to meet the their students more closely. Additionally, educational, social and emotional needs of the size of the school district allows students its students. The school district partners with to engage in a full range of sports and other community groups and units of government extra-curricular activities. to provide social programs and safety- focused programs to better care for the Oakridge Public Schools changing needs of youngsters and their The Oakridge Public Schools operate two families. The entire core curriculum was elementary schools, and one middle school, revised to mirror the most recent state and and one high school. Oakridge Public federal mandates and guidelines. The Schools is a comprehensive school district community is small in size, but the citizens, that provides programming and educational in concert with the schools, have made a opportunities for all the district residents commitment to meet the needs of all from pre-school age through adulthood. students. Oakridge Schools has an Early Childhood and Community Education Center, a Lower Reeths-Puffer Schools Elementary (grades 1-3), an Upper The Reeths-Puffer Public Schools operate Elementary (grades 4-6), a Middle (grades one preschool/kindergarten school, five 7-8) and High School (grades 9-12). elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. In addition, the school district operates two alternative schools and
3-34
an adult education center. The mission of community colleges, and state universities to Reeths-Puffer Schools is to maximize the sign charters authorizing the schools. These potential of all students and prepare them to contracts govern areas such as education compete and contribute as caring, goals, curriculum standards, assessment knowledgeable citizens in the rapidly measures, governance, and funding. changing world. All schools in the district are accredited by the North Central There are two charter schools located in the Association. Students are provided a quality region, and both are located in the City of education and learning environment. Muskegon. They include: Three Oaks Athletes compete in landmark facilities. Public School serving kindergarten through Expansive fine arts offerings are fifth grade, and Timberland Academy demonstrated and celebrated in new state-of- serving kindergarten to 6th grade. the-art facilities. In the last five years, the WayPoint Academy, another charter school band has consistently won state and national in Muskegon County closed its doors in championships. Athletic, fine arts and June 2013. The school opened in 2001 and vocational classes have also received state most recently served grades 6th through 12th. and local awards. Non-Public Schools Whitehall District Schools Private, or non-public schools, are schools The Whitehall District Schools operate two which are owned and operated by an elementary schools, one middle school, and individual, a religious institution, a one high school. Whitehall District Schools partnership, or a corporation other than the is located on the shores of Lake Michigan State, a subdivision of the State, or by the and White Lake in northern Muskegon Federal government. They are usually County. It has a long tradition of excellence, supported primarily by other than public working in partnership with a vibrant and funds and teach the required subjects on supportive community. An elementary each grade level for the same length of time school with an early childhood education as students must be taught in the public design was constructed in 1994, and a new schools. state of the art high school opened in 2004. The high school is accredited through the Within Muskegon County, there are 9 non- North Central Association (NCA) and is public schools. They are as follows: committed to provide students with the best possible learning environment. White Lake • Greater Muskegon Catholic Schools Community Education, a comprehensive • Calvary Christian Schools and award winning regional consortium, • Grace Christian Academy adds an array of enrichment courses and • Michigan Dunes Montessori programs from birth to adulthood. • Muskegon Christian Elementary School • St. Catherine’s School Charter Schools • Seventh Day Adventist School Charter public schools, or public school • Western Michigan Christian High academies, as they are known in Michigan, School are independent public schools that operate • West Shore Lutheran School under a performance contracted called a charter. Charter schools are made possible School Student Data by a 1993 Michigan law. It empowers local Muskegon City School District is considered and intermediate school districts, to be a mid-sized city school district, while
3-35
there are six districts considered to be urban indicators of school performance. The fringe districts and five that are rural Michigan Education Assessment Program districts inside the metropolitan area. (MEAP), American College Test (ACT), and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) are Enrollment in the county public schools was standardized test scores that are collected 28,512 students in the fall of 2011 according and compared for Michigan school districts. to the Muskegon Area Intermediate School District (MAISD). Over 40 percent of the The MEAP test is given throughout the State students in the county are economically of Michigan at various grade levels. It is disadvantaged or eligible for free or reduced used to judge the performance of students in lunch. This is higher than the state average reading and math at given intervals using the of 30.7 percent. More than fifteen percent content standards prescribed by state of the public school students in the county educators. It was designed to assure that all are considered to be special education students across the state received the same students. training and tested on the same subject matter. According to the Office of The school personnel full time equivalent Educational Assessment, no other tests versus enrollment full time enrollment measure what Michigan students should equivalent in Muskegon county schools know and be able to do against established ranges from eight in North Muskegon Michigan content standards and Schools to nearly eighteen in the Muskegon performance standards. Michigan's MEAP Heights School District. The statewide tests are based on the Content Standards average student/teacher ratio is 17.6; five developed by Michigan educators and districts in the county have higher approved by the Michigan State Board of student/teacher ratios. Education. The tests are criterion-reference, meaning that each student's results are Standardized Test Scores judged and reported against a set Standardized test scores are often used as performance standard. If a student meets the Average Classroom Size by School District (2011-2012 School Year)
School District Elementary School Middle School High School
Fruitport 22 27 28 Holton 19 21 19 Mona Shores 24 27 27 Montague 27 27 27 Muskegon 21 26 26 Muskegon Heights 24 20 23 North Muskegon 22 25 25 Oakridge 25 26 25 Orchard View 24 27 27 Ravenna 24 20 23 Reeths Puffer 22 27 28 Whitehall 24 26 26 Source: Muskegon Intermediate School District
Figure 3.30: Average Classroom Size by School District
3-36
standard, it means he/she meets expectations undergraduates. Muskegon Community on recommended state curriculum. In College, in the City of Muskegon, is one of theory, all students in the state could achieve the state’s public community colleges. The the standard in every subject. College is home to award-winning faculty and a diverse community of more than 5,000 In terms of the 2011 MEAP proficiency rate dedicated students, athletes, artists and for third graders, Muskegon County schools community leaders. as a whole are at 63 percent proficiency rate in reading which is just over the state Baker College is a private college also average of 62 percent proficiency rate for located in the City of Muskegon. It is the reading. Muskegon County Schools as a main campus for the Baker College System. whole at 30 percent proficiency was below 2011-2012 Baker College System the state’s average of 36 percent proficiency enrollment is over 43,000 students on 9 in mathematics. campuses, 6 branch locations, and online worldwide. In 2009 the Baker College In Michigan more students take the ACT Culinary Institute of Michigan was built. It than the SAT. ACT participation statewide began in 1997 with just 40 students and has averages 68 percent, while SAT grown to become one of the top culinary arts participation is approximately eight percent. colleges and includes the new 40,000- The ACT is graded on a 36 point scale. The square-foot facility in downtown Muskegon statewide average score is 21. The average with a full-service restaurant, pastry and score for Muskegon county schools is coffee shop. comparable to the state average. Individual districts average scores vary considerably. The Stevenson Center, formerly the Muskegon Center for Higher Education, is a The County and the school districts should 93,500 square foot building constructed on continue to coordinate long-range plans to the picturesque campus of Muskegon select school sites, establish multiple-use Community College. The Center houses a facilities, and ensure that school facilities unique academic consortium comprised of have adequate utilities, fire protection, Muskegon Community College, Ferris State police protection, street access and non- University, Grand Valley State University, motorized access. As the population of the and Western Michigan University. The County continues to grow, coordination Center contains 40 classrooms/conference efforts will need to be continued in order to rooms including a computer classroom and maintain a high standard and quality of laboratory, a large conference room, a large school systems in Muskegon County. lecture hall, and a science room. A catering kitchen on the second level accommodates Higher Education food service needs for banquets, meetings, conferences, and receptions. The state of Michigan has fifteen public Communication technology advancements universities and twenty-eight public allow for a variety of instructional delivery community colleges in addition to the systems. Each room in the facility is wired numerous private institutions of higher for voice, video and data transmission. education. Grand Valley State University Teleconferencing and integrated distance (GVSU) in Allendale is the closest main learning technology is available as well. campus for a public university to Muskegon The Muskegon Community College County. GVSU has a 2011-2012 student Graphics Technology instruction and enrollment of 24,662 of which 21,236 are reproduction departments, Media Services
3-37
Department, and the Television Studio are Muskegon, Muskegon Township, Egelston all housed in the Stevenson Center. Township, Muskegon Heights, Norton Shores, Ravenna, and Fruitport. Annual Additionally, Grand Valley State University, expenditures on the library collection total Ferris State University, and Western $220,000. Patrons make 330,000 visits Michigan University have campuses in annually, and check out materials 560,000 Muskegon County. times. Thirty-two percent of all check-outs are children's materials. Other colleges and universities within 100 miles include Aquinas College, Calvin Hackley Public Library, located in College, Cornerstone College, Davenport Muskegon, has a collection of 126,000 College of Business, Grand Rapids books and periodicals; in addition, there are Community College, ITT, Kendall College over 2,000 CDs, records, cassettes and other of Art and Design, the Reformed Bible audio materials, as well as over 300 video College in Grand Rapids, as well as Central items, such as DVDs and VHS tapes. Michigan University in Mount Pleasant, Internet terminals are available for use by Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Grand the general public. Staffing consists of 19 Valley State University in Allendale, Hope employees, of whom 5 are fully accredited College in Holland, Kalamazoo College and librarians, plus volunteers. Annual Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, expenditures on the library collection total Lake Michigan College in Benton Harbor, $75,000. Patrons make 88,000 visits Montcalm Community College in Sidney, annually, and check out materials 80,000 and Southwestern Michigan College in times. Twenty-nine percent of all check-outs Dowagiac. are children's materials.
Libraries White Lake Community Library, located in the City of Whitehall, has a collection of The Muskegon Area District Library 30,000 books and periodicals; in addition, (MADL) has a collection of 230,000 books there are 1,200 CDs, records, cassettes and and periodicals; in addition, there are 4,800 other audio materials, as well as 660 video CDs, records, cassettes and other audio items, such as DVDs and VHS tapes. materials, as well as over 2,000 video items, Internet terminals are available for use by such as DVDs and VHS tapes. Internet the general public. Staffing consists of five terminals are available for use by the general employees, including one fully accredited public. MADL serves 21 local governmental librarian, and volunteers. Annual units throughout Muskegon County. The expenditures on the library collection total residents are taxed .75 mills. Every resident $17,600. Patrons make 66,000 visits in Muskegon County is welcome to use all annually, and check out materials 63,000 of the MADL branches, though the millage times. Fifteen percent of all check-outs are does not include residents of the City of children's materials. Hundreds of people Muskegon and Muskegon Public School each day visit the library to utilize print and District, which are served by Hackley Public electronic reference resources, access the Library; and the City of Whitehall and the Internet through the library’s wi-fi service, Whitehall Public School District, which are or participate in or attend one of the served by White Lake Community Library. Library’s many events. The system comprises 10 branch libraries, plus one bookmobile. Branch libraries are located in Montague, Holton, Dalton, North
3-38
Land Use official recommendation for the development of the region.” It is in this The primary authority to plan for land use context that land use will be discussed as a and utilize zoning as a land use policy part of the Muskegon Area-wide Plan. implementation tool lie at the township and municipal level in the state of Michigan. In Muskegon County, there are 27 planning Until 2008, the legal authority for land use and zoning jurisdictions. Each of the planning at the township level is established townships has planning and zoning under the Township Planning Act 168 of jurisdiction. Additionally the cities of 1959, and municipal planning authority was Montague, Muskegon, Muskegon Heights, established under the Municipal Planning North Muskegon, Norton Shores, Roosevelt Act 285 of 1931. In 2008, the Michigan Park, and Whitehall and the villages of Planning Enabling Act, PA 33 (an Casnovia, Fruitport, Lakewood Club, and amendment to the Michigan Zoning Ravenna have planning and zoning Enabling Act) was passed and signed into authority. law. P.A. 33 replaced the three existing planning enabling acts in Michigan: Muskegon County has a land area of 509 square miles, or 325,760 acres. The 2010 • Municipal Planning Act (being P.A. 285 population density was 338 people per of 1931, as amended, M.C.L. 125.31 et square mile. Muskegon County, like many seq.) areas in Michigan, has abundant inland • County Planning Act (being P.A. 282 of water resources. The five largest named 1945, as amended, M.C.L. 125.101 et lakes in the county have a combined surface seq.) area of 5,102.5 acres, or 1.6 percent of the • Township Planning Act (being P.A. 168 surface area of the county. The largest lake of 1959, as amended, M.C.L. 125.321 et is Muskegon Lake, which has an area of seq.) 4,150 acres alone. Additionally, 12,500 acres of Muskegon County’s area are The Zoning authority for townships is controlled by the State of Michigan in the established under the Township Zoning Act form of Duck Lake State Park, Muskegon 184 of 1943. Zoning authority for cities and State Park, Hoffmaster State Park (part in villages was established under the City and Ottawa County), and the Muskegon State Village Zoning Act 207 of 1921. Game Area (Muskegon County portion
only). State law does provide for regional
planning. Under the Regional Planning Act The character of Muskegon County ranges 281 of 1945, “a regional planning from industrial urban areas to villages, commission may conduct all types of shoreline areas, and rural areas. The urban research studies, collect and analyze data, areas have a rich industrial heritage, much of prepare maps, charts, and tables, and which was dependent on the county’s conduct all necessary studies for the location on Lake Michigan. Ravenna is a accomplishment of its other duties; may small agricultural community that also plays make and coordinate the development of a role as a commuter city to both Grand plans for the physical, social, and economic Rapids and Muskegon. Casnovia is situated development of the region, and may adopt, on top of a hill overlooking mid-west by resolution of its governing body, a plan Michigan’s beautiful orchard country. or the portion of a plan so prepared or any Lakewood Club is a quiet residential objective consistent with a plan as its community situated around beautiful Fox
3-46 Lake. Fruitport is a scenic town including a Land uses are typically classified as park on the lake, adjacent to the center of agricultural, residential, commercial/office, town, where one can watch the boats coming industrial, public/semi-public, or to visit. The shoreline is changing along recreational in nature. Residential uses Muskegon Lake and White Lake. Much of include all types of structures where people the shoreline was once dominated by live. Commercial/office space is used in the industrial activity, but recently there have sale of goods or services and/or the been efforts to restore public access and production of service outputs. Industrial beaches. Agriculture, particularly orchards, land uses are for the manufacture, assembly, remains important to the character of rural and distribution of goods. Public and semi- Muskegon County. public uses include government owned lands and schools. The developed area of Muskegon County increased by 24 square miles, or 4.7 percent, There are 337,088 acres of land in between 1978 and 1998. While much of the Muskegon County. Of that, nearly 162,200 new development occurred in the areas acres or 48 percent is in forest land. An between existing urban areas, there was also additional 27 percent is in agricultural or significant new development in Fruitport, open space uses. Water accounts for 3.7 Dalton, and Mooreland townships. Map percent of the surface area and wetlands 3.32 highlights the decentralized nature of account for 2.2 percent. These combined the new development. uses are more than 80 percent of the land in the county. Nearly 30 percent of the land is
Land Use by Category
Industrial 1% Residential Utilities 13% 4% Agricultural/Open Commercial Space 2% 26%
Public Lands 18% Forest 30%
Wetlands 2% Water 4%
Agricultural/Open Space Forest Water Wetlands Public Lands Commercial Industrial Residential Utilities
Chart 3.31: Land Use by Category
3-47
in uses such as forest, water, and state and federal lands that are not likely to be developed.
The largest urban land use in Muskegon County is residential uses, occupying more than 43,000 acres, or 12.9 percent of the land area. Commercial uses account for nearly two percent of the land area and industrial uses account for another one percent. Utilities account for 3.7 percent, largely due to the amount of land at the wastewater treatment facility. Urban land uses in Muskegon County are concentrated near Muskegon Lake and Mona Lake, and near White Lake.
3-48
Map 3.32: Developed Land, 1978 and Current
3-49
Map 3.33: Existing Land Use
3-50
Residential Commercial/Office The dominant land use in the county is Commercial land accounts for 1.9 percent of residential uses, which account for 12.9 existing land uses in Muskegon County. percent of all land uses. This is the Seven commercial corridors have been dominant land use in the county other than identified in Muskegon County: agriculture, forest, water, wetlands, and open space. Residential uses include single- • M 46/Apple Avenue family homes, multi-family homes, and • Colby Road/Business US 31 mobile homes. Multi-family residences • Henry Street account for one half of one percent of the • land use in the county. There are a variety M 120/Whitehall Road of housing types in the county including • Sherman Boulevard single family homes, mobile home parks, • Sternberg Road/Harvey Street apartment buildings, loft apartments, senior communities, and condominium Commercial land also includes office developments. The higher density spaces. The heaviest concentration of office residential areas are concentrated near the space is in the Muskegon central business urban centers of Muskegon, Muskegon district. There is also a significant amount Heights, North Muskegon, Norton Shores, of office space located in Norton Shores. and Roosevelt Park. There are also higher All together there is approximately density residential areas in Fruitport, 1,000,000 square feet of office space in Montague, Ravenna, Whitehall, and Wolf Muskegon County, with an additional Lake. speculative office space anticipated. Most of the office space in the county is more than 15 years old and has physical signs of deterioration.
Retail is also a major commercial function. Some of the top shopping destinations in the Muskegon area are the Lakes Mall and Lakeshore Marketplace along the intersection of Sternberg Road and Harvey Street, Sherman Boulevard near US 31, Henry Street near Norton Avenue, and M120/Whitehall Road near US 31. Shopping out of town has declined since the construction of the Lakes Mall (Alexander).
Meijer is a major retail force in the Muskegon Area. It remains the top grocery location, with three stores in Muskegon County. Wal-Mart is another destination in the county for groceries with two stores in the county and another proposed store in northern Muskegon County, as well as Plumb’s and Orchard Market with locations throughout Muskegon County. Meijer is also the major player in the home
3-51
improvement market, followed by Menards, buildings; Grand Valley State University’s Lowe’s, and Home Depot. Annis Water Resources Institute (AWRI), AWRI Field Station, and Michigan Downtown Muskegon Alternative & Renewable Energy Center Downtown Muskegon has been going (MAREC); the Social Security Building, through a transformation since the close of Hot Rod Harley Davidson, and PNC Bank the downtown Muskegon Mall in 2002. The Building. defunct 23 acre property was purchased by the Downtown Muskegon Development In addition to the new construction, several Corporation, a local group made up of the renovation projects have also been Community Foundation for Muskegon completed in the greater downtown area. County, Paul C. Johnson Foundation, Some of these projects include the Amazon Lakeshore Chamber of Commerce, and the Apartment Building, Fricano Center City of Muskegon. The mall was torn down (formerly known as the Hartshorn Center), a few years later and the original street grid WaterMark Center, Artworks Building, the replaced and readied for new development. Century Club Building, Russell Block Market, and the United Way Building. Approximately $125 million worth of investment for both new construction and renovations have been completed in downtown Muskegon.
There are also a number of new projects either currently under or proposed totaling an addition $46 million in the downtown area. Some of the new projects including the relocation of the Muskegon Farmers Market, a new Transit Center/Facility, the The 23 acre site and the surrounding High Point Flats (market rate apartments in downtown area look quite different and the former Hackely Bank Building), and continue to transform. Some of the new Terrace Point Landing a development of construction recently completed in the single family homes along the waterfront of downtown Muskegon area includes Baker Muskegon Lake. College’s Culinary Institute of Michigan (CIM); both the Hines and Sidock office Commercial Corridors M46/Apple Avenue: Apple Avenue is a five lane corridor running east/west through the central portion of the county. It is lined with strip malls and restaurants. There is one big box business (Kmart) located along the corridor near the US 31 interchange.
Colby Road/Business 31: Colby Road is a local business route through northern Muskegon County’s White Lake area. It is primarily a three lane corridor, although is five lanes near the US 31
3-52
interchange. The corridor is lined with local retail and commercial business. M120/Whitehall Road: Whitehall Road is primarily a three lane corridor (five lane Henry Street: Henry Street is a five lane near US 31 interchange) running corridor running north/south through the southwest/northeast through central western portion of the county. The Muskegon County. The corridor corridor is lined with strip malls, includes many strip malls with local restaurants, and banks. It has two large retail and commercial establishments. retailers located near Norton Avenue including Meijer and Wal-Mart. There is also a big box vacant building which was formerly a Kmart.
Sherman Boulevard (Near US 31 interchange): Sherman Boulevard is a major corridor which experienced significant growth during the early 2000’s. Although, in recent years, the area has experienced some vacant big box stores and strip malls due to the relocation of business to the Sternberg Road/Harvey Street corridor. However, it still remains one of the County’s major retail areas with several big box Industrial developments including Wal-Mart, Industrial land accounts for an additional Sam’s Club, and Lowe’s. The corridor one percent of the land in Muskegon also has many smaller retail stores and County. There are several industrial areas in restaurants including the most recent the county, though the largest industrial development of Panera Bread. All areas are near Muskegon Lake and in commercial and retail development is Muskegon Township. located east of the interchange. Immediately west of the interchange is Harbor 31 (Muskegon Lakeshore the Mercy General Health Partners SmartZone) Mercy Campus surrounded by several related medical offices. Muskegon is one of eleven communities statewide that has partnered with the Sternberg Road/Harvey Street: This is a Michigan Economic Development major retail area located in southern Corporation to develop a university- Muskegon County at the corner of supported technology park through the Sternberg Road and Harvey Street. SmartZone program. Michigan SmartZones Development in this area includes The are collaborations between universities, Lakes Mall, Kohl’s, Lakeshore Market industry, research organizations, Place, Menard’s, and many restaurants government, and other community and smaller retail stores. Other institutions intended to stimulate the growth development in the area includes of technology-based businesses and jobs by apartment buildings, the Lakeshore aiding in the creation of recognized clusters Medical Center, condominiums and of new and emerging businesses, those small office buildings. primarily focused on commercializing ideas,
3-53
patents, and other opportunities surrounding John Wierengo Industrial Park corporate, university or private research The John Wierengo Industrial Park is an 18 institute R&D efforts. SmartZones provide acre industrial park located in Muskegon distinct geographical locations where Township. There are approximately seven technology-based firms, entrepreneurs and acres that are unoccupied. researchers can locate in close proximity to all of the community assets that will assist in Medendorp Industrial Center their endeavors. SmartZones coordinate all Located in the City of Muskegon, the 360 of the community assets and services acres industrial center has 250 developed necessary to support technology acres. All 250 acres are currently occupied. development in the knowledge based economy. Harbor 31 (the Muskegon Montague Industrial Park SmartZone) includes Edison Landing which The Montague Industrial Park is a 158 acre is a mixed-use development that combines park in the City of Montague, with 31 acres university resources with new energy available. The park is zoned for light technologies, corporate offices, residential, industrial uses. and retail offerings. The Michigan Alternative & Renewable Energy Center is Muskegon County Business Parks also in the SmartZone and is operated by The Business Park East is located in Grand Valley State University. It includes a Egelston and Moorland Townships with a business incubator, research facility, and a total of 2,200 available acres; it is planned conference center. Of the 34 total acres on for large tenants that need 100 acres or the site, 26 are available. The site is zoned more. The land will be rezoned from for convenience and comparison business. agricultural to general industrial, and currently is not accessible to potable water. Renaissance Zone Program
There are four Renaissance Zones and six The Business Park North is located in subzones in Muskegon County. The Dalton Township and has 210 acres Renaissance zones are: Muskegon County available. The zoning is for industrial uses. Business Park North, Muskegon Mall, It was an abandoned industrial Superfund Seaway Drive Industrial Park, and Shaw site that has been cleaned and redeveloped Walker. The subzones are: Hoyt Street Site, as a business park under the Renaissance Mona View Development, Sanford Village, Zone program. Seaway Drive, Western Avenue, and Whittaker Electric. Renaissance Zones are Muskegon County Airport Business Park regions of the state set aside as virtually tax- The Airport Business Park is a 76 acre park free for any business or resident locating in located in the City of Norton Shores. Nearly or moving to one of the zones. This 33 acres remain available. The site is zoned program is currently being phased out. as a special use district with light industrial and office uses considered acceptable uses. Evanston Avenue Industrial Park The park is a Verizon Smart Park, which The Evanston Avenue Industrial park is a means it is wired with fiber optics and data- heavy industrial park located in Egelston quality copper cables allowing for high- Township. The site is less than 45 acres and speed, reliable data, voice, and video approximately 34 acres remain available. transmission.
3-54
P. Don Aley Industrial Park for 1.1 percent of land uses in Muskegon This 31 acre park is located in Muskegon County. Township. All 31 acres are available for light industrial uses. Government facilities There are 28 jurisdictions in the MAP Norton Industrial Center planning area. These jurisdictions include This 137 acre center is located in the City of Muskegon County, the 16 townships in the Norton Shores and has 16 acres available. county, seven cities (Muskegon, Muskegon The property is zoned for general industrial Heights, Montague, North Muskegon, uses. Norton Shores, Roosevelt Park, and Whitehall), and the villages of Fruitport, Port City Industrial Center Lakewood Club, Ravenna, and Casnovia. This 425 acre center is located in the City of The facilities of each of these jurisdictions Muskegon. 120 acres are available and the are detailed elsewhere in the plan. property is zoned for general industrial uses.
Porter Properties This is a 38 acre site located in the City of Norton Shores. There is currently nine acres available with the property zoned as a PUD, light industrial/office.
Seaway Industrial Park The Seaway Industrial Park is a 55 acre industrial park located in the City of Muskegon. Forty acres of the light industrial zoned land remain available. Schools There are 38 public elementary schools, 13 Whitehall Industrial Park public middle schools, and 12 public high This is a 345 acre industrial park with 65 schools in Muskegon County. Three acres available in the City of Whitehall. The Charter schools are located in the region, all land is zoned for light industrial uses. located in the City of Muskegon. Also within Muskegon County, there are 14 non- Whitehall Township Business Park public schools. This is a 40 acre industrial park in Whitehall Township. More than 13 acres remain The Montague Area Public Schools district available. The land is zoned for light operates one elementary school, one middle industrial uses. school, and one high school, all located within the City of Montague. Public/Semi-Public Public and semi-public uses include public The Whitehall District Schools operate two buildings and facilities such as city halls or elementary schools, one middle school, and village halls, township halls, post offices, one high school. fire stations, police stations, and libraries. This category also includes public The Holton Public School district operates educational facilities. Public uses account one elementary school, one middle school,
3-55
and one high school, all located on one Recreation campus. Recreational uses cover approximately 25,000 acres and account for 7.4 percent of The Oakridge Public Schools operates two land in Muskegon County. There are over elementary schools, one middle school, and 20 jurisdictions that provide park and one high school. recreation opportunities in the county. The federal and state governments manage more The Reeths-Puffer Public Schools operates than 23,000 acres of park and recreation one preschool/kindergarten school, five land in the county. elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. The Manistee National Forest lies in northeast Muskegon County and covers The Orchard View Public Schools operates approximately 12,500 acres. State parks one preschool/kindergarten school, two account for more than 2,600 acres in elementary schools, one middle school, and Muskegon County. The facilities that are one high school. located in the county include Duck Lake State Park, Muskegon State Park, and The Muskegon Public Schools district Hoffmaster State Park (part in Ottawa operates 10 elementary schools, two middle County). The Muskegon State Game Area schools, and one high school campus. It is a 14,000 acre facility, with 8,637 acres in also operates the Muskegon Museum of Art Muskegon County and approximately 5,300 and the Muskegon Training and Education acres in Newaygo County. Center (MTEC).
The Muskegon Heights Public Schools district operates six elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school.
The North Muskegon Public Schools operates one elementary school, and one middle school, and one high school.
The Fruitport Community School district operates three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. There are more than 700 acres of county parks. The county parks include: The Mona Shores district operates four elementary buildings, one middle school, • Blue Lake County Park, located on Big and one high school. Blue Lake north of Muskegon. This 25 acre park has nearly 600 feet of frontage The Ravenna Public Schools operates one along the southeast shore of the Lake. elementary school, one middle school, and • Deremo County Park is a paved launch one high school. that is maintained for boating, water- skiing and fishing on Big Blue Lake. Churches • Meinert County Park is located on Lake There are many churches in the county Michigan north of Montague. The Park covering a range of denominations. is approximately 88 acres.
3-56
• Patterson Park is located on the Little Rio Grande Creek two miles southwest of Ravenna. The park is 28 acres on the river flood plain. • Pioneer Park is a 145-acre park located on Lake Michigan north of Muskegon with over 2,000 feet of white sand beach frontage. • Twin Lake County Park is located on Twin Lake north of Muskegon. Twin Lake Park is a 15-acre park. • Half Moon Lake • Moore County Park in Casnovia
The county also has the 11,700 acre wastewater facility that is considered recreation land.
There are also more than 1,600 acres that are controlled by the various municipalities in the county and nearly 800 acres controlled by townships, 837 acres by cities, and nearly 50 acres controlled by villages. Major parks in the City of Muskegon include Fisherman's Landing, McGraft Park, Pere Marquette Park, Bronson Park and Sheldon, Seyferth, and Beachwood Parks provide passive and active recreation opportunities to adjoining neighborhoods. The City of Montague owns and operates four community parks. The City of North Muskegon owns and operates five community parks and recreational facilities. The City of Roosevelt owns and operates eight community parks and recreational facilities.
3-57
Ten of the townships operate parks: between 2002 and 2007. The sales of milk Casnovia, Dalton, Egelston, Fruitland, and other dairy products totaled $1.85 Fruitport, Laketon, Muskegon, Sullivan, billion in 2007, ranking Michigan seventh Whitehall, and White River. There are also nationally. fourteen golf courses in the county. Twelve of the courses are open to the public. As for Muskegon County, farming is a significant component of the local economy, Three villages also operate parks: Fruitport, and the monetary value of the goods Lakewood Club, and Ravenna. produced is an indication of the importance to society of those goods. Muskegon The county is also home to Michigan’s County supports the production of a wide Adventure Amusement Park, the largest variety of agriculture crops including corn, amusement park in the state. The park soybeans, hay-alfalfa, small grains, features one of the world’s longest wooden vegetables and fruit orchards. In addition to roller coasters. agriculture crops, dairy, cattle, sheep, and hog production facilities also contribute to Parks are discussed in more detail later in the value of agriculture in the County. Of this chapter. Michigan's top ten rankings, Muskegon County ranks #2 in number of turkeys, #8 in Agriculture revenue from fruit, tree nuts, and berries, The unique geographic qualities of and #10 in number of food service Michigan encourage the production of a establishments (745). Muskegon County wide variety of agriculture crops. Michigan also ranks second in the state in cucumbers. has relatively high-quality soils and a range In 2002, there were 24 farms with 3,233 of microclimates created by glacial acres in cucumbers. By 2007, there were 16 landforms and the surrounding Great Lakes farms with 2,414 acres in cucumbers. (Wyant, 2003). Michigan agriculture is Muskegon County received $790,000 in among the most diverse in the nation. federal commodity payments in 2007. Farmers in the state produce more than 125 agriculture products, second only to Farm Trends and Statistics California in agriculture diversity (Wyant, The total number of farms in Muskegon 2003). Overall agriculture is the second County is 525, with 79,663 acres in farm largest industry in the state, contributing land (25.0% of total area). Pasture, forage more than $37 billion to the economy and other non-crop farmland comprises (Wyant, 2003). 13,499 acres. The number of farms using organic production is 14, with eight certified According to the 2007 US Census of organic farms and 231 acres of cropland in Agriculture, livestock and crop sales in organic production. An additional 251 Michigan totaled $5.7 billion in 2007, a 53 acres of cropland is in transition to organic. percent increase from 2002. Michigan’s The total market value of agriculture farm economy produced higher sales in production in Muskegon County is 2007 than five years earlier, with the only $91,176,000, with total crop sales at exception being in the sector of nursery and $40,327,000 and total livestock sales at greenhouse sales. Nationally, the census $50,849,000. (2007 Census and Michigan showed that a growing number of farms are Department of Agriculture Food and owned or operated by minorities and Agricultural Systems Profile, 2009) women. The number of Michigan farms operated by women increased 40 percent
3-58
Muskegon County grows 30,495 acres of 21 hog/pig operations, 22 sheep farms, and corn, soy and wheat (38.3% of cropland) 52 poultry operations. The average value of and 2,289 acres of vegetables (2.9% of agricultural products sold was $108,379 and cropland). Fruit and tree nuts comprise average farm expenses totaled $83,991 per 3,736 acres. Revenue from fruits, tree nuts farm. The average net cash return to the and berries is $14,651,000. There are 26 farm was $24,468. dairy farms in Muskegon County. Revenue from milk and other dairy is $22,394,000. Muskegon County Special Crops There are 302 animal operations with a total Muskegon County ranks fifth in the state of of 23,563 animals. Locally important Michigan for blueberry production. It is one products include nursery, greenhouse, of five “blueberry counties” in the state, all floriculture and sod with revenues of of which are along the western shore of the $12,300,000. Lower Peninsula. In 2000, there were 920 acres of blueberries grown in Muskegon Currently, 238 Muskegon County farm County. This number has been decreasing operators list farming as their primary over time. The number of blueberry farms occupation, with a total of 525 farms using a has also decreased. In 1991 there were 35, total of 79,663 acres of land. The average by 2000 that number had declined to 25. Of farm size is 152 acres. In contrast, there the 920 acres in blueberry fields, 520 acres were 289 farm operators who listed farming had overhead irrigation in 2000, and 200 as their primary occupation in 2002, with a acres had some other form of irrigation. total of 545 farms using 73,918 acres. The However, blueberries are not the only fruit average farm size was 136 acres. This grown in Muskegon County. Muskegon is represents an 18% reduction in farming as a in the West Central fruit district for the primary occupation from 2002 - state. There were a total of 44 fruit farms in 2007/present. Muskegon County in 2000, with 2,300 acres in apples, 170 acres in tart cherries, 95 acres The average size of a Muskegon County in peaches, and 20 acres growing other farm decreased more than 40 acres between fruits. In 1997 there were a total of 3,995 1997 and 2002. In 1997, more than 70 acres in fruit production, by 2000 that percent of the farms were between 10 and number had declined to 3,505, a 12 percent 180 acres in size. Thirty-five percent were decline in acreage. small farms of 10 to 49 acres and an additional 35.1 percent were in mid-sized Local Food and Organic Farms farms of 50 to 179 acres. Farm size did not In 2009, there were 231 acres of cropland in significantly change from 1987 to 1997. organic production with 8 certified organic farms and an additional 6 farms producing In 2002, more than half of Muskegon products organically, without certification. County farm operators listed something An additional 251 acres of cropland were in other than farming as their principal transition to organic or becoming certified occupation and 44 percent worked more by the USDA. than 200 days of the year off farm. Three quarters of the farms were between 10 and The Sweetwater Market operates a year- 180 acres, with 45 percent between 10 and round, organic farm market in Muskegon 49 acres. Of the 545 farms, 456 were County, with vendors from Muskegon devoted to cropland, totaling 49,139 acres. County and West Michigan providing local, The remaining land was devoted to livestock farm-to-consumer, organic agricultural and poultry purposes, with 154 cattle farms, products, including meat, vegetables and
3-59
added-value products. There are four established an Agricultural Board. The seasonally-operated Farmers Markets in Muskegon County FLOS/PDR program Muskegon County, each offering a variety needs an established source of non-federal of local and organic products along with funding to match federal PDR funds to traditional farm and added-value farm protect the prime and locally important products. farmland in Muskegon County.
Agricultural Laws and Farmland According to a recent study by the American Preservation in Muskegon County Farmland Trust, Michigan grows more Michigan is a Right to Farm state. In 1981 beans, blueberries, tart cherries, cucumbers, the Michigan Legislature passed PA 93 to flowering hanging baskets, geraniums, provide farmers with protection from Niagara grapes, hosta, and impatiens than nuisance lawsuits. As a part of that any other state. It is ranked as the 9th most legislation, the Michigan Department of endangered farm state. The study found that Agriculture has created a series of Generally the prime soil that is the most fertile is being Accepted Agriculture & Management lost to development, and that every state is Principles (GAAMPs) that are voluntary losing some of its best food producing practices for farmers. farmland.
The State of Michigan created a Farmland Agriculture and Natural Resources and Open Space Purchase of Development Farm land is often located in areas that Rights (PDR) Program. The program has include prior-converted wetland soils. five methods for preserving farmland and Muskegon County farmers have the open space: farmland development rights opportunity to take advantage of the agreements, purchase of development rights, Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) and the agricultural preservation fund, local open Conservation Reserve Program, both space easements, and designated open space administered by the US Department of easements. The purpose of the agricultural Agriculture (USDA) and the Natural preservation fund is to provide grants to Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). eligible local governments for purchase of Landowners who choose to participate in conservation easements through local, state WRP may sell a conservation easement or and federal PDR programs. Generally the enter into a cost-share restoration agreement program allows a farm owner to enter into with USDA to restore and protect wetlands. an agreement with the state that ensures that The landowner voluntarily limits future use the land remains in agricultural use for a of the land, yet retains private ownership. minimum of ten years with a maximum The landowner and NRCS develop a plan enrollment of 90 years. The primary benefits for the restoration and maintenance of the of the program to farm owners are tax wetland. The program offers landowners credits and special assessment of the farm three options: permanent easements, 30-year land. Land owners may still sell their land easements, and restoration cost-share when it is under a conservation easement, agreements of a minimum 10-year duration. but the agreement runs with the land, not the • owner. Permanent Easement: This is a conservation easement in perpetuity.
The Muskegon County Board of • 30-Year Easement: This is a Commissioners adopted the Muskegon conservation easement lasting 30 County Farm Land Open Space (FLOS) years. Easement payments are 75 Program and Ordinance in 2006 and
3-60
percent of what would be paid for a viewing, boating, fishing, swimming, picnic permanent easement. areas, playgrounds and a luge run is
• Restoration Cost-Share Agreement: available for winter park visitors. This is an agreement (generally for a minimum of 10 years in duration) to Duck Lake State Park re-establish degraded or lost wetland Duck Lake State Park is a 728 acre park, habitat. located in Muskegon County. The Park stretches from the northern shore of Duck The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Lake to Lake Michigan. The Park contains is another voluntary program for agricultural a mixture of open brush land to mature landowners. Through CRP, landowners can hardwood forest, with some pockets of open receive annual rental payments and cost- meadows mixed in. The Park features share assistance to establish long-term, include hunting, swimming, fishing, picnic resource conserving native plantings and areas, hiking, boating and snowmobile areas. buffer strips on eligible farmland. Hoffmaster State Park on Lake Michigan Parks and Recreation The Hoffmaster State Park is a 1,200 acre park featuring forest covered dunes along Manistee National Forest nearly three miles of Lake Michigan shore. The Huron-Manistee National Forests Its sandy beach is one of the finest shores in comprise almost a million acres of the area and a focal point of the Park is the public lands extending across the Gillette Visitor Center. The Gillette Visitor northern lower peninsula of Michigan. Center is located at the top of a large sand dune surrounded by a pristine wooded back- The Huron-Manistee National Forests dune, the center features state-of-the-art provide recreation opportunities for exhibits to tell Michigan's unique sand dune visitors, habitat for fish and wildlife, and story. With exhibits, interactive displays, resources for local industry. multi-image slide shows, and other nature The forests of northern Michigan are programs to orient visitors to Michigan's rich in history. In the late 1800s logging unique cultural and natural features, this was at its peak and these forests were attraction is one of the top attractions in the quickly cut and cleared. In 1909, the State. The center has a variety of programs Huron National Forest was established to help visitors enjoy and understand the and the Manistee National Forest was unique environment of the sand dunes of the formed in 1938. In 1945, these two Great Lakes.
National Forests were administratively The center features an exhibit hall depicting combined. the ecological zones of the unique dune environment. Multimedia presentations on Muskegon State Park on Lake Michigan the dunes and seasonal nature subjects are Muskegon State Park is located four miles shown in an 82-seat auditorium. In addition, west of North Muskegon on the shore of the Center offers educational opportunities Lake Michigan. With over two miles of for students and families throughout the shoreline on Lake Michigan and with over year. one mile on Muskegon Lake, this is one of the top recreational areas in the region. The Hart-Montague Trail State Park park features 1,165 acres of land and The Hart-Montague Trail State Park is a recreational facilities include wildlife paved, 22 mile trail passing through the rural
3-61
forested lands of the Park. Scenic overlooks picnicking, swimming, camping, hiking, and and picnic areas are located along the route. rental cottages. The Park is approximately 22 acres in size and is accessible from the communities of Picnicking shelters are available for rent and Hart and Montague, as well as other seat approximately 40 people. The Park communities between the two cities along offers 67 modern campsites for recreational US 31. Additional recreational amenities vehicles with open and shaded sites. include wildlife viewing, fishing, biking, and snowmobile areas during the winter. County Park Acreage Muskegon County Parks Acres Blue Lake County Park Blue Lake...... 22 Blue Lake County Park is located on Big Blue Lake north of Muskegon. This 25 acre Deremo ...... 10 park has nearly 600 feet of frontage along Heritage Landing ...... 7 the southeast shore of the Lake and provides Hilt's Landing ...... 232 water recreation activities including boating, AC Fairchild ...... 20 fishing, waterskiing and swimming. In Meinert ...... 54 addition to these water activities, other Moore ...... 36 features include picnicking, camping and Muskegon County Fairgrounds ...... 160 hiking. The Park offers 25 modern campsites for recreational vehicles with Patterson ...... 28 open and shaded sites. All campsites offer Pioneer ...... 145 water and electric hookups. Twin Lakes ...... 8 Veterans Memorial Park ...... 19 Deremo County Park Muskegon County Wastewater....11,700 Deremo County Park is a paved launch that Total ...... 12,441 is maintained for boating, water-skiing and Table 3.34: County Parks fishing. The Deremo access site is located
on Fruitvale Road on the north side of Big All campsites offer water, electrical, and Blue Lake. Deremo access site hours are sewer hookups. Rental cottages are offered from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and is open for a family or group of six, on a weekly year-round with limited snow removal. basis, Memorial weekend through Labor Day or on a weekly or daily basis before Meinert County Park Memorial Day and after Labor Day. The Meinert County Park is located on Lake cottages include 3 bedrooms, living room, Michigan north of Montague. The Park is kitchen and dinning room, and full bath. approximately 88 acres with rolling dunes, 1 including a large parabolic dune and scenic Heritage Landing overlooks that provide visitors a spectacular During the summer, Heritage Landing view of Little Flower Creek and Lake provides the venue for the Summer Michigan shoreline. The Park features Celebration, Michigan Irish Musical Festival, Christian Music Festival, 1 Parabolic dunes, defined by their distinctive U-shape, are and Lunch on the Landing, a free weekday found only in moist environments where extensive vegetation cover often stabilizes the dunes. Parabolic dunes slowly lunch concert series. With carnival rides, move inland as sand is pushed over the crest and deposited music from popular musical performers, and on the leeward side. fireworks displays, Heritage Landing brings
3-62
excitement to the Muskegon Lake picnic shelters are available to rent for waterfront. family reunions, company and church picnics, or other group activities where Patterson County Park shelter is desired. Shelters offer seating for Patterson Park is located on the Little Rio 60 people, a large park grill for cooking and Grande Creek two miles southwest of electrical outlets. Ravenna. The park is 28 acres on the river flood plain with wooded and open areas. A City of Montague variety of wild flowers bloom throughout The City of Montague owns and operates the spring and summer offering the visitor the two acre Maple Beach Park and eleven the opportunity to view species not common acres at Medbury Park. to most areas in Muskegon County. The park is a quiet setting with restrooms, a Maple Beach Park has playground small picnic shelter, grills and tables. equipment, picnic facilities, beach area, and Walking along the riverbank and sitting next restrooms. Medbury Park has picnic tables, to the small dam and spillway are beach area, and a boardwalk. picturesque and relaxing activities. Lake Front Park has a band shell and Pioneer Park restrooms. It is adjacent to the Montague Pioneer Park is located on Lake Michigan Boat Launch. Each area is approximately north of Muskegon and has over 2,000 feet three acres. of white sand beach frontage. This popular 145-acre park offers camping, swimming, Additional investment in Maple Beach Park sunbathing, picnicking, tennis, softball, is planned for 2006, with $250,000 to be basketball and volleyball. The park is filled invested in acquisition and development. with a variety of mixed oak, maple, white pine and hemlock pine trees. This is the City of Muskegon County’s largest and most popular park. The City of Muskegon owns nearly 600 acres of parkland and open space. Major A lodge building is available to rent for parks include Fisherman's Landing, McGraft family reunions, company, church picnics, Park, Pere Marquette Park, Bronson Park or other group activities where shelter is and Sheldon, Seyferth, and Beachwood desired. The park offers 213 modern Parks provide passive and active recreation campsites for recreational vehicles, with opportunities to adjoining neighborhoods. open and shaded sites, and offer water and electric hookups. In addition, a group Other recreational facilities include special camping area is available for family, church use facilities typically providing unique or groups, and camping clubs with up to 27 unusual recreational opportunities. These camping units. facilities include Hackley Park (formal central City park dedicated in 1890, on Twin Lake County Park National and State historic registers, strong, Twin Lake County Park is located on Twin attractive, historic element), the Indian Lake north of Muskegon. Twin Lake Park Cemetery (the oldest known Indian is a 15-acre park with 800 feet of frontage cemetery in the area, circa 1800s), L.C. on Twin Lake with shaded and open areas Walker Arena/Convention Center (sporting for family outdoor activities including and cultural events, public/private skating, picnicking, swimming, tennis, volleyball, banquets, flea markets and meetings), and boating. The lodge building and two Hartshorn Marina (only municipal marina
3-63
on Muskegon Lake and home of the Port Village of Fruitport City Princess), the Kruse Park observation The Village of Fruitport has five parks and a deck, and Jaycee's Launch Ramp (heavily bike path. Pomona Park has a playground, used public launch ramp on west end of picnic shelter, and band shell. The other Muskegon Lake). park sites are a boat launch site with access to Spring Lake, Grand River, and Lake All schools in the Muskegon Public School Michigan; a handicap accessible fishing District provide outdoor recreational pier; and, two small area access sites. The facilities. Because schools are distributed bike path connects to Spring Lake, throughout the City, their recreational Ferrysburg, and Grand Haven. facilities function as local neighborhood playgrounds used by school age children in Village of Ravenna surrounding neighborhoods. There are two public parks in the Village of Ravenna. Conklin Park has a number of City of Muskegon Heights recreation courts and fields, picnic tables The City of Muskegon Heights has 87 acres and grills, restrooms and concession stands, of park and recreation land. Local parks and playground equipment. Thatcher Park include the Little Black Creek Major Park, has two pavilions with picnic tables, Mona Lake City Park, West Heights Park, restrooms, and playground equipment. the Johnny O. Harris Playfield, War Memorial Park, and Rowan Park. Village of Lakewood Club The Village of Lakewood Club has a 9.5 City of North Muskegon acre park with a baseball field, playground, The City of North Muskegon has more than and a pavilion with a grill. The park was 20 acres of park and recreation land in five deeded to the village from Dalton Township, locations. but can revert to the township if the village ceases to use the park for public purposes. City of Norton Shores The City of Norton Shores has more than 230 acres of parkland. The majority of the parkland is at the Lake Harbor Park. The second largest park is Ross Park at 43 acres.
City of Whitehall Funnell Field is a neighborhood park that has softball fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, Little League fields, playground equipment, restrooms, and picnic facilities. The Goodrich/White Lake Municipal Marina is a regional community park with a fifty slip marina, playground equipment, and restroom and picnic facilities. City Hall/Slocum Park has tennis courts and picnic amenities. Gee Park is a neighborhood park with playground equipment and picnic facilities.
3-64
Causeway Memorial Park ...... 4 Local Pak Acreage Custer Park ...... 0.5 Local Parks Acres East End Park ...... 0.75 City of Montague Ruddiman Overlook ...... 1 Cullen Athletic Field ...... 10 Walker Park ...... 1 Ellenwood Park ...... 0.25 West End Park ...... 4 Koon Creek Park ...... 2.75 City of Norton Shores Lake Front Park ...... 3 Avondale Park ...... 2 Maple Beach Park ...... 4.5 Chapman-Veurink Park ...... 2 Medbury Park ...... 6.5 Hidden Cove Park ...... 20 Montague Boat Launch ...... 3 Lake Harbor Park ...... 184 City of Muskegon New Development ...... 1 Aamodt Playground ...... 2 Ross Park ...... 43 Beachwood Playground ...... 3 City of Roosevelt Park Beukema Playfield ...... 10 Community Recreation Center ...... 4 Bronson Park ...... 32 Delmar Playfield ...... 5 Campbell Playfield ...... 10 Germaine Road Park ...... 0.5 Chase Hammond Golf Course ...... 214 Hubert D. Carsell Park ...... 0.5 Cottage Grove Launch Ramp James Davies Park ...... 1 Curve Park ...... 24 James V. Wells Park ...... 0.5 Gidding Street Launch Ramp Leon Lambert Park ...... 1 Green Acres Playground ...... 5 Post Road Park ...... 0.5 Hackley Park ...... 2 Princeton Road Playground ...... 0.5 Hartshorn Marina Launch Ramp Tennis Courts ...... 0.5 Lake Michigan park ...... 55 City of Whitehall Marsh Playfield ...... 6 City Hall/Slocum Park ...... 2.5 McCrea Playfield ...... 9 Covell Park ...... 4 McGraft Park ...... 92 Funnell Field ...... 12.5 Pere Marquette Boat Launch Gee Park ...... 1.5 Pere Marquette Park ...... 32 Goodrich Park ...... 8.5 Reese Playfield ...... 13 Lions Park ...... 3.5 Richards Park - Boat Launch ...... 7 Mill Pond Peninsula ...... 4.5 Ryerson Valley Park ...... 72 Norman Park ...... 1 Seyferth Playfield ...... 16 Svensson Park ...... 4 Sheldon Playfield ...... 6 Veteran's Memorial...... 0.5 Smith Playfield ...... 23 Village of Fruitport Yacht Club Mooring Basin Pomona Park ...... 2 City of Muskegon Heights Village of Lakewood Club ...... 9.5 Johnny O. Harris Playfield ...... 11 Village of Ravenna Little Black Creek Major Park ...... 20 Conklin Park ...... 10 Mona Lake City Park ...... 47 Thatcher Park ...... 2 Rowan Park ...... 2 Total ...... 1107.25 War Memorial Park ...... 2 Table 3.35: Local Parks West Heights Park ...... 5 City of North Muskegon Bear Lake Park ...... 7 Block 58 - Lakefront Sports Park ...... 7
3-65
Map 3.36: Parks
3-66
Chapter 4: Alternative Development Scenarios
4-1
Alternative Development Scenarios • Community character Muskegon County enjoys a rich industrial • Precedents for regional cooperation and agricultural heritage, and its • Natural resources development has been related to the • Growing public awareness/concerns industries, crops, and tourism activities that regarding growth have developed as the economic life of the • Destination tours county. The ability to maintain rural, recreational, and other open space areas for The threats outlined include: agricultural and tourism uses and to redevelop industrial areas in ways that • Lack of coordinated land use support existing, new, and emerging planning industries is critical to the future of • Lack of shared vision Muskegon County. The Muskegon Area- • Household decentralization wide Plan (MAP) is a vision for that • Increasing decline in the urban prosperous Muskegon County future. centers • Loss of farm/open space As a means of developing a plan for • Threats to environmental quality obtaining this future vision, alternative scenarios were developed for evaluation by The MAP project is intended to overcome the citizens of Muskegon County. Scenario the threats and take advantage of regional building provides an opportunity to consider opportunities. what might happen in the community under various policy conditions. The current distribution of land uses as
represented by acreage of the total county is The purpose of considering alternative as follows: scenarios is to understand the policy choices, educate local officials and the • 12.9% residential public about the implications of policy • choices, and evaluate which policy choices 1.9% commercial • are right for Muskegon County. 1.0% industrial Understanding the policy choices and their • 4.8% public lands and utilities implications forces trade-offs between • 79.5% agriculture, open space, conflicting goals. These alternatives are forest, water, and wetlands general in nature and have been prepared to illustrate and explore distinct potential Other important trends that were considered future development patterns for the planning in the development of scenarios include: area. • Continued decentralization As a means of developing the alternative o Growth in Fruitport scenarios, regional opportunities and threats Township were considered along with projected area o Growth in southeast trends, existing conditions including Muskegon Township and transportation infrastructure and utility southwest Egelston service capabilities, sound planning Township principles, and public opinion. The o Growth along corridors in opportunities considered include: Moorland Township o Growth along corridors in • Diversifying economy Egelston Township
4-2
o Growth along corridors in • More and longer car trips Fruitland Township o 25 percent of Muskegon o Growth in Blue Lake County residents worked Township outside Muskegon County o Between 1970 and 2000, in 2000 development occurred in a o 17 percent of those who sprawling pattern that work in Muskegon County “stripped out” residential do not live in the county lots along county roads. o More than 30,000 people These lots were enter or leave Muskegon predominately low density. County for work each day • Loss of farm/open space o 84 percent of workers drove o Between 1992 and 1997, 0.7 a car, truck, or van alone to percent of the county’s work in 2000 farmland was lost to • Minority populations development disproportionately located in o Between 1987 and 1992 Muskegon County urban areas there was a loss of 10.4 o Sixteen percent of the percent of farmland county population is o Only 429 of 73,113 acres minority, more than 30 under formal farmland percent of Muskegon is protection programs African-American and more th o Michigan ranked as 9 most than three quarters of endangered farm state by Muskegon Heights is the American Farmland African-American Trust • Conflicts between new residential Under these circumstances three scenarios, development and agricultural uses or development alternatives, were o 30 percent of housing units considered. The Business as Usual scenario in Blue Lake Township is the baseline scenario which continues built after 1995 existing market and demographic trends. o 20 percent of housing stock The Zoning Build-out scenario shows how in Egelston Township built the region would develop if local after 1995 governments followed the existing zoning o Development conflicts ordinances and new development followed between the existing land use patterns. The Smart residential/commercial Growth scenario policies encourage infill developers and citizens development in urban areas, suburban areas, concerned about protecting and rural centers. Some infill may also environmentally sensitive occur in mature corridors that connect areas centers or along transportation corridors. • Residential land uses expanding o More than 700 building The Business as Usual and Smart Growth permits issued countywide scenarios were developed using a 2020 in each of the last three target year. Using this target, the population years is expected to grow thirteen percent, or by o Only 7.8 percent of permits 23,000 people. Residential land uses are issued in City of Muskegon expected to increase 38 percent and
4-3
consume an additional 17,000 acres of land. The scenarios represent distinct ideas that Commercial uses are expected to grow 29 respond to one or more of the visions or percent and consume 1,700 additional acres, goals expressed by the Steering Committee. and industrial land uses are expected to These alternatives have been created to grow 21 percent, consuming an additional generate specific discussion as to what can 700 acres. Land consumption is projected to be supported locally and what elements outpace population growth between 2000 cannot. and 2020. The same assumptions were used in each scenario for gross density and the number of persons per household, the difference in the scenarios is where the growth occurs.
In the Zoning Build-out scenario, the scenario shows all of the areas that are currently zoned for development using the existing zoning maps for all of the jurisdictions in the county (the Villages of Casnovia and Fruitport were not available). This scenario does not reflect a 2020 base year, but rather the build out of all of the land currently zoned for development.
In each case, the scenarios include recommendations for public improvements such as new or improved transportation facilities that would help attract and support the desired development pattern. The next chapter will add detail to the preferred scenario, based on public input.
Land Use Date Not Available
Figure 4.1: Population and Land Consumption Projections
4-4
Business as Usual The Business as Usual scenario is the baseline scenario in the sense that it assumes continuation of the existing market and demographic trends. Future trends follow the past trends in terms of urbanization and land consumption. This scenario assumes that the current land use policies remain in place and allows maximum flexibility and independence for the local jurisdictions in development decisions. It relies on cooperation among localities on most development issues such as watershed protection, land use planning, natural area conservation and economic development. Under this scenario, each community bears the burden of its own growth-related costs.
The following principles apply to the Business as Usual scenario:
• Average lot sizes and the distance between homes increase • Most new residential development would be single family homes on large lots • Residential growth would continue to cause a reduction in agricultural and open space lands • Transportation and other infrastructure (water, sewer, and utilities) costs would increase • Construction and maintenance cost of transportation links would increase over time
Under this scenario, the growth would continue the pattern that emerged during the 1980s and 1990s of “stripping out” land along transportation corridors for residential and commercial development. The majority of this growth would occur in the southeast townships and in the northwest corner of the county.
4-5
Map 4.2: Scenario I – Business as Usual
4-6
Land use (based on an average speed of 30 mph and This distribution of land uses would using “crow flies” distances). effectively be the same as the existing land use distribution. Fruitport Township would experience a significant portion of the growth outside of Agricultural land and open space is the service areas. Currently Fruitport threatened along corridors throughout the Township has an Insurance Standards county in the Business as Usual scenario. Organization (ISO) rating of 5 (scale of 1 to One land use concern associated with this 10, 1 being the highest). However, development pattern is that some significant portions of Fruitport Township agricultural land could become unusable for are not within an eight minute response area production due to access constraints. More for fire fighting, particularly the southeast than 8,500 acres of farmland and open space portions of the township. Not being able to is consumed under this scenario. meet the eight minute standard 90 percent of the time affects the department’s ISO rating, Forest land is least threatened under this raising the cost of homeowners and business scenario as the development occurs in insurance. As development continues in narrow strips along corridors and doesn’t Fruitport Township, another station may be require removal of significant stands of needed to cover the southeastern portion of trees. Under the Business as Usual scenario, the township if the development pattern approximately 8,600 acres of forested land follows the Business as Usual scenario. is lost to development. Also, in order to meet the eight minute response standard, a fire station would be Transportation needed in northwestern White River Transportation corridors would likely Township. become increasingly congested during peak travel times as people commute farther to A 6,000 square foot fire station with three jobs in the urban area and other counties. bays, a kitchen, and training areas costs The commute times in the outer townships, approximately $800,000. A 2,000 gallon if they continue at the 1990-2000 rate of pumper truck costs approximately $175,000. change, would be more than thirty minutes Therefore, the two new fire stations needed by 2020. This includes; Casnovia, Egelston, under the Business as Usual scenario would Fruitland, Holton, Montague, Mooreland, cost approximately $1,950,000. and Ravenna townships. Staffing for fire departments is determined This scenario has the highest number of road on their ability to meet response standards. miles to maintain, and generates the most It costs approximately $2,000 to outfit a traffic, more than 450,000 vehicle miles firefighter with the needed equipment. If traveled (VMT) per day. Due to the additional staffing is needed for the new fire dispersed development pattern, the stations, or existing fire stations, the opportunities for transit would be limited approximate cost would be $2,000 per year under this development pattern. per firefighter in addition to any labor related costs. Emergency services Under the Business as Usual scenario, 15 Water percent of the new development occurs Water service in the county is provided by outside of an eight minute response time four systems, Montague, Whitehall, Muskegon, and Muskegon Heights. The
4-7
Whitehall system serves the city and a contributes 12.8 MGD to the total. The commercial area along Colby Road. population that is on sewer is 115,000. Planned expansions include the Colby corridor near the US 31 interchange, There are $37.3 million worth of Whitehall Road from Colby to White Lake improvements planned for the wastewater Drive, and White Lake Road near the treatment plant. Phase I improvements industrial park and the US 31 interchange. include replacing pump stations, eliminating The Montague system serves the city and a pump stations and replacing with a central commercial area along Business 31, as well pump station, upgrading and rehabilitating as a residential area that had contaminated pump stations, and a new force main. Phase wells southwest of the city. Muskegon II improvements include constructing a new customers include the City of Muskegon, pump station, optimizing the existing Muskegon Township, North Muskegon, wastewater treatment facility, and Roosevelt Park and the County North side headworks improvements. system. The Muskegon Heights system serves Muskegon Heights, Norton Shores, Under this scenario, 65 percent of the new and Fruitport Charter Township. development would fall outside of the planned sewer service area. This would The existing total capacity for the county’s result in 5,054 additional households using water treatment facilities is approximately septic systems, or the equivalent of 1.49 60 million gallons per day (MGD). MGD of effluent entering the ground rather Currently only about 17 MGD of that than a wastewater treatment facility. capacity is being used on an average daily flow basis. In order to serve all of the new development under the Business as Usual scenario with Under the Business as Usual scenario, 65 sewer, 150 miles of additional sewer mains percent of the new development would be would need to be extended at a cost of outside of the planned future service area. $178,200,000 rough estimate. This would result in an additional 5,936 households using private wells, the Parks equivalent of 1.48 MGD in water flow. Residents would continue to enjoy abundant park and recreation land in the national In order to serve all of the new development forest, state owned lands, county, township, under the Business as Usual scenario with and local parks under the Business as Usual water, 150 miles of additional water mains scenario. The amount of park land per 1,000 would need to be extended at a cost of people far exceeds any national standards in $67,320,000 (rough estimate). aggregate. On the county, township, and local level additional park acreage would be Wastewater needed to provide recreation opportunities The county is served by a single wastewater for children in the form of parks that can be treatment system. The Montague-Whitehall accessed without cars and playground system and the Metro system were equipment and recreation fields. The combined in May 2003. The average daily additional acreage needed for the parks flow for the system is 24.4 MGD, with a systems are: maximum daily flow of 28.2 MGD. More than 60 percent of the average daily flow is Providing this additional acreage in from industrial users, with a single user who locations where it efficiently serves the local
4-8
Additional Park Acreage Needed Government Level Acres Zoning Build-Out Scenario County ...... 108 The Zoning Build-out scenario shows how Township ...... 43 the region would develop if local Local ...... 162 governments follow their existing zoning and new development followed existing Table 4.1:Additional Park Acreage Needed development patterns. In order to construct this scenario, a composite zoning base map park function would be difficult since the was created based on the existing local development is not concentrated. zoning maps.
In workshops, citizens noted the following In the Zoning Build-out scenario, the growth likes regarding the Business as Usual is distributed throughout the county. Much scenario: of the growth will occur in the metro area, Moorland Township, near Ravenna, in the • Promotes rapid development – Duck Lake area, in Dalton Township, Blue realtors and developers enjoy rapid Lake Township, and western Holton profits Township. • Sprawl is reality • It’s the direction of current Land left undeveloped would include the development federal and state lands, and portions of • There is freedom, no regulation Casnovia, Ravenna, Sullivan, Egelston, • Allows local flexibility Fruitland, White River, eastern Holton, and • We are accustomed to this growth Cedar Creek Townships. • Freedom of choice • Works for developers and land owners • No conflict/individual freedom • Driven by market forces • Requires no effort • Local control
Citizens also suggested the following changes to the Business as Usual scenario:
• Continue growth south – saturation • Bring communities together with congruent zoning • Open space
4-9
Map 4.3: Scenario II – Zoning Build Out
4-10
Land use the zoning pattern is giving very little In this scenario, residential development direction to the prioritization of desired continues to occur at existing zoned development sites. densities, expanding infrastructure needs, consuming agricultural land and Open space is threatened in the Zoning fragmenting open space and forest lands. Build-out scenario. Most of the undeveloped area of the county would be in Build-out calculations were completed using the environmentally sensitive areas of the information from the local zoning national forest, state game area, and state ordinances about the minimum lot size lands. Areas zoned for agriculture would allowable in each residential and agricultural also remain undeveloped. zone. This information, along with the amount of land zoned for each use (in each Under this scenario, 75 percent of the new jurisdiction) in the composite zoning map development occurs in forested land, was used to calculate a build-out population, consuming 52 percent (87,043 acres) of the based on a population of 2.5 persons per county’s forest resources. More than 25,000 household. Further the WMSRDC acres of agricultural land and open space are population projections were extended to consumed for development under this determine the year at which build-out would scenario. be achieved. Transportation Including agricultural lands, the build-out Under the Zoning Build-out scenario there population would be at least 875,000 (data would be fewer “spot” projects and more not available for all jurisdictions). Without “system” projects than in the business as further development in agricultural areas, as usual scenario. Since development would permitted under the existing zoning be more compact than under the Business as ordinances, the build-out population would Usual scenario there would be a more be nearly 790,000. Neither of the moderate number of road miles to maintain calculations includes residential and some improved efficiencies for snow development that may occur in Planned Unit removal. Developments or Mixed-Use Developments with higher densities allowed. The operations impacts such as regional travel time and distance would be moderate Based on the WMSRDC population as would fuel usage. projections assuming 3.3 percent growth for every five year increment, it would roughly The multi-modal opportunities are moderate be the year 2240 before the residential zones for transit services and there are improved alone reached build-out and 2255 before the options for non-motorized transportation residential and agricultural zones reached compared to the Business as Usual scenario. their build-out population. Hence, the county is zoned for much more growth This scenario leads to predictable patterns than it anticipates in the next twenty for long range transportation planning. years. Having excessive land zoned for residential uses encourages development to Emergency services occur outside of existing service areas and in Under the Zoning Build-out scenario 85 a lower density, less efficient pattern than if percent of the new development is within an the appropriate amount of land was zoned eight minute response time for fire fighting. for a reasonable planning horizon. In effect Areas in Fruitport Township and in the
4-11
Cedar Creek and Moorland Township area treatment infrastructure is not maximized would not be served within this response when development does not occur in areas time without the construction of new fire where sewer is available. stations. Specifically, 56 percent of the Build-out The development in Cedar Creek and development would occur outside of the Moorland Townships is in the eight minute sewer service area. Under the Zoning Build- response time for the DNR fire station, but out scenario, the county population is that staff generally does not fight structural approaching 875,000. If this entire fires. population were on sewer, using the planning standard of 250 gallons per The cost of a new fire station in Fruitport household per day and 2.5 persons per Township would be approximately $975,000 household, the treatment plant would need based on a three-bay station with a kitchen to have a capacity of 87.5 MGD, or 45.5 and training areas and a pumper truck. The MGD additional capacity just to serve same costs would apply to a new fire station residential customers. in Cedar Creek or Moorland Township to service new development in that area. Parks While Muskegon County has abundant land Water for recreation in the form of the national Under the Zoning Build-out scenario, 51 forest, state parks, the state game area, and percent of the new development is outside of county, township, and local parks, those the planned future water service area. facilities were not planned to accommodate a Muskegon County population in excess of New development outside of the water 875,000 people. If no additional park land service area would be on private wells. were developed by the build-out year of There would be 24,970 new households 2255, the level of service for county, using wells; the equivalent of 6.24 million township, and local parks would be reduced gallons per day (MGD) of water flow. to 2 acres per 1,000 people and the overall parks level of service (including federal and Expanding the water treatment system to the state lands) would be reduced to 50 acres per planned service area from the current area 1,000 people. As mentioned earlier, federal would require $3 to $25.1 million worth of and state lands do not necessarily meet the investments based on estimates for the same recreation needs as county, township, White Lake Water Authority from the and local parks. Therefore, to meet the 2000 engineering consulting firm of Prein & level of service of 4 acres of county parks, 2 Newhof. acres of township parks, and 7 acres of local parks per 1,000 residents, the following Wastewater number of acres of park land would be In the Zoning Build-out scenario, not all of needed: the growth occurs within the future sewer Additional Park Acreage Needed service area and areas that are served by Government Level Acres sewer are left undeveloped. Development in County ...... 3,120 Mooreland, Sullivan, Fruitland, Holton, and Blue Lake Townships is not served by Township ...... 1,229 sewer. This can be a concern when septic Local ...... 4,661 fields are built too close together and fail. Table 4.2:Additional Park Acreage Further, the public investment in wastewater Needed to Meet 2000 Level of Service
4-12
Public Comments In workshops, citizens liked the following about the zoning build-out scenario:
• Supports current zoning master plans • Allows more space for building and growth • More realistic unless there is collaboration/consensus on issues • More closely represents what is likely to occur • Creates alternatives for people willing to move to the area • Local input • Works for local governments • Respects individual property rights • Attracts more opportunities to the area • Concentrates housing • Local control • Less density
Citizens also recommended the following changes to the zoning build-out scenario:
• Work together between the townships • Restrict future development or infrastructure/services costs will be astronomical • Listen to communities
4-13
such as trails, pathways, and open Smart Growth Scenario space corridors Generally, “smart growth refers to an overall • Average lot sizes would be smaller, set of broad policies designed to counteract with increased diversity of housing sprawl. These usually include: (1) limiting types and prices outward expansion, (2) encouraging higher • Smaller lots would consume less density development, (3) encouraging land over time, resulting in lower mixed-used zoning as distinct from fully infrastructure costs than the business segregating land uses, (4) reducing travel as usual scenario time by private vehicles, (5) revitalizing • Transportation investments would older areas, and (6) preserving open space” focus on improvements and transit (Muro and Puentes, March 2004). In this scenario, policies are intended to encourage In this scenario, new development is infill in developed urban, suburban, and concentrated in Laketon, Muskegon, rural centers. Infill of mature corridors that Egelston, and Fruitport Townships, near connect centers or are along transportation existing communities. There are also corridors may also occur. The policies development areas surrounding Montague provide for limited growth at low densities and Whitehall, Casnovia, and Ravenna. in clustered settings, which is assumed to occur in areas outside existing urban, suburban, and rural centers. The majority of Smart Growth Principles: the development is assumed to occur where public water and sewer are available. Smart • Create a Range of Housing Growth policies also encourage investment Opportunities and Choices in quality of life, or livability factors. • Create Walkable Neighborhoods The principles that apply to the Smart • Encourage Community and Stakeholder Growth scenario include: Collaboration • Development locating near existing communities providing opportunity • Foster Distinctive, Attractive for the sharing of services Communities with a Strong Sense of • Commercial and retail services Place would be located within short • Make Development Decisions distance of residential areas, and Predictable, Fair and Cost Effective provide walking and biking opportunities • Mix Land Uses • Less open space and agricultural • Preserve Open Space, Farmland, Natural land would be lost to development Beauty and Critical Environmental in this scenario Areas • Encourage the adoption of new regulations for planned unit • Provide a Variety of Transportation developments (PUD), cluster Choices development, and open space in • Strengthen and Direct Development communities Towards Existing Communities • Increase investment in non- motorized transportation linkages • Take Advantage of Compact Building Design
4-14
Map 4.4: Scenario III – Smart Growth
4-15
Land use The Smart Growth scenario involves a The Smart Growth scenario development savings of 62 percent of vehicle miles pattern addresses concerns related to traveled per day over the business as usual farmland protection, average lot sizes, and scenario. It also provides for the lowest infrastructure development by concentrating total regional travel time, lowest total growth near existing urban areas and rural regional fuel usage (saving $6 million per villages. These shifts would be year in fuel costs) and has the fewest air accomplished through policy changes that pollution impacts from mobile sources. require the development and adoption of new zoning ordinances and Planned Unit The Smart Growth scenario also provides Development ordinances that allow for for the greatest opportunity for providing smaller lot sizes, encourage cluster transportation choice in terms of transit and development, and provide for non-motorized non-motorized options. It provides a transportation linkages. predictable growth pattern that facilitates long range transportation improvement In this scenario, development would occur planning. near existing development in the Townships of Muskegon, Laketon and Dalton, the Wolf Emergency services Lake area and the villages of Lakewood Only two percent of the new development in Club, Ravenna, and Casnovia. the Smart Growth scenario lies outside of the current eight minute fire response time. Open space is preserved in the Smart Since nearly all of the new development is Growth scenario by directing growth toward within an existing service area, no new existing urbanized areas and away from stations would be needed – no capital environmentally sensitive lands and prime investment would be needed. Compared to farmland. The open space areas include the Business as Usual scenario local protected federal and state lands, and rural governments would save $1,950,000 in fire areas in the outlying townships. Under this station construction and equipment. This scenario, 13,808 acres of forest land would saves townships from investing or having to be lost to new development. However, only seek grant funding for that amount. It would 4,195 acres of farmland/open space would save taxpayers (if shared by all county be consumed by new development. Since taxpayers) $0.04 per $100 of County much of the land in Muskegon County is Equalized Value (CEV) or approximately forested, it would be impossible to plan for $35 for the average household. growth in serviced areas without losing forest resources. By concentrating the area Water of development, larger tracts of habitat are Under the Smart Growth scenario only six left intact. percent of the new development is outside of the planned future service area. Transportation The Smart Growth scenario has the most This would result in the equivalent of 570 limited number of miles of roads to households on private wells, or .14 MGD of construct and maintain. It provides for water flow that could be on municipal water. “system” improvements to better service While wells do not create some of the health local needs. This development scenario is and environmental hazards that septic also the most efficient of the three for snow systems create, there are still public health removal. issues with wells related to the potential for well contamination.
4-16
The Smart Growth scenario would eliminate Quality of life is generally considered an the need to construct 150 miles of water important focus of a Smart Growth scenario. lines over the Business as Usual scenario, at Muskegon County residents defined quality a cost of $67,320,000 (rough estimate), if all of life using the following terms: new development were to be served with water. • small town atmosphere • rural character Expanding the water treatment system to the • quiet planned service area from the current area • safe would require $3 to $25.1 million worth of • family investments based on estimates for the • sense of community White Lake Water Authority from Prein & • water resources Newhof. • arts, cultural, and educational Wastewater opportunities • greenway In the Smart Growth scenario only five • parks and recreation percent of new development would be • outside of the planned sewer service area. events • quality healthcare This level of development outside the service area would result in 532 households Through policies that focus growth in urban using septic systems, putting .13 MGD of areas and around small towns, Smart septic effluent in the ground. Growth promotes maintenance of rural and small town character. A focus on non- According to a 2004 Prein & Newhof study, motorized transportation places priority on the 2020 estimated daily flow is 35.3 million linkages such as greenways to connect gallons for the whole county. points of community interest such as beaches, parks, schools, and government Parks buildings. Open space preservation allows for active and passive recreation Residents would continue to enjoy abundant opportunities, in both structured and park and recreation land in the national unstructured open spaces. forest, state owned lands, county, township,
and local parks. The amount of park land In workshops, citizens noted the following per 1,000 people far exceeds any national likes about the Smart Growth scenario: standards in aggregate. On the township and
local level, additional park acreage would be • needed to provide recreation opportunities Preserves private ownership rights for children in the form of parks that can be • Conserves land uses accessed without cars and playground • Concentrates growth equipment and recreation fields. Providing • Keeps major roadway undeveloped this additional acreage in locations where it • Creates open space development efficiently serves the local park function • More visually appealing would be possible since the growth is • Better way to develop small concentrated in the existing urbanized area community atmosphere and new development can have parks • Limits growth in rural areas incorporated into the overall development • Preservation of farmland/open space plan to serve the new households.
4-17
• Continued development of urban • Will facilitate redevelopment of areas brownfield sites • It is contained, leaving plenty of • Benefits the entire community room for agriculture • Better use of infrastructure • Greater density Citizens also made the following • Less sprawl suggestions for change to the scenario: • Less pollution • Conserves lakeshore and prime • Should be an emphasis on greenway farmland & green infrastructure as an • Considers outcome, collaboration integrated part of Smart Growth • Planned • Acknowledge some strip • Local governments working development will occur together • Somewhat bigger lots • Less impact on the environment • Listen to existing communities
Table 4.5: Comparison of Development Scenario Impacts
Factor Scenario I: Scenario II: Scenario III: Business as Zoning Smart Growth Usual Build-out Acres of forest consumed 8,612 84,658 13,808 Acres of agricultural 8,563 25,056 4,195 land/open space consumed Percent of development 15% 15% 2% outside 8-minute fire response Number of needed fire 2 1 (or 2) 0 stations Cost of new fire stations $1,950,000 $975,000 $0 (capital) Percent of new development 65% 51% 6% outside water service area Number of new private wells 5,936 24,970 570 Water flow from wells 1.48 MGD 6.24 MGD .14 MGD Percent of new development 65% 56% 5% outside of sewer service area Number of new septic systems 5,054 33,999 532 Septic flows 1.49 MGD 8.49 MGD .13 MGD Both water and sewer calculations are based on 2.05 acres per household (average for new development), 100 gallons of water/sewage per person per day and 2.5 persons per household.
4-18
Table 4.6: Comparison of Development Impacts on Transportation
Scenario I: Business as Usual Scenario II: Zoning Build-out Scenario III: Smart Growth
Construction Construction Construction Highest road miles to construct Moderate (planned) road miles to Most limited new road miles to construct construct Large number of "spot" Fewer "spot" projects/more "System" improvements better intersection projects "system" improvements serve local needs
Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Highest road miles to maintain Moderate (planned) road miles to Most limited new road miles to maintain maintain Highest snow removal costs Improved efficiency for snow Most efficient snow removal removal plan
Operations Operations Operations Highest total regional travel Moderate total regional travel Lowest total regional travel distance distance distance Highest total regional travel time Moderate total regional travel time Lowest total regional travel time
Environment Environment Environment Highest total regional fuel usage Moderate total regional fuel usage Lowest total regional fuel usage Most air pollution impacts for Moderate air pollution impacts for Least air pollution impacts for mobile sources mobile sources mobile sources
Multi-Modal Opportunities Multi-Modal Opportunities Multi-Modal Opportunities Inefficient and costly transit Moderate/reasonable transit service Designed to optimize transit service/low ridership opportunities service & ridership Limits non-motorized options Improves non-motorized options Optimizes non-motorized (due to distances) options
Other Public Priorities Other Public Priorities Other Public Priorities Least predictable long range Predictable long range Most predictable long range improvement plan improvement plan improvement plan Increased emergency response Moderate/reasonable emergency Improved emergency response times response times times
4-20
beyond into neighboring communities. M- Transportation Network 120 serves as a major north-south route for Muskegon, Oceana, and Newaygo Counties. The West Michigan Shoreline Regional M-120 begins in the City of North Development Commission (WMSRDC) Muskegon and terminates in Hesperia on the serves as the Metropolitan Planning Oceana and Newaygo county line at M-20. Organization (MPO) for Muskegon County These major highway connections link and northern Ottawa County. As the Muskegon to Grand Rapids, Holland, designated MPO, operating under the name Detroit, and Chicago. of the West Michigan Metropolitan Transportation Planning Program There are a total of 614 miles of Federal Aid (WestPlan), the WMSRDC undertakes a Eligible Roads in Muskegon County. A comprehensive transportation planning total of 1163 miles of roads are maintained program to maintain the eligibility of local by the Muskegon County Road governments in the area to receive federal Commission, of which 374 miles are and state transportation funds for street and primary roads. There are 513 miles of local road improvements, as well as subsidies for roads within the jurisdictions of the cities mass transit. and villages of Muskegon County. See Figure 3.37 for the major road network. The County is well served by a series of freeways, state highways (trunklines), major The Muskegon Area Transit System roads and local roads. The County’s primary (MATS) was originally formed in 1969 as link to other metropolitan areas in Michigan the Muskegon County Metropolitan is by Interstate 96 which terminates as it Transportation System (MCMTS). In 1972, enters the City of Norton Shores. MCMTS absorbed the operation of another Westbound I-96 merges into Business 31 public transit organization, the Muskegon and becomes Seaway Drive, which provides Area Transit Authority (MTA), and became the most direct route to the downtown center the Muskegon Area Transit System. MATS of the Muskegon Metropolitan Area. The is a Department within Muskegon County major trunkline roads in Muskegon County Government and is authorized to provide provide easy connections to Interstate 96 public mass transportation services within and 31 and Interstate 131 via Rt. 46. U.S. the County. MATS currently operates 31, which is the primary north-south limited service on nine year-round fixed-routes and access highway for communities along the two seasonal routes with a 100 percent coast of Lake Michigan, extends the entire wheelchair accessible fleet utilizing 12 length of Muskegon County, providing buses during maximum peak service and access to communities along the entire serving the urbanized areas of Muskegon, route. Muskegon County is served by three Muskegon Heights, Roosevelt Park and major M-route state trunk lines: M-46 Norton Shores and Muskegon (Apple Avenue), M-120 (Holton Road), and Township. MATS also provides paratransit M-37. M-46 and M-37 both have regional services to meet the public demand county- significance, connecting to other major wide. routes throughout the state. M-46 traverses in an east-west direction, the entire width of MATS has a total of 24 vehicles and the state, and M-37 traverses a majority of employs 52 people. According to the the length of the state in a north-south Michigan Department of Transportation, for direction. All of these routes provide access the fiscal year of 2011, MATS traveled to municipalities throughout the county and approximately 695,000 miles, served
3-67
approximately 739,000 passengers and had designates Muskegon Lake as a Deep Draft over 49,000 vehicle hours. The hours of Commercial Harbor. The port provides operation are Monday through Friday, 6:30 intermodal connections to air, rail, and am to 10:40 pm and Saturdays 9:30 am to highway systems. The Muskegon Harbor is 6:00 pm. home to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Great Greyhound operates out of the MATS Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory terminal on Morris Avenue in Muskegon. Lake Michigan Field Station, Grand Valley The terminal is open Monday through State University Annis Water Resources Saturday, but closed Sundays and holidays. Institute and the Michigan Alternative and Service is available to a variety of cities. Renewal Energy Center. Muskegon is part of the Greyhound Great Lakes region.
Pioneer Resources is a non-profit organization that provides a variety of services to people with disabilities in order to increase their independence and community participation. One of their services is transportation for people with mobility impairments, developmental disorders, special education students, and senior citizens. Their fleet includes lift equipped transit buses, school buses, For recreational boaters, there are ten private suburbans and vans. They also provide marinas on Muskegon Lake with more than MedTrans service, a non-emergency service 1,000 boat slips. The City of Muskegon to transport disabled individuals to medical maintains one public marina and five public appointments and clinics. launches with an additional 275 boat slips. In addition, Muskegon State Park, Laketon Rail based transportation does not play a Township, and the City of North Muskegon significant role in Muskegon County (from a each maintain public boat launch facilities. regional perspective). All of the current lines in the county serve freight and cargo, Commercial port operators along Muskegon with no passenger rail available at this time. Lake include West Michigan Dock and There are several spurs that pass through the Market (Mart Dock), The Lafarge Corp., county that are owned by CSX Canonie Dock, Great Lakes & Verplank Transportation and the Michigan Shoreline (GL&V) Lakeside Dock, Cobb Dock, Lake Railroad, which is a CSX partner. There are Express, and Greenfield Terminal. The five still some small-scale freight services year average (2006 – 2010) tonnage is 1.9 available from Muskegon and Muskegon million tons of material shipped and Heights, as well as some bulk freight. received annually. Muskegon Lake receives 1,000-foot freighters on a regular basis. At Muskegon Lake serves as the port for the this point, all of the materials shipped into greater West Michigan Region for Muskegon Lake consist of bulk materials commercial and recreation traffic, as well as such as salt, aggregates, and coal. In recent educational and environmental research. It years, the West Michigan Port Operators is one of the deepest ports on the Great group has formed with a mission of Lakes at a depth 29 feet or more, which expanding port activities in the lake and
3-68
region as a whole. The County of Commercial airline service is available on Muskegon has also formed a Port Advisory SkyWest Airlines, operating as United Committee comprised of public and private Airlines, with 50 passenger jet service to individuals with the mission to coordinate Chicago O’Hare, providing one-stop service appropriate services, anticipate future needs, to most of the world. Muskegon County provide marketing assistance, and develop Airport also has a significant amount of long-term strategies for economic growth general aviation activity. Executive Air and environmental sustainability at the Port Transport, Inc. is the airport’s full service of Muskegon. The location of the port Fixed Based Operator, provides line services makes it an ideal candidate for expansion, such as fuel (Jet A and 100LL), avionics with the depths, the access to all modes of repair and maintenance, and flight training. transportation, and available land along the Muskegon County Airport is also home to lakeshore. the West Michigan Flying Club, U.S. Coast Guard 9th District Search and Rescue Facility, Baker College Flight School, and considered a base for numerous local businesses. Nearly 100 aircraft are based at the airport, and the airport experiences an average of 150 daily aircraft takeoffs and landings.
Muskegon County also has many non- motorized transportation facilities. Non- motorized facilities include, trails, sidewalks, bike lanes, and greenways. Efforts have been focused on creating safe Muskegon Lake also provides a terminal for and easy to follow routes throughout the the Lake Express cross-Lake car ferry. The area, as well as connecting to other regional terminal is located at the Great Lakes facilities. Many of the non-motorized Marina, 1920 Lakeshore Drive, The ferry facilities have been designed to interact with runs from Muskegon to Milwaukee during the local transit system. In Muskegon the months of late April/early May and County, the major established trail networks October. The Lake Express began service in include the Lakeshore Trail System, which 2004, and offers passengers a two and one is approximately 13 miles in length and half hour ride across Lake Michgian, which winds throughout the City of Muskegon. is much faster than driving around Chicago. The Musketawa Trail system contains 26 The ferry can hold 46 vehicles and 12 miles of trail, and extends into the motorcycles for each trip across Lake neighboring Ottawa County, and eventually Michigan. east to Kent County where it connects up with other regional trails. The Hart- Muskegon County Airport (MKG) is a Montague Trail is a 22 mile trail. At the modern, all weather commercial service south end of the trail, the City of Whitehall airport serving the air transportation needs has created a 2.2 mile extension called the of the West Michigan shoreline. The airport White Lake Pathway. Another extension, encompasses over 1,000 acres within the the Fred Meijer/Berry Junction Trail, was City of Norton Shores and has a total built in 2010 that extends the trail south for employment of 165 and a direct economic another nine miles, into Dalton Township. impact in excess of $54,000,000 per year. Phase II of the Fred Meijer/Berry Junction
3-69
Trail is in the planning stages and will eventually connect to the Lakeshore Trail In April 2004, several counties in West and the Muskatawa Trail in Muskegon. Michigan were classified as non-attainment for ozone by the Environmental Protection Air Quality Designation Agency (EPA). Kent, Allegan, Ottawa and A designation is the term the Environmental Mason counties were classified as basic Protection Agency (EPA) uses to describe while Muskegon County was classified in the air quality in a given area for any six the higher moderate category. Later, common pollutants known as criteria Muskegon County was “bumped down” to pollutants. Muskegon County is monitored the lesser category of marginal. This was and given air quality designation on ground- announced in September 2004 during a visit level ozone and fine particulate matter to Muskegon County by the former EPA which are unhealthy to breathe at certain Director Michael Leavitt. levels. Overall ground level ozone has since Ground Level Ozone improved in West Michigan, and in response EPA designates an area as non-attainment if to requests by the Michigan Department of it has violated or has contributed to Environmental Quality (MDEQ), EPA has violations of the National Ambient Air re-designated Kent, Ottawa, Muskegon, and Quality Standards (NAAQS) 8-hour ozone Allegan Counties as attainment for the 1997 standard over a three-year period. EPA also 8-hour ozone standard. may designate an area as attainment/ unclassifiable if it has: 1) monitored air NAAQS for particulate matter were first set quality data showing that area has not in 1971. Total suspended particulate (TSP) violated the ozone standard over a three year was the first indicator used to represent period; or if 2) there is not enough suspended particles in the ambient air. There information to determine the air quality in were secondary standards, which were the area. welfare standards, and primary standards, which were public health standards. An area The designations process plays an important in Kent County was designated role in informing and educating the public if nonattainment of the secondary TSP air quality in a given area is healthy. Once standard in 1978. An area in Muskegon designations take effect, they also become County was also designated as exceeding the an important component of state, tribal and secondary standard in 1978, with a local governments’ efforts to control correction in 1981. ground-level ozone and small particulate matter. In 1987, the standard was changed to PM10, or particulate matter with an aerodynamic Many areas have been categorized as basic diameter less than 10 microns. There were non-attainment areas. They will have to no nonattainment areas in West Michigan comply with the more general non- for this standard. attainment requirements of the Clean Air Act. EPA classifies ozone and fine In 1997, the EPA established an annual particulate matter non-attainment areas standard and a 24-hour standard for PM2.5, based on the severity of their ozone and fine or particulate matter with an aerodynamic particulate levels. Classified areas fall into diameter less than 2.5 microns. The PM10 six categories: basic, marginal, moderate, standard remained in place. The first serious, severe or extreme.
3-70
nonattainment designations for the 1997 monitors to measure fine particulate matter standard were made in 2005. No areas in levels and other pollutants year-round. West Michigan were in nonattainment. The Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA) and its In 2006, the EPA revised the 24-hour PM2.5 Amendments require that the federal standard and retained the existing annual government review all transportation plans PM2.5 standard. As of 2012, the Muskegon to assure air quality conformity. These County monitor is in compliance with the conformity requirements, first introduced in revised standard. the 1977 CAA Amendments, prohibited federal approvals of actions that did not Recent Revisions of the National Ambient concur with state government’s State Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality improvements. These requirements were In March of 2008, the Environmental further expanded in the 1990 Amendments, Protection Agency significantly which require transportation plans to strengthened the NAAQS for ground-level conform to the SIP’s expressed purpose of ozone. This revision reflects new scientific eliminating or reducing the severity and evidence reviewed by the Clean Air number of violations of the National Scientific Advisory Committee about ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards, and and its effects on public health and the achieving expeditious attainment of such environment. The EPA's 1997 ozone standards (WMSRDC, 2001). standard was set at 0.08 ppm (parts-per- million) which was effectively 0.084 ppm The Muskegon area and the State of due to rounding over an 8-hour period. The Michigan are operating under the State new strengthened NAAQS standard for Implementation Plan adopted for 2011- ground-level ozone has been set at 0.075 2014. This plan identifies how air quality ppm for an 8-hour period. The EPA also will be protected and improved in the State. specified the level of the standard to the The processes for reviewing and approving nearest thousandth of a ppm (aka the "third long range plans and projects are outlined in decimal place"), which eliminates the need the SIP and will be followed in the for rounding under the new standard. The development of transportation plans current NAAQS 24-hour standard for fine statewide. One of the most successful particulate matter was established by the efforts for improving air quality in the EPA in 2006 and is 35 µg/m³. The previous Muskegon area is the ongoing Clean Air 24-hour standard of 65 µg/m³ was Action Program, formerly known as the established in July of 1997. The annual Ozone Action Program. The program has standard for particulate matter of 15 µg/m³ promoted voluntary air pollution reduction was established in 1997 and remains in strategies on targeted days since 1995 effect today. (WMSRDC, 2001).
A network of air quality monitors are located in the West Michigan counties. Ozone monitors operate from April through September because ozone formation is associated with hot summer weather conditions. The DEQ also operates
3-71
Map 3.37: Transportation
3-72
Chapter 5: Smart Growth – the Preferred Scenario
5-1
The strategy chosen for the future The combined reactions from the development of Muskegon County was the Community Forums indicated that: Smart Growth scenario. This scenario was chosen based on public comments that the • There was too much sprawl business as usual scenario continued • There was a need to preserve open inefficient development in the community space and farmland and the perception that the zoning build out • Increased densities were needed scenario allowed for “too much” • Redevelopment of existing areas development. More specifically, was needed participants supported the Smart Growth • There was a need to develop around scenario because it: existing infrastructure due to the impacts to existing infrastructure of • Preserves rural character and limits sprawling development and the cost sprawl of new infrastructure. • Emphasizes cooperation • Uses existing infrastructure When asked if density should be higher than • Protects open space what the current trends have been, 43 • Emphasizes urban redevelopment percent agreed that density should be higher, with 22 percent strongly agreeing. The selection of the Smart Growth scenario reflects the public’s desire to make the best Under the Smart Growth scenario, 18,356 use of existing infrastructure, plan for acres of land are developed (new limited infrastructure expansion in order to development). Residential uses account for minimize utility costs, and preserve 88 percent of the new development, or agricultural and open space lands. 16,153 acres. Commercial uses are 1,652 acres and industrial uses 550 acres. Map 5.1 Preferred Scenario: Smart Growth shows the planned pattern of residential, Urban sprawl is a concern in Muskegon commercial, and industrial development. County. When asked if their community “has sprawl” participants responded that it does:
• 70% of Fruitport Township respondents felt their community has sprawl • 52% of Norton Shores respondents indicated the same • Half of the participants who have lived in the area from 11 to 20 years responded that their community “has sprawl”
5-2
Map 5.1: Smart Growth Scenario
5-3
The existing infrastructure has capacity to Another issue related to smart growth is the accommodate growth within existing service retention of agricultural land, parks, and areas. The County-owned wastewater open space. The value of the agricultural treatment plant currently operates at 76 land in the county can be measured in terms percent of capacity. The City of Muskegon of the farm revenues produced in the county. water treatment plant currently operates at Muskegon County ranks second in the state 33 percent of its 28 million gallons per day in cucumber production and fifth in the state (MGD) capacity (average flow), with plans in blueberries. The market value of to expand to 40 MGD capacity. At peak agricultural products sold in the county was daily flow, the plant reaches 74 percent of $46,301,000 according to the 2002 Census its capacity currently. Muskegon Heights of Agriculture. The net cash income from also maintains a water treatment and farming activities in the county was distribution system, their system has an $7,040,000. The harvested acres of berries average daily flow of 3 MGD. in the county grew from 56 acres in 1997 to 94 acres in 2002, showcasing the popularity Some infrastructure improvements are and importance of berry farms to the county. already planned. Upgrading the City of Muskegon water treatment facility to a More generally, the following findings have capacity of 40 MGD is one planned been made in studies documenting the value infrastructure improvement. In the of agricultural lands, parks, and open space: transportation realm, infrastructure improvements to 2015 include: • Corporate CEOs say quality of life for employees is the third-most • US 31 project to add a west bound important factor in locating a to south bound loop ramp business, behind only access to • Grand Haven Road reconstruction domestic markets and availability of with drainage improvements, skilled labor. widening from two to three lanes • Across the nation, parks, protected • Shoreline Drive East project to rivers, scenic lands, wildlife habitat, create a new four lane divided and recreational open space help roadway support a $502-billion tourism • Harvey Street reconstruction with industry. drainage improvements, widening from two to five lanes Smart Growth background • Giles Road resurfacing, adding a “Smart growth” means different things to center turn lane and drainage different people. There is no single improvements definition of smart growth; its meaning • Pontaluna Road reconstruction with depends on context, perspective and drainage improvements, widening timeframe. The common thread among from two to four lanes different views of smart growth is • Grand Haven Road reconstruction development that revitalizes central cities from three to five lanes and older suburbs, supports and enhances • Whitehall Road reconstruction, public transit, promotes walking and widening from two to five lanes bicycling, and preserves open spaces and north of Giles Road agricultural lands.
Smart growth does not mean no growth; rather, it seeks to revitalize the already-built
5-4
environment, fosters efficient development cultural resources; equitably distribute the at the edges of the region while creating costs and benefits of development; expand more livable communities. the range of transportation, employment and housing choices in a fiscally responsible Smart growth meets the key goals of manner; value long-range, regional sustainable development through considerations of sustainability over short community design. Focusing new housing term incremental geographically isolated and commercial development within already actions; and promote public health and developed areas requires less public healthy communities'' (APA). investment in new roads, utilities and amenities. Investment in the urban core can Smart Growth is seen as the antidote to reduce crime, promote affordable housing sprawl, which is defined to include: and create vibrant central cities and small towns. o Low density/Floor Area Ratio (FAR) By coordinating job growth with housing o Unlimited outward growth, and ensuring a good match between extension income levels and housing prices, Smart o Skipped-over (leapfrog) Growth aims to reverse the trend of longer development commutes, particularly to bedroom o No attempt at clustering, communities beyond the region’s mixing of uses, or center boundaries. People who live within easy establishment walking distance of shops, schools, parks o Resource-consumptive and public transit have the option to reduce development their driving and therefore, pollute less than o Automobile-dominated those living in car-dependent neighborhoods transportation (Burchell (Association of Bay Area Governments). 1998)
''Smart Growth means using comprehensive Smart Growth is pro-business, pro-equity, planning to guide, design, develop, revitalize pro-environment, and pro-quality of life. and build communities for all that: have a These are, in sum, bipartisan issues unique sense of community and place; (Michigan Land Use Institute). preserve and enhance valuable natural and Figure 5.2: Traditional Development Pattern Figure 5.3: Suburban Sprawl Development Pattern
5-5
Sprawl occurs as personal choices are made based on apparent benefits. The combined The principles of Smart Growth include: effect of these choices is often self-defeating • Create a range of housing and contrary to their original purpose. opportunities and choices Nevertheless, it is useful to list the apparent • Create walkable neighborhoods “benefits” of sprawl as perceived by some • Encourage community and individuals as the make these personal stakeholder collaboration decisions. Some of the apparent benefits of • Foster distinctive, attractive places sprawl are as follows: with a strong sense of place • Make development decisions • Allows unlimited use of the automobile predictable, fair, and cost effective • Relieves inner-suburban and urban • Mix land uses congestion • Preserve open space, farmland, • Reduces suburban-to-suburban travel natural beauty and critical times environmental areas • Provides physical distance from urban • Provide a variety of transportation problems choices • Guarantees increasing property values • and good public services (Burchell Strengthen and direct development 2001) towards existing communities • Take advantage of compact The Smart Growth movement is not just building design about fighting sprawl, but also proposing (Smart Growth Network) development that better utilizes existing infrastructure and is environmentally Disagreement, Partial Agreement, responsible, fiscally sound, and socially and Agreement equitable. Smart Growth provides a new opportunity to address persistent challenges There are some Smart Growth elements that facing low income inner-city neighborhoods provoke disagreement, some which can and older suburbs by redirecting growth and garner partial agreement among interest investment back into existing communities groups, and some elements on which there is (Betty Weiss 2001) a general consensus. Table 5.4 summarizes these elements.
5-6
Table 5.4: Smart Growth Concepts: Areas of Disagreement, Partial Agreement, and Agreement
Disagreement Partial Agreement Agreement/Disagreement Placing limits on the outward Promoting compact, mixed- Preserving large amounts of extension of further growth. use development. open space and protecting the quality of the environment. Financing the additional Creating significant financial Redeveloping inner-core areas infrastructure needed to deal incentives for local and developing infill sites. with growth and maintain governments to adopt “Smart existing systems properly. Growth” planning.
Reducing dependency on Adopting fiscal resource Removing barriers to urban private automotive vehicles, sharing among localities. design innovation in both especially one-person cars. cities and new suburban areas.
Deciding who should control Creating a greater sense of land-use decisions. community within individual localities and neighborhoods and a greater recognition of regional interdependence and solidarity. Adopting faster project application approval processes, providing developers with greater certainty and lower project carrying costs.
Creating more affordable housing in outlying new- growth areas.
Developing a public-private consensus-building process. (Anthony Downs, 2001)
5-7
Fiscal Benefits In numerous studies, planners and engineers Estimated Annual Fiscal Benefits to Muskegon have hypothesized that there are two related County Taxpayers ways in which urban form can influence the County Equalized Value $4,840,137,970 public capital and service-delivery costs associated with development, economies of Potential Potential Savings Savings per $100 CEV scale and economies of geographic scope. Water $67,320,000 $1.39 These theories, when combined, suggest that Sewer $178,200,000 $3.68 more compact development can reduce the Roads $3,200,000 $0.07 costs of capital and operations for Fire government (Muro and Puentes, March service $1,950,000 $0.04 2004). TOTAL $250,670,000 $5.18
Research by the Real Estate Research Corporation, and others, documents that The first barrier to implementation is often compact growth can be as much as 70 local regulations that do not permit mixed percent cheaper for governments than uses, provide for transportation options, or equivalent volumes of scattered growth. It allow small lots or upper story residential simply costs less to provide infrastructure uses. Other barriers can include market (such as streets, schools, flood control or conditions, development and process costs, sewers) and often services (such as police or financing, and [lack of] community fire protection) to denser, more contiguous involvement (APA, 1998). households than to far-flung, low-density communities (Katz, 2003) There are solutions to the obstacles to implementation of Smart Growth strategies. At the regional scale, cooperative growth Table 5.5 summarizes some of those management can encourage more compact solutions. development patterns, protecting farmland and open space from sprawl (APA, 1998).
Locally, the fiscal impacts can be measured in terms of the cost savings of the Smart Growth scenario over the Business as Usual scenario. The Smart Growth scenario has the potential to save $5.18 per $100 of County Equalized Value (CEV) for Muskegon County taxpayers. This would save the average homeowner $4,450 over the 20 year planning period, or $220 per year in taxes to pay for the improvements to water, sewer, roads, and fire protection. Additionally, householders could experience “Communities should be shaped by choice, savings of $100 per year in fuel expenses not by chance. We can keep on accepting due to reduced vehicle miles traveled. The the kind of communities we get, or we can fiscal impacts are further discussed later in learn how to get the kind of communities this chapter. we want” – Richard Moe
5-8
Table 5.5: Smart Growth Concepts: Strategies, Obstacles, and Solutions
Strategy Obstacle Solution Efficient Use of Land Revise setback requirements; Excessive lot-area dimensions Resources minimum lot sizes Small-lot infill development Average lot size for whole Inflexible subdivision and lot- Infill development on large development, allow flexibility area requirements lots to preserve natural features Coordinated development not Specific development plans; Coordinated development addressed master plans Excessive frontage and Midblock lanes; interior block Better use of deep lots multiple access requirements cluster development; flag lots Excessive street design Adopt “skinny” street Less land for streets standards standards Reduce minimum parking ratios; set parking ratio More efficient use of parking Excessive parking maximums; acknowledge on- areas requirements street parking; encourage shared parking Full Use of Urban Services Underbuilding; no support for Achieving planned densities Minimum density standards density goals Reduce lot-size requirements; Lot sizes not in proportion to Attached units allow single-family attached in unit sizes all residential zones Lot-area dimension Attached units Revise setback requirements requirements Excessive minimum unit size; Accessory units Allow accessory units density maximums too low Mixed Use Allow home occupations and live/work units; density bonus Single-use zoning; separation Mixed-use buildings for mixed-use of uses commercial/residential buildings Limited commercial in residential zones; allow multi- Single-use zoning; separation Mixed-use neighborhoods family residential in of uses commercial zones; limited retail in industrial zones Community shopping centers Healthy commercial districts Single-use zoning; proximity with street connectivity; main street districts Transportation Options Street design standards Revise street standards; Multimodal streets overemphasize autos promote “skinny” streets
5-9
Cul-de-sac and block-length Transit, bike, and pedestrian Physical barriers or out-of- maximums; internal connectivity direction travel connectivity standards; sidewalk requirements Mandate transit-oriented Transit-supportive Transit-supportive development along transit development development not addressed corridor Detailed, Human-Scale Design Density transitioning; mid- Compatibly designed Too abrupt transitions between block zoning district lines; buildings zones building height limits Incorporate compatibility Compatibly designed No design guidelines for new guidelines for new infill buildings buildings construction Building orientation; parking Street standards emphasize Pedestrian-friendly lot placement; allow shared cars; design discourages streetscapes (commercial) access; 50%80% frontage rule; walking etc. Street standards emphasize Require sidewalks; limit Pedestrian-friendly cars; design discourages setbacks; garage placement; streetscapes (residential) walking lighting; utility placement; etc. No incentives to provide Quality architectural design Density bonuses for amenities amenities Implementation Examining the development Onerous procedures for Allow administrative approval review process variances, conditional uses for minor adjustments Examining the Planned Unit Onerous PUD requirements Improved PUD regulations Development (PUD) process Flexibility in the design Discretionary design review Dual-track design review review process process; vague standards process
5-10
Without updating planning requirements and revitalization and reinvestment; providing a certain amount of coordination foster intergovernmental and public- and guidance among local jurisdictions, private partnerships; identify growth achieving any level of smart growth is next and development opportunities; to impossible. This is particularly true in protect the state’s natural resources; states with strong home-rule governments and, better manage the cost of and different local planning requirements, as public investments in infrastructure in Michigan, Connecticut, and (Michigan Land Use Leadership Massachusetts. (APA, 2002). Council, 2003).
Smart Growth in Michigan The key recommendations to emerge from In Michigan, Governor Jennifer Granholm the Council were aligned with the Smart created a land use leadership council based Growth Principles outlined by the Smart in part on the premise that rapid Growth Network, which have been metropolitan decentralization “is hampering referenced throughout the Muskegon Area- the ability of this state and its local wide Plan (Michigan Land Use Leadership governments to finance public facilities and Council, 2003). service improvements” and is “creating a strain on the efficient provision of public These recommendations have broad support services” (Executive Order No. 2003-4, as indicated by a survey conducted statewide February 27, 2003). in 2003 by Michigan State University. The survey demonstrated that nearly 60 percent The Michigan Land Use Leadership Council of Michigan residents supported increased was comprised of state representatives and land use planning and regulation. Also, senators, local government officials, three quarters of residents are very or homebuilders, business leaders, citizens, somewhat concerned about local urban environmentalists, land-based industry sprawl. The study further went to find that representatives, social justice advocates, real 92 percent agreed the state should encourage estate agents, and others. The directors of local governments to work together to state departments such as agriculture, manage growth, 86 percent supported consumer and industry services, restricting development to protect farmland, environmental quality, natural resources, and 86 percent supported restricting history, arts, and library, and transportation development to protect environmentally served on the Council as non-voting sensitive areas (Michigan Land Use members (Michigan Land Use Leadership Leadership Council, 2003). Council, 2003). The availability of tools for implementing The purpose of the Council was to: Smart Growth is critical to the success of the community’s efforts. Tools provided at the 1. Identify the trends, causes, and state and federal level often involve policies, consequences of unmanaged growth tax incentives, and grant programs. The and development following programs are among the tools for 2. Provide recommendations to the implementing Smart Growth in Michigan: governor and the legislature regarding ways to minimize the Brownfields Redevelopment negative economic, environmental, In 1995, Michigan passed a law that limited and social impacts of current land the liability for brownfields clean-up only to use trends; promote urban those parties responsible for contamination.
5-11
Three years later, then Governor Engler Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act passed the Clean Michigan Initiative, a $675 The Farmland and Open Space Preservation million environmental bond that facilitated Act enables a farm owner to voluntarily redevelopment. In 2000, the state passed tax enter into a development rights agreement credits and additional proposals to ease with the State. The agreement is designed to brownfields redevelopment. ensure that the land remains in an agricultural use for a minimum of 10 years Tax-Free Renaissance Zones and ensures that the land is not developed in Michigan has thirty-four Renaissance a non-agricultural use. In return for Zones (comprising 164 geographic areas) maintaining the land in an agricultural use, around the state designated as virtually tax the land owner may be entitled to certain free for any business or resident presently in, income tax benefits, and the land is not or moving into, a zone. They are designed to subject to special assessments for sanitary provide selected communities with the most sewer, water, lights or non-farm drain powerful market-based incentive—no projects. taxes—to spur new jobs and investment. The zones range in size from five to 3,000 acres.
The taxes affected by the program include nearly all the state and local taxes levied on business activity: Single Business Tax (SBT), state personal income tax, six-mill state education tax, local personal property tax, local real property tax, local income tax and utility users tax.
The duration of the zone designation ranges from 10 to 15 years, starting from January 1, 1997. In all cases, the tax relief will be phased out in 25% increments over the last three years of the program.
Right to Farm Act The Michigan Right to Farm Act, P.A. 93, was enacted in 1981 to provide farmers with protection from nuisance lawsuits. This state statute authorizes the Michigan Commission of Agriculture to develop and adopt Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs) for farms and farm operations in Michigan. These voluntary practices are based on available technology and scientific research to promote sound environmental stewardship and help maintain a farmer's right to farm.
5-12
Farmland/Open Space Preservation Program Smart Growth in Muskegon County which would work to voluntarily protect Certain principles of Smart Growth are local farmland using state and federal grant already under way in Muskegon County, money. The program has the eventual goal particularly in terms of urban infill and of purchasing the development rights of redevelopment projects. These initiatives 35,000 acres (about half the farmland in the meet the principle of directing development county) so that the prime agricultural soils toward existing communities and in terms of are preserved for food production and farmland protection efforts that meet the open/green space. principle of preserving open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical How Far? environmental areas. At the public meeting in September, 2004 members of the steering committee and Renaissance Zones are one of the tools general public participated in a visual choice being used in Muskegon County to direct survey. The purpose of the survey was to development toward existing communities. determine the level to which residents of As described previously, Renaissance Zones Muskegon County wished to implement are areas in the cities of Muskegon and various Smart Growth principles. This Muskegon Heights designated as virtually choices poll was intended to: tax free. The tax relief will be phased out in 25% increments over the last three years of • Develop an understanding of how the program. much participants supported the concept of each principle Several infill development and building • Develop a consensus on the conversion projects are planned, under way, intensity of the principles as applied or completed in Muskegon County: to Muskegon County • Introduce innovative development • Amazon Building: Conversion to solutions from other areas apartments • Conversion of the Shaw Walker Participants were asked to select their Building into the Watermark Lofts preference for the degree to which a concept • Muskegon Boiler Works (pending): is implemented as presented on each slide, convert Boiler Works building to basing their response to the concept artist’s lofts presented in each image, not the policy • City of Whitehall considering ramifications or cost. Each slide was moving city services into the heart presented from a minimal approach through of downtown to preserve the moderate approach, to an aggressive Whitehall Bank Building and approach for implementation. Preferences increase foot traffic downtown were selected using an electronic voting • Redevelopment of the Muskegon system. Mall into a mixed-use combination of residential, office, and retail The results of the survey helped determine developments in a city center or the extent to which Smart Growth principles historic “main street” design would be integrated into the implementation strategies. Another local initiative has been the establishment of the Muskegon County Generally residents voted for a moderate level of implementation. In terms of
5-13
housing choice, or the range of housing resource protections regulations and options that should be available in programs would be acceptable locally. Muskegon County, the participants believed that housing choice should occur at the Participants indicted that in both rural and township level. This means that each suburban/urban areas they would be willing township should have a range of housing to use multiple forms of transportation if options available, rather than having certain they were available in the county including types of housing available only in particular walking, biking, carpooling, and taking the areas of the county. Participants felt that bus. Alternative forms of transportation walkability was important to connect should be incorporated into the subdivisions to schools, retail areas, and transportation plans for the county. employment areas in the rural parts of the county and that it was important to be able In terms of directing development toward to walk to the grocery store, pharmacy, existing communities, participants believed video store, corner store or a place of that there should be a county-wide worship in the cities and villages. coordinated plan to steer growth to areas with existing utilities and community Most participants felt that the various facilities. They also believed that new jurisdictions in the county partner growth should be precluded unless it is effectively on low level issues, or issues that served by utilities and community facilities. lack significant importance or commitment of resources. The participants felt, however, Smart Growth Implications for that it is important for the jurisdictions to Muskegon County change their zoning and subdivision The potential impacts of the Smart Growth regulations to encourage the use of Smart scenario were evaluated in the areas of land Growth principles. This will require use, transportation, fire services, water significant collaboration among treatment, wastewater treatment, and parks. jurisdictions. Participants also felt that local governments should have standards which Land Use encourage the development of distinct areas The Smart Growth scenario development with a sense of place, but they do not pattern would address concerns related to support development of strict architectural farmland protection, average lot sizes, and controls or establishing architectural review.
Participants felt that it was most appropriate to mix land uses in suburban areas to give those areas more character and access to services. They felt that development should occur in mixed-use cluster developments.
Participants were very supportive of initiatives that protect farmland. They indicated that they would support an increase in mileage to preserve natural resources and agricultural areas. They also believed that development should not occur in rural natural resource areas. This suggests that stringent farmland and natural
Map 5.6: Smart Growth Scenario 5-14
infrastructure development by concentrating altered to provide for smarter growth. The growth near existing urban areas and rural amount of impacted forest and farmland villages. These shifts would be could be minimized if policies that increase accomplished through policy changes that density in development and in would require the development and adoption redevelopment areas are implemented. of new zoning ordinances and Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinances that allow Transportation for smaller lot sizes, encourage cluster The transportation system is especially development, and provide for non-motorized sensitive to the geographical spread and transportation linkages. spatial relationship of development areas. Low density developments spaced far apart The development would occur near existing present the illusion of reduced traffic development in the Townships of congestion, but that is true only for the most Muskegon, Laketon and Dalton, the Wolf local of streets. Generally, traffic Lake area, and the villages of Lakewood congestion is an issue on arterials and major Club, Ravenna, and Casnovia. collector roadways, and these facilities are not affected by local street conditions. In Open space is preserved in the Smart other words, the congestion on major Growth scenario by directing growth toward roadways is unchanged, but people have existing urbanized areas and away from driven further (expending more time, fuel environmentally sensitive lands and prime and resources) to get to them. farmland. The open space areas include protected federal and state lands, and rural Taking these factors into account, the Smart areas in the outlying townships. Growth scenario involves a savings of 62 percent of vehicle miles traveled per day Any type of development will consume over the Business as Usual scenario. Under either agricultural land or forested land in the Business as Usual scenario, Muskegon Muskegon County. Development that is County would witness an increase in vehicle clustered rather than stripped out along miles traveled of 900,000, whereas under the roadways may consume more agricultural Smart Growth scenario the number of land or forested land, but will ultimately additional vehicle miles traveled is 557,000. provide greater protection of biodiversity by It also provides for the lowest total regional not segmenting habitats and preserving travel time, lowest total regional fuel usage tracts of farmland that are viable for (saving $6 million per year in fuel costs) and agricultural production. Stripped out has the fewest air pollution impacts from development often threatens the viability of mobile sources. The fuel savings amount to habitats and farmland production. Under approximately $100 per household per year. this scenario, 13,808 acres of forested land are converted for development. Agricultural The Smart Growth scenario benefits public lands and open space would also be affected, investment levels since it has the most though to a lesser extent. Approximately limited number of miles of roads to 4,200 acres of farmland and open space construct and maintain. It provides for would be converted to development under “system” improvements to better service this scenario. local needs. This development scenario is also the most efficient of the three for snow The calculations presented assume the same removal. density that Muskegon County has currently. It is only the location of development that is
5-15
The Smart Growth scenario also provides should arrive within eight minutes 90 for the greatest opportunity for providing percent of the time. transportation choice in terms of transit and non-motorized options. It provides a Most of the career departments in Muskegon predictable growth pattern that facilitates County have an average response time long range transportation improvement between three and five minutes. The City of planning. Bus routes have a greater Muskegon, Norton Shores, and Fruitport potential for success in terms of ridership if departments report average response times there is a density capable of supporting the of four minutes or less. These departments service. meet the response time standard. Norton Shores has the best Insurance Standards Fire Service Organization (ISO) rating of the county There are fifteen fire departments in departments. Its rating was recently Muskegon County, served by 21 fire upgraded to 4. The City of Muskegon stations. One of those departments is the department has an ISO rating of 9, the City DNR fire station, which does not, as a rule, of Muskegon Heights has a rating of 6, and fight structural fires. Fruitport has a rating of 5. ISO ratings are on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the best The standards for fire departments depend rating possible. on whether the department is staffed with career fire fighters or volunteers. The Map 5.7 shows the areas that are within National Fire Protection Association has eight minutes of a fire station, assuming 30 developed standards for both types of mph average travel speed and “crow flies” departments. Career departments have both travel routes. Only two percent of the new time and staffing objectives. The first development in the Smart Growth scenario engine company of the fire department lies outside of an eight minute fire response should arrive within four minutes and/or the time. Since nearly all of the new first full alarm assignment should arrive development is within an existing service within eight minutes. While the four minute area, no new stations would be needed – no standard may not always be achievable, the capital investment would be needed. This eight minute standard must be met. A first saves $1,950,000 in capital costs associated responder should arrive on the scene within with fire station construction and fire trucks four minutes at an emergency medical that would be needed under the Business as incident. The fire department is expected to Usual scenario. meet these standards 90 percent of the time. Compliance with staffing standards is more Engine companies should be staffed with a difficult to determine for a specific minimum of four on-duty personnel at all department since the required number of times. Tactical hazard units (in jurisdictions firefighters and companies is determined by with such units), should be staffed with five what the local department needs to meet the to six on-duty members. Ladder or truck time standard. Engine companies should companies should be staffed with a have four on-duty personnel at all times. minimum of four on-duty personnel at all Assuming an eight-hour shift, this would times. A first responder (EMT) with an mean each station needed 12 staff members automatic external defibrillator should arrive to cover a day. Most likely, the existing fire within four minutes 90 percent of the time. departments, between full time and part time For departments with Advanced Life staff, are appropriately staffed to handle the Support (ALS) units, the ALS Company
5-16
growth. However, adequate staffing needs Authority from Prein & Newhof. The to be determined locally. Montague/Whitehall system is planning to add capacity to meet the projected 2025 Map 5.7: Fire Response demand of 5.33 MGD. The three alternatives under consideration include groundwater wells east of US 31, surface water from Lake Michigan, or connecting to the Muskegon County Northside System. The Muskegon County system is planning expansions north along Whitehall Road from River Road to Riley-Thompson Road. These system expansions will allow for most of the development in this scenario to be on municipal water, rather than on private wells.
Map 5.8: Water Service Area
Water Treatment Under the Smart Growth scenario only six percent of the new development is outside of the planned future service area.
This would result in the equivalent of 570 households on private wells, or the equivalent of 0.14 million gallons per day (MGD) of water flow. While private wells do not pose the public health risks that septic systems can pose, there is still concern about the potential for contamination of individual Wastewater Treatment wells. Having city water also brings the In the Smart Growth scenario only five ability to have fire hydrants located near percent of new development would be development, providing additional public outside of the planned sewer service area. safety.
This level of development outside the The Smart Growth scenario would eliminate service area would result in 532 households the need to construct 150 miles of water using septic systems, putting .13 MGD of lines over the Business as Usual scenario, septic effluent in the ground. In order to for a cost savings of $67,320,000 (rough service all new development with sewer estimate), assuming all new developments under the Business as Usual scenario, were to be served with water. investments of $178,200,000 (rough
estimate) would be needed. This Expanding the water treatment system to the expenditure is saved by concentrating planned service area from the current area development into the planned sewer area would require $3 to $25.1 million, based on and investing a more modest amount into estimates for the White Lake Water improvements to the existing system.
5-17
Parks According to a 2004 Prein & Newhof study, Muskegon County is blessed with abundant the 2020 estimated daily flow is 35.3 million parks and natural areas. The county has gallons. This is based on the West Michigan 12,500 acres of federal lands in the Manistee Shoreline Regional Development National Forest. Commission (WMSRDC) population projections and a planning standard of 100 The county also has more than 2,600 acres gallons per person per day. It also accounts of state land in three state parks and the for Sappi Fine Papers increasing their flow Hart-Montague Trail State Park. The Hart- from 13 MGD currently to 17 MGD. Montague Trail is a paved 22-mile path with scenic overlooks and picnic areas. The park The planned sewer network will provide portion of the trail is approximately 22 service to most of the new development; acres. The county is also home to a large however, there are significant issues to be portion of the Muskegon State Game Area, addressed within the current distribution with 8,600 acres in the county. With state system in existing parts of the developed park lands included (but not the State Game area. The planned improvements total $37.2 Area), there are 25 acres of park land in million. Phase I improvements include Muskegon County for every 1,000 residents. replacing pump stations, eliminating pump With the State Game Area, there are 71 stations and providing a central pump acres of park and recreation land for every station, upgrading and rehabilitating pump 1,000 residents of Muskegon County. stations, and a new force main. Phase II improvements include constructing a new County parks are also abundant in pump station, optimizing the existing Muskegon County. There are 12 county wastewater treatment facility, and parks encompassing more than 740 acres, headworks improvements. not including the Muskegon County Wastewater Treatment facility lands which Septic system failure is a significant concern are used for recreation purposes. This because the effluent can contaminate private translates to four acres of county park land wells and pose public health risks. for every 1,000 residents of Muskegon Generally, it is preferable for urban density County. If Muskegon County did not have development to occur in sewer serviced the wealth of state and federal parks and areas. recreational areas, the county would likely need to add approximately 100 acres of park Figure 5.9: Sewer Service Area land by 2020 to accommodate population growth at the same level of service of four acres per 1,000 people. However, since there are ample recreation opportunities in the county, the need to provide for additional opportunities is unlikely.
Eight of the townships operate parks: Egelston, Muskegon, Fruitport, Laketon, Casnovia, White River, Fruitland, and Holton.
Local parks are also available in most Muskegon County cities and villages. Local
5-18
parks account for more than 875 acres in the quality of life in Muskegon County, while county. This translates to a level of service maintaining a strong sense of place, of five acres per 1,000 people in the county. community, and responsibility. To maintain this level of service for the 2020 population, an additional 128 acres of park land would be needed. While there are abundant park and recreation opportunities in the county, local parks fulfill needs that state and federal lands typically do not, such as parks that are accessible to children and teens without adult transportation and recreation equipment such as playgrounds and athletic fields for children. Therefore, some additional local park land may be needed to accommodate the growing needs of the areas that experience population gain.
Figure 5.10: Parks Goals: • Develop integrated and coordinated land use planning in rural areas to revitalize small towns, link natural resource protection with residential development and maintain working landscapes (agricultural, natural resource tourism, forestry etc.). • Develop policies to ensure land is available to provide employment opportunities, variety of housing types, open space and natural areas, and access to goods and services based on future projected needs. • Limit adverse impacts on environmentally sensitive lands by Applying Smart Growth to the MAP encouraging redevelopment and by Goals increasing densities in cities, where The vision and goals of the Muskegon Area- necessary and desired. wide Plan (MAP) can be achieved through • Identify strategies that will manage the application of Smart Growth principles. growth and support reinvestment in In the remainder of the section, each vision urban areas and promote rural viability. and its goals are related to the Smart Growth • Encourage compatible land use plans principles that achieve the vision or goal. between adjacent jurisdictions by updating land use plans, zoning Land Use and Growth ordinances and regulations.
Vision 1: These goals relate to the following Smart Growth principles: Encourage and promote land use and growth patterns that sustain and improve
5-19
• Create a range of housing opportunities and choices: Policies that encourage a variety of housing types provide opportunity and choice for a variety of needs and populations. • Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas: Preserving open spaces and natural areas by ensuring land is available for open space and limiting the adverse Goals: impacts on environmentally • Protect and valuable farm and forest sensitive lands by encouraging lands, wetlands, surface and ground redevelopment achieves this water resources, wildlife habitat, principle. and opportunities for passive and • Strengthen and direct active recreation. development towards existing • Develop polices and regulations to communities: Encouraging address the quantity and quality of redevelopment and managing water resources. growth in a manner that supports • Link natural resource protection reinvestment in urban areas will with development to reduce the loss shift the development focus toward of important natural resources and existing communities, strengthening open spaces in urban and rural them and preserving rural areas for areas. agriculture and open space uses. • Mitigate environmental and human • Encourage community and health impacts to important natural stakeholder collaboration: resources. Achieving the plan goal of • Foster increased environmental encouraging compatible land use sensitivity and voluntary plans between adjacent jurisdictions stewardship through public-private will require collaboration between partnerships, federal-state-local the municipalities, the county, cooperation, and public education WMSRDC, and the residents of the and outreach. communities. • Protect the watershed and shoreline of Lake Michigan; inland lakes of Natural Resources, Open Space and Muskegon County. the Environment These goals relate to the following Smart Vision 2: Growth principles:
Protect and preserve natural, resources and • Preserve open space, farmland, continually improve the quality air, water, natural beauty, and critical and land resources found in Muskegon environmental areas: Protecting County. environmentally sensitive areas and farmland will achieve this Smart Growth principle.
5-20
• Encourage community and regional economic development stakeholder collaboration: Policy goals. and regulation development will • Work collaboratively to encourage require partnerships at the local, economic diversity throughout the regional, and state level to be able to region and reduce competition improve the local water quality. between communities. Stewardship efforts will require • Enhance and retain “human capital” significant collaboration to in the region, fostering a skilled, coordinate and implement across the educated labor force. county. • Develop strategies for the • Foster distinctive, attractive redevelopment of brownfields, places with a strong sense of adaptive reuse of existing structures place: The Lake Michigan and in-fill development in urban and shoreline, inland lakes, and public rural areas. lands provide Muskegon County • Retain and expand existing with a unique local character. agriculture businesses to maintain Initiatives that protect those natural synergy and a diversified economy. resources will ensure the continued • Promote natural resource based appeal of Muskegon County to tourism and the county’s quality of future generations. life as an economic development tool. Economy and Jobs • Infrastructure • Develop a county-wide approach to Vision 3: improving and maintaining infrastructure, transportation, public Promote economic development and facilities and community services. diversity that ensures access to jobs, goods, and services throughout the Muskegon These goals relate to the following Smart County. Growth principles:
• Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration: Partnerships between government, business, and organizations encourage broad participation in the development of the community. • Foster distinctive, attractive places with a strong sense of place: Reducing the competition between communities and encouraging diversity will help to create unique communities within
Muskegon County, strengthening Goals: the county’s unique character as a • Encourage partnerships with place to live, work, or visit. government, local organizations and • Make development decisions businesses to help achieve local and predictable, fair, and cost
5-21
effective: Brownfields communities: Redevelopment of redevelopment and infill brownfields and infill development, development are easier for along with using a county-wide developers and more likely to occur approach to infrastructure, when the developers know what to transportation, and public facilities expect in terms of permitting, will direct development into the requirements, and other matters. existing urbanized areas, and Time is money and reducing the existing communities because those amount of time needed to process are the locations that have infill developments through the opportunities, likely brownfields, regulatory process can increase the and existing services. likelihood of quality development in urban areas. Infrastructure • Mix land uses: Brownfields redevelopment and infill Vision 4: development can be quality mixed use developments that encourage 24 Develop a county-wide approach to hour use of areas of the community. improving and maintaining infrastructure, In order to make this type of transportation, public facilities and development possible, it may be community services. necessary for jurisdictions to revise their zoning codes to encourage, or even allow, mixed use development. • Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas: Adding value to the local forested, open, and agricultural lands through tourism and agribusiness help to make them financially sustainable without being sold for development. This form of “home grown” economic development can also create jobs for people with a variety of skills. Using a county-wide approach to Goals: infrastructure, transportation, and • Prioritize water and wastewater public facilities will encourage facility improvements consistent development in the existing with the distribution of the region’s urbanized areas, rather than population and employment while sprawling development that emphasizing water conservation and consumes farmland and open space. re-use. Brownfields redevelopment and • Provide safe and efficient alternate infill development also encourage modes of transportation to reduce farmland and open space protection auto dependence and promote high by bringing new development into air quality. existing urban areas. • Maintain and improve the exiting • Strengthen and direct transportation system to provide development towards existing
5-22
safe and efficient mobility and communities where those services access. are available. • Provide infrastructure systems in • Take advantage of compact both urban and rural communities building design: Utilizing utilizing existing infrastructure infrastructure capacity where it capacity where it exists before currently exists works to encourage developing new infrastructure. compact building design because it enables more development to occur These goals relate to the following Smart in the area that is served rather than Growth principles: extending utilities to allow growth outside of the currently developed • Encourage community and area. Alternative modes of stakeholder collaboration: In order transportation allow people to live to accomplish the infrastructure in more compact areas when less goals, coordination and land is consumed for roadways and collaboration will be needed parking. between the municipalities, county, state, utility companies, and Quality of Life property owners throughout the county. Vision 5: • Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical Promote high quality of life by recognizing environmental areas: Directing Muskegon County for its diversity, development toward existing environmental, educational, arts, cultural infrastructure will allow for and recreational assets. appropriate urban and rural land uses, allowing for the protection of prime farmland, valuable open spaces, and natural areas such as forests, wetlands, and recreation areas. • Provide a variety of transportation choices: By providing safe and efficient alternative modes of transportation in an effort to improve the local air quality, the county will have a greater variety of viable Goals: transportation choices including • Promote coordination and pedestrian and bike options, and bus enhancement of arts, cultural, service. recreational and historic resources in • Strengthen and direct the county. development towards existing • Develop a regional strategy to communities: Focusing improve and maintain access to high development where infrastructure quality educational services such as water, sewer, and throughout the county, including transportation corridors exist directs development into existing
5-23
elementary, secondary and alternative schools. • Develop partnerships between government and non-government organizations to improving the health of the environment and individuals • Improve access to healthcare services and develop strategies to maintain Muskegon County as a regional healthcare provider.
These goals relate to the following Smart Growth principles:
• Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration: Community collaboration will be reinforced through efforts to coordinate and enhance arts, cultural, recreational, and historic activities in the county. A regional strategy for educational services will also encourage collaboration beyond the Intermediate School District. Partnerships for environmental and individual health will also reinforce the principle of collaboration. • Foster distinctive, attractive places with a strong sense of place: Muskegon County’s natural, cultural, and recreational resources are what make it a unique and special place. Coordinating and enhancing the resources in the county will further develop that sense of place and encourage support for the distinctive places that make Muskegon County special.
5-24
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategies
6-1
Vision & Implementation Strategies continually improve the quality of air, water, and land resources found in Muskegon In the early 2000’s when the Muskegon County. Area-wide Plan (MAP) was developed, an extensive public participation program was Vision #3: Economy & Jobs: conducted. More than 1,000 people Promote economic development and participated in the process and provided diversity that ensures access to jobs, goods, valuable community input that remains and services throughout Muskegon County. relevant today. The four guiding principles of the plan are Economic Viability, Social Vision #4: Infrastructure: Equity, Public Involvement, and Healthy Develop a county-wide approach to Environment. From these four principles, improving and maintaining infrastructure, the community embraced five vision areas. transportation, public facilities, and community services. Vision #1: Land Use & Growth: Encourage and promote land use and growth Vision #5: Quality of Life: patterns that sustain and improve quality of Promote high quality of life by recognizing life in Muskegon County, while maintaining Muskegon County for its diversity, a strong sense of place, community, and environmental, education, arts, cultural, and responsibility. recreational assets.
Vision #2: Natural Resources & Environment: Protect and preserve natural resources and
6-2
When the MAP update began in 2011, it was improve quality of life in recognized that the pre-established Muskegon County, while principles and visions remain appropriate maintaining a strong sense and equally as important today as they were of place, community, and ten years ago. Therefore, the vision areas responsibility. remain the same. The focus of the update process was concentrated on the MAP The Land Use & Growth forum, held on implementation strategies. During five well October 4th at the Norton Shores Public attended community forums (each focusing Library, featured an array of spirited on one of the five vision areas), participants discussions that touched every aspect of this reviewed the implementation strategies and MAP Vision. With more than 60 answered three questions to help identify individuals attending, four distinct yet new implementation strategies. interrelated themes arose during the forum: Future Development, Planning & Zoning, 1. What should be done to accomplish and Community Image. the vision? 2. Who should be responsible Future Development: for/involved in accomplishing the task? Given the topic of this forum, it should be 3. When should the task be completed? no surprise that the most common theme was “Future Development.” There was a The pages that follow provide a synopsis of strong consensus among the group that the five community forums. Identified are development within Muskegon County the main themes that arose at each forum should be encouraged in areas with existing through the group discussions as participants infrastructure, and should seek to preserve answered the three above questions. It is or re-use existing structures, especially in important to note that the MAP is a county- downtowns and core areas. Other views wide vision created by the citizens of pertaining to development included Muskegon County. The MAP Advisory awareness of environmental impacts, Committee does not hold the authority to incorporating elements of walk-ability and implement the MAP. Implementation of the bike-ability, and utilization of public-private MAP should be accomplished through partnerships. Potential implementation collaborative efforts amongst a wide variety partners include townships, cities, villages, of partners. Implementation partners will Muskegon County, WMSRDC, economic also vary between the MAP vision areas, as development agencies, environmental well as between specified strategies. groups, state and federal agencies, and the Potential implementation partners have been private sector. identified for each of the five vision areas. In addition, many of the implementation Implementation Strategies: strategies identified should occur as ongoing activities or accomplished upon the • Encourage local governments to availability of funds for a specified task. adopt Smart Growth Principles by resolution in order to help guide Vision #1: Land Use & Growth land use decisions.
Encourage and promote • Continually encourage new land use and growth development and redevelopment to patterns that sustain and occur in areas with existing
6-3
infrastructure, as well as those areas increased presence of arts and educational identified in the MAP Smart Growth institutions. Potential implementation Scenario map. partners include townships, cities, villages, Muskegon County, WMSRDC, economic • Conduct a comprehensive inventory development agencies, educational of developable space, industrial institutions, cultural institutions, community parks, commercial space, and based organization, state and federal brownfields. agencies, and the private sector.
• Recruit ambassadors to champion Implementation Strategies: the MAP, its implementation strategies, and Smart Growth • Enhance uniformity and develop a Principles to Muskegon County defined sense of place in downtown communities and organizations. areas throughout Muskegon County by developing examples of form- • Identify and promote successful based zoning and design standards community development to be utilized by local units of programs/strategies within government. Muskegon County in addition to areas beyond the county’s borders. • Work to eliminate food deserts within Muskegon County by • Identify opportunities for expanding conducting an analysis of and improving non-motorized availability and accessibility to fresh facilities in future development foods, as well as identifying priority projects. areas such as downtown Muskegon.
• Encourage environmental protection • Encourage local governments to measures to be incorporated into partner with educational and cultural new development and institutions to establish goals and redevelopment projects by benchmarks that will support partnering with property owners. existing and develop additional arts and cultural amenities within • Promote strategies to reduce downtown areas of the county. stormwater runoff in the initial phase of future development • Promote mixed use developments projects. with incorporation of Complete Streets principles within downtown Downtowns: areas throughout Muskegon County.
Discussion of downtown areas was another Planning & Zoning: prominent topic of the forum. The group favored utilization of mixed-use With regards to Planning & Zoning, there development to increase population, was a strong desire to improve commerce, and employment in downtown communication, coordination, and areas. There was an expressed need for collaboration between municipalities, as greater availability of grocery markets in well as educate local leaders through land core areas, as well as a desire for an use seminars and ambassador programs. In addition, there were several zoning
6-4
impediments noted during the forum. For networking with other officials from example, it was suggested that zoning throughout the county. flexibility is needed in rural areas to allow for greenspace used and preservation. • Utilize the Muskegon County Overall, there was strong support for local Sustainability Plan as a model to be zoning and planning documents to be duplicated, modified, and reviewed and updated, incorporating incorporated by local units of municipal coordination, as well as revising government and organizations zoning language to not only promote throughout Muskegon County for modern planning techniques, but also to the purpose of reducing waste reduce development impediments. Potential before it is created. implementation partners include townships, cities, villages, Muskegon County, and Community Image: WMSRDC. Finally, “Community Image” was frequently Implementation Strategies: referenced during the forum as an obstacle to growth and development. This included • Continue to convene the County- not only the county’s physical appearance, wide Planning Commission but also the community’s prevailing self- meetings regularly and invite image. Suggestions to improve appearances representatives from each generally included establishing a measure of municipality in the county. uniformity within distinct areas to enhance their aesthetic qualities, as well as the • Encourage coordinated planning implementation of branded countywide efforts throughout Muskegon signage. It was commonly believed that County in addition to identifying Muskegon County has a poor self-image. critical areas along jurisdictional Suggestions to address this included boundaries where coordination enhancing citizen-government relations and between local planning documents communication, utilizing schools to build and regulations are needed. community pride and educate on land-use issues, and conducting an exercise to • Establish a platform for zoning identify the community’s identity. Potential administrators in the county to implementation partners include townships, network, share information, and cities, villages, Muskegon County, exchange ideas on a regular basis. Convention & Visitors Bureau, WMSRDC, recreation providers, economic development • Establish an online planning agencies, community based organizations, document library/repository for educational institutions, private sector, and sharing local planning documents area residents. and ordinances between communities within the county. Implementation Strategies:
• Establish a process to educate newly • Embrace the diverse nature of elected/appointed officials about the Muskegon County by defining MAP and Smart Growth principles, unique areas and promoting the as well as foster relationships and distinctive assets that characterize provide opportunities for those areas.
6-5
• Engage Muskegon County residents, focused on the former paper mill property, as well as the West Michigan region the need to be proactive about the property in a process to rebrand Muskegon dispositions of BC Cobb after closure, and County and its identity. recommended to extend water and infrastructure to area of known • Identify a process to bring together contamination and abandoned oil fields, as local governments, private business, well as to remediate areas impacted by oil community based organization, wells. The group identified the need to volunteer groups, non-profits, and update the WMSRDC Brownfields educational institutions with the Inventory and GIS mapping. Potential purpose of raising awareness of implementation partners include townships, Muskegon County history and cities, villages, Muskegon County, address current issues in order to WMSRDC, economic development build community pride. agencies, environmental and watershed groups, and state and federal agencies. • Promote successful intergovernmental cooperation and Implementation Strategies: public/private partnership efforts within the county and encourage • Update the existing West Michigan additional opportunities for Brownfields Inventory (2006) and communication and cooperation. include maps of parcel boundaries for priority brownfield • Beautify and provide uniformity to redevelopment sites. corridors and entryways into the Muskegon Community. • Update the existing Muskegon County Strategic Infrastructure Plan Vision #2: Natural Resources & (2006) to focus redevelopment in Environment and near areas where adequate infrastructure exists. Protect and preserve natural resources and • Seek opportunities to remediate continually improve the contaminated brownfields for quality of air, water, and redevelopment. land resources found in Muskegon County. • Extend water and sewer infrastructure to areas of known The Natural Resources & Environment contamination and abandoned oil forum was held on Tuesday, October 9 at fields or relocate residents in Muskegon Community College. Nearly 45 heavily contaminated areas. people attended the forum and provided valuable input regarding several topics Green Infrastructure and Greenspace which are identified below. Protection:
Brownfields: Discussions suggested activities that included development of green space targets The group discussed in depth the numerous or goals based on per capita measurement brownfields within the county and the need for healthy communities, advocating for to remediate contaminated sites. The group more green infrastructure, including private
6-6
lands and amenities that are open to the • Develop green space targets based public as part of Blueways/Greenways on a per capita measurement for plans, and identification of all important healthy communities. green infrastructure properties (public and privately owned) to encourage acquisition • Seek out opportunities to increase and protection by local governments. public access in existing public Related to this was the suggestion to use the lands, brownfield redevelopments recreation potential of green spaces. Smart and new development site plans. Growth recommendations included an update of the Muskegon County Strategic • Support local recycling and waste Infrastructure Plan to focus redevelopment reduction efforts that strive to into existing infrastructure areas. A minimize the amount of waste and "recycling" program for vacant parcels was hazardous material entering area suggested to reinvest in all neighborhoods to landfills and wastewater systems. prevent sprawl into greenspace and to re- build communities. Potential Watershed and Habitat implementation partners include townships, Protection/Restoration: cities, villages, Muskegon County, WMSRDC, environmental and watershed Watershed protection and restoration was groups, community based organization, state recommended with collaboration amongst a and federal agencies, and area residents. variety of organizations. Education on how to restore the Great Lakes in Muskegon Implementation Strategies: County was recommended. Recommendations for habitat included • "Recycle" Vacant Parcels by better, proactive management of invasive reinvesting in existing species, dune preservation, streambank and neighborhoods to prevent sprawl riverbank protection and addressing Asian into greenspace and re-build Carp. Potential implementation partners communities. include townships, cities, villages, Muskegon County, environmental and • Expand upon the Muskegon County watershed groups, WMSRDC, Grand Valley Blueways and Greenways Plan and State University Annis Water Resources Green Infrastructure Inventory Institute (GVSU-AWRI), Drain (2010), as well as other existing Commissioner, state and federal agencies, documents to include private lands and "other Great Lakes partners." and amenities that are open to the public, e.g., marinas, golf courses, Implementation Strategies: campgrounds. The plan should also identify priority properties for • Develop strategies to more pro- potential public acquisition and/or actively manage invasive species, preservation. including Phragmites, Tartarian Honeysuckle, Eurasian Water • Advocate for addition green Milfoil and Asian Carp. infrastructure within Muskegon County through preservation and in • Provide increased education site plans for new developments and opportunities about the values of retrofits. sand dunes to diverse audiences and stakeholders, and provide technical
6-7
support and assistance to local • Reduce non point source pollution governments. through the use of permeable parking lots, retention basins, and • Conduct surveys of local streams for rain gardens. erosion and degradation caused by non-point source pollution and • Prevent Urban Stormwater Pollution illegal dumping. Runoff through municipal stormwater regulations and Surface Water and Groundwater Quality: voluntary actions, including the development and adoption of Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS) was jurisdictional, regional or county- discussed by the group with wide post-construction stormwater recommendations including cleaning up programs and ordinances. lakes and streams, regulating Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), • Identify illicit connections in storm reducing fertilizer by riparians, reducing drains and sanitary sewers by NPS pollution through permeable parking identifying and sampling discharge lots, retention basins and rain gardens; points, and monitoring storm drain addressing agricultural pollution and urban systems for E.Coli, PAHs and/or runoff, as well as cross connections and other pollutants. stormwater discharges. Groundwater protection for drinking water supplies was • Require buffers along riparian areas also recommended. Funding for sewer and to prevent water quality water infrastructure and for the Great Lakes degradation. Legacy Act and Great Lakes Restoration Initiative was another recommended. • Protect groundwater for public and Potential implementation partners include private drinking water supplies townships, cities, villages, Muskegon through source water and wellhead County, Drain Commissioner, WMSRDC, protection programs and environmental and watershed groups, identification of groundwater GVSU-AWRI, state and federal agencies recharge areas.
Implementation Strategies: Vision #3: Economy & Jobs
• Continue to clean up toxic sediment Promote economic in lakes and streams. development and diversity that ensures access to jobs, • Minimize agricultural pollution and goods, and services ensure adequate regulation, throughout Muskegon monitoring and enforcement of County. CAFOs. Workforce Development/Education: • Reduce phosphorous fertilizer use by riparian property owners through Perhaps the most commonly heard concern education and by monitoring and of those participating in the Economy and enforcing the State-wide Jobs forum was the need for an educated phosphorous fertilizer ban. workforce. Schools, especially local colleges, need to partner with business to
6-8
create training programs that are relevant to available jobs in the County. Schools and • Develop an incentive program to businesses need to create apprenticeship provide scholarships and/or loans programs which can lead to jobs. Also, for students who remain and gain action needs to be taken to elevate the employment in the region upon quality of underperforming schools. graduation. Potential implementation partners include Muskegon County, Workforce Development • Strive to incorporate “life skills” Board, WMSRDC, economic development and “critical thinking” into local agencies, educational institutions, private curriculum at all teaching levels. sector, and state and federal agencies. Business Retention and Attraction: Implementation Strategies: Expand on existing retention and attraction • Develop a process/platform to efforts. More coordination and cooperation continually identify and assess the between local governments, economic workforce development, educational development agencies, State of Michigan, and training needs of area and schools was a major topic of discussion. employers. Also, there is a need for rural economic development, specifically an Agricultural • Improve the perception that the Development Plan. Potential workforce development process in implementation partners include townships, Muskegon County is fractured and cities, villages, Muskegon County, agencies are not working together. Workforce Development Board, WMSRDC, Promote local successes and economic development agencies, ongoing coordination efforts, as educational institutions, private sector, and well as continually seeking state and federal agencies. additional opportunities for coordination and collaboration. Implementation Strategies:
• Develop workforce • Create an Agricultural Development readiness/transitional Plan focusing on the retention and apprenticeships for graduates with expansion of the agricultural no experience in the workplace. industry in Muskegon County. Use Inventory volunteer opportunities existing resources such as existing provided by employers & encourage industrial parks and excess educators to incorporate internship wastewater capacity. opportunities in their degree/certificate programs. • Utilize the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy • Continue efforts to retrain displaced (CEDS) document to continually workers especially for jobs in analyze trends and identify growth industries. emerging industries that can help diversify the local economy. • Continue and expand efforts to expose middle and high school • Continue to promote and expand students to careers and educational existing efforts/programs to promote opportunities in growth industries. entrepreneurialism and small
6-9
business development in Muskegon businesses, municipalities, and non- County. profit organizations.
• Continue to have business retention Infrastructure: as a high priority in Muskegon County. Maintain existing business Develop a county-wide approach to retention efforts, as well as explore improving and maintaining infrastructure, additional opportunities to transportation, public facilities, and coordinate efforts and built community services. Work cooperatively to partnerships. address infrastructure needs in Muskegon County. Port development of Muskegon • Work collaboratively to fill vacant Lake was identified as a high priority. Also, parcels within the various industrial provide for multi modal transportation parks throughout the county. options to link airport, rail, highways, and port. Continue to work on water and sewer Environmental Revitalization: issues in the county. Potential implementation partners include townships, Promote economic development through the cities, villages, Muskegon County, continued environmental revitalization of WMSRDC, economic development Muskegon County. Prioritize brownfield agencies, private sector, West Michigan redevelopment. Continue environmental Metropolitan Transportation Planning cleanup efforts. Potential implementation Program, transportation agencies, and state partners include township, cities, villages, and federal agencies. Muskegon County, WMSRDC, economic development agencies, environmental and Implementation Strategies: watershed groups, private sector, and state and federal agencies. • Utilize the CEDS document to identify regionally significant Implementation Strategies: economic development infrastructure projects for Muskegon • Update the West Michigan County and the region. Shoreline Brownfields Inventory and Plan for Implementation (2006) • Support the recent efforts of the in order to expand and revise the West Michigan Port Operators inventory, as well as prioritize sites group and strive to develop a strong for redevelopment. public/private partnership to promote the commercial and • Continually work to clean recreational assets of the Port of contaminated sites throughout Muskegon. Muskegon County. Utilize the West Michigan Shoreline Brownfield • Continue efforts to bring additional Inventory to assist in this effort. capacity to the Muskegon County Wastewater System in addition to • Support and promote the Materials promoting economic development & Resources Exchange West on the excess wastewater property, Michigan program that promotes the and work towards expanding exchange of reusable items from municipal water to the wastewater site.
6-10
• Promote and implement Complete • Update the West Michigan Streets principles where possible in Industrial Park and Sites Study Muskegon County. Complete (2003). streets take into consideration all modes of transportation such as • Coordinate efforts to ensure bicycles, pedestrians, transit, as well Muskegon County has adequate as automobiles. transportation infrastructure in place to meet current and future economic • Development a Sense of Place development needs including within communities throughout the roadways, rail, airport access, and county utilizing design standards for port capacity. development that encourage re-use and preservation of existing Commercial Area and Neighborhood buildings, and new buildings which Revitalization: are distinctive and of quality construction. Encourage businesses by stepping up efforts to revitalize existing commercial areas. Tourism: Continue the redevelopment efforts of downtown areas in Muskegon County. Encourage economic development by Encourage development of a sense of place. promoting tourism in Muskegon County. Continue efforts to revitalize neighborhoods. Potential implementation partners include Potential implementation partners include townships, cities, villages, Muskegon townships, cities, villages, Muskegon County, WMSRDC, convention and visitors County, WMSRDC, economic development bureau, recreation providers, private sector, agencies, private sector, and state and economic development agencies, and area federal agencies. residents.
Implementation Strategies: Implementation Strategies:
• Utilize local master plans and • Market Muskegon County as a zoning ordinances to promote tourism destination by promoting redevelopment of existing urbanized the unique resources and assets of and commercial areas, which will the region through coordinated take advantage of existing utilities, efforts. provide jobs to nearby neighborhoods, and improve the Vision #4: Infrastructure local tax base. Develop a county-wide • Incorporate opportunities for mixed approach to improving and use developments into local master maintaining infrastructure, plans and zoning ordinances to transportation, public increase property values, make facilities, and community transit alternatives more viable, and services increase business traffic to nearby residents. During the Infrastructure Community Forum held on October 18 at the Muskegon Area Transit System, Louis A. McMurray
6-11
Conference Center, the focus of the infrastructure within the discussion was on the traditional topics of Metropolitan area. roads, water, sewer, utilities and essential services. However, with the recent • Encourage communities that have recession and a decline in development, adopted Smart Growth Principles to other factors related to infrastructure have incorporate those principles into also become topics of discussion. The their master plans and zoning following is a list of the most commonly ordinances. discussed issues: • Continue to seek opportunities for Intergovernmental Cooperation: cooperation and collaboration among local governments for shared With trends of transportation and services. infrastructure funding reductions at federal, state, and local levels, the importance of • Continually address and update expanding ideas on a regional basis and county-wide plans such as the MAP, promoting intergovernmental cooperation CEDS, transportation plans, and has become a topic of discussion. During other related infrastructure plans. the MAP Infrastructure forum, intergovernmental cooperation was • Implement a process to allow for discussed more frequently than any other efficient planning that will address feedback topic. The group felt that many critical infrastructure needs and aspects of infrastructure, including roads, impacts prior to implementation of water, sewer, and cable/internet, could be development projects. dealt with from a regional perspective. This would allow for larger scale projects to • Address current and future storm happen at a more reasonable cost to the water management needs, and individual municipalities and agencies. It coordinate them with surrounding would also allow the adjoining communities governmental agencies. Plan for to have input and support for these projects. inclusion of green infrastructure Some felt that creative and innovative opportunities in watershed areas. projects may be held up due to lack of cooperation and leadership at the local level. • Work together to increase access to Potential implementation partners include and affordability of cell phone townships, cities, villages, Muskegon coverage and internet access. County, WMSRDC, West Michigan Transportation Planning Program, Road Commission, environmental and watershed Non-Motorized or Multimodal groups, Drain Commissioner, economic Transportation: development agencies, and state and federal agencies. Another topic of discussion was the idea of non-motorized and multi-modal Implementation Strategies: transportation. Again, economic times have shifted the thought process of many county residents, and the importance of alternative • Continue the collaborative efforts of and non-motorized transportation has the West Michigan Metropolitan become an important element of Transportation Planning Program to transportation. These types of facilities can provide adequate transportation
6-12
include biking or walking trails, transit when making potential trail connections and facilities, sidewalks, and connections. rideshare lots. The forum attendees felt that it was important for the community to plan Port Development/Utilization: for these types of facilities to allow for other modes of transportation that may be more There was an in depth discussion regarding economical and less harmful to the the Port of Muskegon and encouraging environment. The ability to tie all modes of private and public cooperation to enhance transportation together into a regional both commercial and recreational port “package” where they all complement each activities. There was also support to create a other and allow for safe and efficient travel port association. The port topic needs to be throughout the community is important. addressed very strategically, with all Potential implementation partners include potential “players” at the table from day one. townships, cities, villages, Muskegon These players include private and public County, WMSRDC, West Michigan interests, as both will play an integral role in Transportation Planning Program, local trail port development. Also important, will be groups, Road Commission, and state and economic development agencies and other federal agencies. state and federal agencies that will provide access to different marketing and funding Implementation Strategies: opportunities. Potential implementation partners include port property owners, City • Integrate multimodal transportation of Muskegon, Muskegon County, into future plans at the local, state WMSRDC, West Michigan Transportation and federal levels of government for Planning Program, private sector, economic the county and region. development agencies, and state and federal agencies. • Strive to complete existing trails, networks, and other related non- Implementation Strategies: motorized facilities before work begins on new projects. Plan for • Work with the West Michigan Port inter-connecting these facilities to Operators group to determine the address multi-modes of needs/benefits of establishing an transportation with regional and organized association based on the statewide perspectives in mind. needs and goals of the group.
• As infrastructure is built and • Establish a plan to address replaced, plan to incorporate infrastructure inventories and needs walkable communities in designs as they pertain to creating and and add Complete Streets concepts expanding port activities including to the plans. an inventory of roads, rail, water access, airport access, etc. • Complete and implement a region wide non-motorized trail plan that • Create a countywide transportation will identify linkages and map/plan identifying specific details connections to larger regional trail related to access and shipping to and networks. The plan should also from the port including routes that identify the location of future trails are sufficient to handle height and and allow for addition planning turning requirements that may come
6-13
with unique shipments such as wind • Explore options to provide better turbine parts. access to local routes and expanded hours for services. Mass Transit: • Continue pursuing environmentally The group also discussed the need for the sound options for alternative fuels Muskegon Area Transit System (MATS) to and service stations. Look at expand the services, hours, and provide electric and consolidated natural gas more facilities. There was also much praise as potential options for buses and given to the recent MATS expansion efforts other equipment. and improvements. There are many transit agencies in the region that play major roles • Continue to pursue centralized to the area. All of these agencies should be locations for MATS facilities based looked at when planning for future on public and government input. expansion and planning for mass transit. Most of the agencies receive some form of Water and Sewer Expansion: federal funding, and all serve different roles in the county. Potential implementation The group also discussed the need to expand partners include Muskegon Area Transit water and sewer into developed areas, as System, townships, cities, villages, well as areas with contamination issues. Muskegon County, West Michigan Potential implementation partners include Transportation Planning Program, townships, cities, villages, Muskegon WMSRDC, community based organizations, County, WMSRDC, environmental and state and federal agencies, and area watershed groups, state and federal residents. agencies, and area residents.
Implementation Strategies: Implementation Strategies:
• Increase access to public transit • Develop a county-wide plan that through agreements with other inventories the entire network of regional agencies in the West sewer and water in the county, as Michigan region. Increase routes well as possible connections to and destinations to better serve these outlying counties. This plan should areas and other regional and be updated on a regular basis and statewide destinations. should detail the condition of infrastructure including age, size of • Develop plans to review shared or pipes, etc. duplicated services in order to create a more efficient system that serves • Continue to encourage dialogue and the needs of Muskegon County. cooperation/collaboration amongst local governments for the • Continue to improve services to distribution of water and wastewater rural areas of the county through throughout the county. expanded serves and additional buses. • Extend infrastructure including sewer and water lines, to areas that have been identified as
6-14
contaminated and have non-potable agencies, private sector, convention and water. visitors bureau, state and federal agencies, and area residents. • Explore the possibility of regional utilities that expand beyond local Implementation Strategies: boundaries and allow for cost savings to local users and • Continue to seek opportunities that municipalities. encourage and facilitate a wide range of growth initiatives in Vision #5: Quality of Life downtown areas which will maintain a healthy economic mix, Promote high quality of life improve real estate in downtown by recognizing Muskegon areas, increase the tax base, and County for its diversity, create jobs. environmental, education, arts, cultural, and • Strive to achieve full occupancy of recreational assets. existing commercial and residential space, as well as infill of existing The Quality of Life forum was held on vacant and abandoned buildings in Wednesday, October 24 at the White Lake downtown areas. Library and included approximately 45 participants. In order to promote the quality • Encourage physical and institutional of life in Muskegon County, forum improvements in the downtown participants recognized the need to focus on environment that will encompass the new downtown development, available preservation of historic character, public transit, adequate and available revitalize significant old buildings, medical care, promotion of the Muskegon beautify streets and buildings, County Wastewater System, education, arts, update public utilities, provide and a healthy lifestyle through the expansion adequate parking, ensure public of recreational opportunities, access to safety, and defend the area’s quality parks, etc. Participants agreed that this could of life. be achieved by working together utilizing the expertise and knowledge of many and by • Promote the unique attractions of including young people and their the county’s downtown areas and perspectives at the table early on in any their importance to the region's planning process or discussions. economy. Include opportunities and amenities that draw interest New Downtown Development: from all age groups.
Forum participants agreed that new Adequate and Available Medical Care: development in downtowns need to take place, start-up businesses need to be Participants were concerned that in the encouraged, and downtowns need a draw for future, Muskegon County may have young people to utilize on a regular basis inadequate medical care. It was mentioned and become more of a nucleus for night life. that six primary care doctors have recently Potential implementation partners include retired in the area with no replacements. townships, cities, villages, Muskegon Muskegon County needs to begin attracting County, WMSRDC, economic development and retaining quality doctors and medical
6-15
care for its residents. Potential implementation partners include Muskegon Educational Attainment: County, health care providers, community based organization, and area residents. Forum participants strongly agreed that Muskegon County needs to increase the Implementation Strategies: educational attainment levels of residents. A major component of a successful • Seek opportunities to encourage community is education. In addition to medical schools and residencies to improving education attainment levels, work provide courses, clerkships and needs to be done to bring employers, as well longitudinal experiences in smaller as educational and training institutions urban areas like Muskegon County together to plan for the needs of Muskegon that may be approaching being County. Potential implementation partners underserved. include educational institutions, community based organizations, Muskegon County, • Strive to maintain Muskegon WMSRDC, private sector, workforce County’s high level of clinical care. development, economic development agencies, area residents, and state and • Continue current cooperative and federal agencies. collaborative efforts to improve Muskegon County’s health ranking Implementation Strategies: overall in the State of Michigan. • Make educational attainment a Promotion of Muskegon County Wastewater priority in Muskegon County. Seek System: partnerships and opportunities to coordinate efforts that will raise the Promote the property as an level of educational attainment in ecosystem/recreation area to be used as a Muskegon County. possible airfield, as well as an area for wildlife observation, hunting, snowmobile • Support existing partnerships and trails, motocross, and many educational encourage new collaborative efforts opportunities. Potential implementation that will align educations programs partners include Muskegon County, with the skills in demand by area townships, cities, villages, economic businesses and manufacturers. development agencies, WMSRDC, state and federal agencies, and area residents. • Build linkages and encourage additional partnerships between Implementation Strategies: strategic economic development planning and workforce • Continue and expand efforts to development training. promote the use of the Muskegon County Wastewater Management Healthy Lifestyles: System for recreational uses such hunting/trapping, an observatory Inform Muskegon County residents about campus for Muskegon Community ways to pursue a healthy lifestyle through College, snowmobile trails, bird existing health focused groups and access to watching, and a variety of other quality parks, bike/walking trails, and other events. recreational opportunities, encourage
6-16
employers to offer green spaces for their in order to make them an integral part of the employees, and evaluate the usage of parks. planning process regarding quality of life Potential Implementation partners include related task forces, events, activities, etc. health care providers, Muskegon County, Potential implementation partners include community based organization, private townships, cities, villages, Muskegon sector, education institutions, WMSRDC, County, WMSRDC, education institutions, area residents, townships, cities, villages, community based organizations, area state and federal agencies. residents (youth).
Implementation Strategies: Implementation Strategies:
• Promote and support an • Encourage local governments to environment that fosters healthy reach out to youth through the use eating habits among the population. of social media such as Facebook, Actions will focus on working with Twitter, YouTube, etc. groups regarding food production, processing, distribution, and safety. • Forge and encourage partnerships that support youth involvement in • Strive to eliminate food deserts the local community. within the area and make healthy food choices available to all • Establish opportunities for local residents in Muskegon County. governments to work with educational institutions to provide • Develop environments and internships for area youth in an educational opportunities that effort to increase their involvement encourage a physically active in the community. lifestyle for residents of all ages, as well as social and economic • Partner with local educational backgrounds. institutions to promote the MAP, its implementation strategies, and • Promote positive social norms. Smart Growth Principles. Implement social campaigns and foster changes in social norms in order to promote a healthy lifestyle (healthy eating habits and a physically active lifestyle) and a healthy attitude toward diverse body shapes and sizes.
• Encourage local efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle through the numerous programs offered throughout Muskegon County.
Bring Young People to the Planning Table:
Work with middle schools, high schools, community colleges, and local organizations
6-17
6-18
Chapter 7: Implementation & Evaluation
7-1
Implementation developed by elected officials and planning commissioners. Each of the 16 As has been noted elsewhere in the townships, seven (7) cities, and four (4) document, the Muskegon Area-wide Plan is villages in Muskegon County exercise more than a traditional master plan for the their right to plan and enforce county; it is a vision for the future of ordinances within their jurisdiction. Muskegon County by the people of the county. In Michigan, under state law, County of Muskegon: Although the counties do not have jurisdiction over land County of Muskegon does not have land use and zoning; which falls under the use planning and zoning jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of cities, villages and townships. Muskegon Area-wide Plan is a county- Similarly, implementation tools for the other wide vision. Muskegon County’s main vision areas of the MAP, like the link to land use and growth is its environment, economy and jobs, quality of ownership of various facilities including life and infrastructure are spread over a wide numerous industrial parks, the spectrum of agencies and authorities. While Muskegon County Airport, the this makes implementation of a county-wide Muskegon County Wastewater vision more challenging, an overview of Management System, and the Muskegon tools and organizations available to County Solid Waste Facility. All of implement the MAP implementation these facilities have a direct relationship strategies will be helpful. WMSRDC, the to various aspects of the land use and keeper and home for the MAP, will work growth in Muskegon County. with these groups, identified below, to implement the MAP. West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission (WMSRDC): Land Use & Growth Among other designations, WMSRDC was created in 1970 under PA 281 of When it comes to land use and growth 1945 (Regional Planning Commission). decisions in the State of Michigan, authority WMSRDC currently serves five lies with local units of government including counties including 127 local units of townships, cities, and villages. Michigan is government administering several a Home Rule state which allows townships, programs areas and providing technical cities, and villages to govern themselves assistance to local governments in the through a local charter and ordinances. west Michigan region. WMSRDC However, there are also other organizations strives to be a source of information and that can assist in local land use and growth expertise for local governments with decisions. respect to land use and growth tools and techniques. WMSRDC holds several Local Governments: According to state regional forums per year in an attempt to law, local governments in Muskegon educate local officials on a variety of County including townships, cities, and planning topics. In addition, WMSRDC villages have the sole authority to will assist one or two local governments implement land use and growth per year in the development or update of decisions through local charters and community planning documents. zoning ordinances. Some of the cities in the county have professional planning State and National Associations: Local staff to assist in the decision making and governments in the west Michigan area enforcement of local ordinances have the option of belonging to
7-2
numerous associations such as the Creek Watershed Partnership, Lower Michigan Municipal League, Michigan Grand River Organizations of Township Association, and the National Watersheds, Mona Lake Watershed League of Cities. These and other Council, Muskegon Lake Watershed associations can be another valuable Partnership, Muskegon River Watershed source of information regarding Assembly, White Lake Public Advisory planning and zoning tools and Council and the White River Watershed techniques. Partnership. In addition, the Muskegon Area Sustainability Coalition and the The main responsibility for implementing Muskegon County Environmental the MAP Land Use and Growth vision lies Coordinating Council hold regular with the local units of government in meetings and provide opportunities for Muskegon County. The other organizations sharing information and forging new should be used by the local units of partnerships. The Land Conservancy of governments as sources of information. West Michigan is another active With dwindling resources at the local level, organization and vital partner in the it will be important for local units of area. government to explore options for intergovernmental cooperation to provide Local Units of Government: As stated services to area residents and implement the in the Land Use and Growth section, Land Use and Growth vision. local units of government including townships, cities, and villages have Natural Resources & Environment planning and zoning authority. How a community plans and its zoning There are numerous local, state, and national regulations have a tremendous impact organizations working towards the on the environment. Local units of protection and preservation of the valuable government should remain informed natural resources and fragile environment of about grant and loan opportunities to the west Michigan region. Listed below are improve and protect natural resources a few of the organizations and major tools and remain educated on how the used in this effort. environment may be impacted based on the planning and zoning decisions they Local Watershed Groups and make. Local governments own land and Environmental Organizations: Local many natural areas contain important watershed groups have been extremely green infrastructure features that, if active and successful in Muskegon protected, can protect environmental County. Many of their members are quality and help reduce costs that concerned citizens living within the communities face with the maintenance watershed with a passion to preserve of traditional storm water systems and and protect the precious natural other infrastructure related to sprawl. resources in their community. They have prepared watershed management WMSRDC: The Regional Commission plans, forged successful partnerships, has been involved with natural resources implemented local projects, and and water quality planning since its provided valuable educational inception in 1970. The Commission is opportunities to area residents. the federally designated area-wide water Watershed organizations that are active quality management planning agency in Muskegon County include the Duck for the region, as provided for under the
7-3
Clean Water Act. WMSRDC works environmental protection programs and closely with local watershed groups, regulations to preserve and protect local governments, and other local, wetlands, water quality and natural state, and federal partners to assist in the resources. The Department of implementation of and provide technical Environmental Quality, Department of assistance in local watershed projects. Natural Resources, Michigan WMSRDC also maintains a strong Department of Agriculture and the working relationship with state and Coastal Zone Management Programs federal funding agencies in order to provide communities, watershed groups remain educated regarding existing and and landowners with technical new funding opportunities and programs assistance and resources through that may assist in local projects. programs and state and federal grants, including the State Clean Water Conservation District: The Muskegon Revolving Fund and grants that pass Conservation District is a unique through federal funds from the federal governmental subdivision of the state Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and created to serve as stewards of our Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. natural resources. The guiding philosophy is that local people should Federal Government: The US EPA make decisions on conservation issues at administers the Great Lakes Restoration the local level, with technical assistance Initiative (GLRI) and the Great Lakes provided by local resource Legacy Act (GLLA). The EPA professionals. District projects and maintains and updates the Great Lake programs are as diverse as the landscape Restoration Action Plan to guide the and are continually changing to meet the coordination and distribution of federal environmental challenges in local funds to other federal organizations and communities. The Muskegon state agencies working cooperatively Conservation District serves as a with local communities to remediate, valuable partner and resource to local restore and protect the Great Lakes watershed groups, land owners, and ecosystem. The National Oceanic and others interested parties. Atmospheric Administration is an important partner in the protection of Grand Valley State University Annis natural resources. The NOAA Great Water Resources Institute (AWRI): Lakes Environmental Research AWRI's mission is to integrate research, Laboratory (GLERL) is located on Lake education, and outreach Michigan at the Muskegon Lake to enhance and preserve freshwater navigational channel. GLERL is an resources through three program areas important research partner in the areas including an ecological research of water quality and invasive species program, information services center, throughout the Great Lakes. The and education and outreach programs. NOAA Restoration Center, with its AWRI is an asset to the Muskegon Great Lakes offices located in Ann community being located directly on Arbor, Michigan is an important partner Muskegon Lake in the City of with local, large-scale fish and wildlife Muskegon. habitat restoration and land acquisition efforts in the Muskegon Lake Area of State of Michigan: The State of Concern shoreline and watershed. Michigan administers and oversees
7-4
Great Lakes Commission: The Great economic development of West Lakes Commission is an interstate Michigan, including Muskegon County. compact agency that promotes the The CEDS annually lists up to ten orderly, integrated and comprehensive regionally significant economic development, use and conservation of development projects for the water and related natural resources implementation with federal, local or of the Great Lakes basin and St. private funds. Almost the entire Lawrence River. The GLC partners economic development infrastructure of with regional organizations on large- West Michigan was developed through scale watershed protection programs and this planning and implementation they administer several small grant process. programs to improve water quality throughout the Great Lakes. Muskegon Area First (MAF): The Muskegon Area First is a county level, There is an incredible amount of cooperation local economic development agency, and coordination amongst the above loosely affiliated with the Lakeshore mentioned groups to preserve and protect Chamber of Commerce. MAF’s primary the natural resources and environment in mission is new business attraction and west Michigan. A continued partnership is retention of existing businesses. recommended in order to leverage tools, WMSRDC and MAF work closely programs and funding to continue together in advancing economic implementation of the Natural Resources & development in Muskegon County, Environment vision of the MAP. especially when it involves economic development infrastructure projects. Economy & Jobs Michigan Economic Development There are a number of organizations and Corporation (MEDC): The Michigan tools available to implement the MAP’s Economic Development Corporation is Economy and Jobs vision area. The major the State of Michigan’s economic ones and the tools available are described development agency. The MEDC below: administers a number of programs, and has authority over a number of WMSRDC: WMSRDC is designated by economic development tools, for the U.S. Department of Commerce, business attraction and retention. MEDC Economic Development Administration, also administers the Small Cities as an Economic Development District Community Development Block Grant (EDD), or a regional economic (CDBG) program, the majority of which development agency for West Michigan. is allocated by the state to economic WMSRDC is primarily responsible for development. A more complete strategic economic development description of the tools are available on planning and the provision of assistance MEDC’s website at to local governments in developing their michiganadvantage.org. economic development infrastructure with federal and local resources. On an Local Governments: Several of the annual basis the WMSRDC prepares the local governments in Muskegon County federally mandated Comprehensive have professional staff involved in Economic Development Strategy planning and economic development, (CEDS), which is a blueprint for the including the County of Muskegon.
7-5
Local governments in Muskegon state-wide. The mission of the local County play a key role in furthering the Michigan Works! agency is to assist job MAP vision area of economy and jobs. seekers and employers in the west They also have at their disposal many Michigan community. The agency is economic development tools to promote locally driven and provides access to a and foster economic development, like full range of core employment-related Brownfied Authorities, Tax Increment services to help businesses find the Financing, tax abetments etc. skilled workers they need, and help job seekers find satisfying careers. The Chambers of Commerce: Muskegon Michigan Works! agency has a number County is also home to many chambers of economic development tools of commerce, the largest one being the available to assist the local community Lakeshore Chamber of Commerce. The in meeting their goals. chambers of Commerce are also involved in working closely with the The WMSRDC, MAF, MEDC, local business community and promoting governments, chambers of commerce and their interests. The chambers of other organizations work closely together to commerce also provide vital services to further the goals of economic development their members in the form of training in Muskegon County. These organizations and information. will also be primarily responsible for implementing the economy and jobs vision Educational Institutions: The Muskegon of the MAP. County area is blessed with outstanding educational institutions including K-12, Infrastructure as well as post secondary education. The Muskegon Area Intermediate The infrastructure network in Muskegon School District (MAISD) is a strong County is managed by local, state, and regional education service agency federal agencies, as well as some private serving the public schools of west sector agencies. Listed below are some of Michigan. The MAISD’s primary the organizations and their roles with respect mission is to provide leadership and to infrastructure within the county. services that enhance the delivery of instruction for the 12 constituent school WMSRDC/WestPlan MPO: In 1973, districts and assisting other public and WMSRDC organized the Muskegon parochial schools. In addition, Area Transportation Planning Program Muskegon Community College (MCC), as the Metropolitan Transportation Grand Valley State University (GVSU), Planning Organization (MPO) Policy and Baker College of Muskegon have a Committee. In 2003, when the U.S. strong presence in the county. These Census Bureau expanded the Muskegon institutions will play a major role in Urbanized Area to include northern preparing, educating and retraining the Ottawa County, WMSRDC, working current and future workforce in with the Michigan Department of Muskegon County. Transportation, realigned the Metropolitan Area Boundary (MAB) of Work Force Development: Michigan the MPO and organized the West Works! is a unified workforce Michigan Metropolitan Transportation development system with 25 agencies Planning Program (WestPlan). WMSRDC has staffed the MPO since
7-6
1973. WMSRDC undertakes a others in the public’s interest. The comprehensive transportation planning MCRC works closely with program to maintain the eligibility of WMSRDC/MPO and other local road local governments in the area to receive agencies to maintain and improve the federal and state transportation funds for counties road network. street and road improvements, as well as subsidies for mass transit. Local Units of Government: The seven (7) cities and four (4) villages in Michigan Department of Transportation Muskegon County maintain and operate (MDOT): The Michigan Department of their own road systems and work closely Transportation (MDOT) is the State of with WMSRDC/MPO, as well as Michigan’s transportation agency which MDOT. In addition, many of the local administers numerous programs. The communities maintain other agency also has authority over various infrastructure including water and sewer tools for transportation related activities. lines/systems. The City of Muskegon MDOT works closely with local and Muskegon Heights own and operate governments and road agencies, as well their own municipal water filtration as the Federal Highway Administration plans, which service not only the cities, to implement various transportation but also several of the surrounding related tools and programs. A more communities. The Cities of Whitehall detailed description of the tools are and Montague jointly own and operate a available on the MDOT website at municipal well system, and the Village michigan.gov/MDOT. of Ravenna also owns and maintains a municipal well system. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): The Federal Highway County of Muskegon: The County of Administration (FHWA) provides Muskegon is a major contributor to stewardship over the construction, infrastructure within the county. maintenance and preservation of the Although the county is not a road Nation’s highways, bridges and tunnels. agency, the county does own and FHWA also conducts research and operate the Muskegon Area Transit provides technical assistance to state and System, which is the primary provider local agencies in an effort to improve of mass transportation in the county. safety, mobility, and livability, and to The agency also provides paratransit encourage innovation. service, as well as trolley service within the county. Muskegon County also Muskegon County Road Commission: owns and operates the Muskegon The Muskegon County Road County Airport, which is a commercial Commission (MCRC) has jurisdiction of air facility servicing the west Michigan all Non-Trunkline roads located outside area with regional air service provided of any city or village limits, generally by SkyWest Airlines operating as the roads that are in townships. MCRC United Airlines with 50-passanger is dedicated to keeping those roads service to Chicago O’Hare. Muskegon improved for vehicular travel, County also owns and operates the reasonably safe and convenient for the Muskegon County Wastewater motoring public, and to be firm, but Treatment Facility located in eastern flexible in their dedication to Muskegon County and services much of cooperatively and responsibly work with the county. In addition, the county also
7-7
owns and maintains in partnership with lacking. Therefore, it is important to various communities the northside water provide quality local health care with system. The county also owns and access to specialists, technology, and maintains the Muskegon County Solid cutting-edge treatments throughout the Waste Management Facility also located region. It is also equally important to in eastern Muskegon County. improve the overall health of county residents by utilizing tools and The above mentioned organizations play technique available through local major roles in the operation, maintenance healthcare providers. and future expansion of infrastructure within Muskegon County. It is most important for Educational Institutions: Educational these agencies to work together and forge attainment is a major priority of the partnerships in order to implement the MAP MAP. The Muskegon area is blessed Infrastructure implementation Strategies. with higher educational opportunities including Muskegon Community Quality of Life College, Grand Valley State University, and Baker College of Muskegon. Quality of life is a very subjective vision Muskegon Community College, an area of the MAP. There are numerous associate degree-granting institution of organizations that can have an impact on the higher education, is a center for lifelong quality of live in Muskegon County. Listed learning which provides persons the below are a few organizations that are opportunity to attain their educational directly related to the implementation goals by offering programs that respond strategies identified under the quality of life to individual, community and global vision area. needs. Grand Valley State University educates students to shape their lives, Local Units of Government: Local units their professions, and their societies. of government have a large impact on The university contributes to the the quality of life within a community enrichment of society through excellent based on their authority to plan for and teaching, active scholarship, and public implement land use decisions which service. Also, the mission of Baker create a sense of place. There are College is to provide quality higher several tools available for local units of education and training which enable government to utilize when trying to graduates to be successful throughout improve the quality of life for area challenging and rewarding careers. residents. These tools include planning documents and zoning ordinances. Community Based Organizations: Additionally, local units of government Community based organizations are can seek financial assistance through vital in improving a region’s quality of various programs offered by state and life. Community based organization, federal agencies to improve the local public or private nonprofit (including a quality of life. church or religious entity) are representative of a community or a Local Medical Providers: Muskegon significant segment of a community, and County has a top ranking in the State of are engaged in meeting human, Michigan for its high level of clinical educational, environmental, or public care. However, Muskegon County’s safety community needs. Muskegon overall health ranking in the state is County has numerous community based
7-8
organizations with varying missions. They offer valuable resources to the local community in implementing the MAP Quality of Life vision.
Community Foundation for Muskegon County: The mission of the Community Foundation for Muskegon County is to build community endowment, effect positive change through grantmaking and provide leadership on key community issues, all to serve donors' desires to enhance the quality of life for the people of our region, now and for generations to come. The Community Foundation for Muskegon County has been a local leader in improving the quality of life in the county with its vast resources and generosity.
As mentioned previously there are numerous agencies and organizations that may have an impact on the quality of life in Muskegon County. These organizations will have a direct impact in executing the MAP Quality of Life implementation strategies.
Evaluation
In order to evaluate and measure the implementation activities of the MAP, the MAP Advisory Committee with assistance from the WMSRDC, will host an annual community form. The purpose of the forum will be to bring the community together to discuss the MAP implementation activities undertaken during the previous year. In addition, attendees of the community forum will use electronic voting equipment to complete a survey/questionnaire measuring their knowledge of the MAP and ongoing implementation activities.
An annual report will then be produced based on the results of the community forum and survey. A copy of the survey/questionnaire is located in the Appendix.
7-9
Chapter 8: Sustainability
8-1
Creating a Sustainable Community role in the promotion of environmental health education and pollution prevention According to the throughout the West Michigan region. United States Environmental In June 2006, members of the Muskegon Protection Area Sustainability Coalition came together Agency, as a body of community leaders with a “Sustainability common goal of advancing the principles of is based on a Sustainability throughout Muskegon simple principle: County. The intent of the group is to Everything that strengthen community efforts such as the we need for our Muskegon Area-wide Plan through the survival and promotion of Sustainability as a community well-being depends, either directly or value that influences all community indirectly, on our natural environment. endeavors. Sustainability creates and maintains the conditions under which humans and nature Recycling & Disposal can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic and other Muskegon County is another active partner requirements of present and future is fostering a sustainable ecology, economy generations. and community. In 2012, the Muskegon County Department of Public Works Sustainability is important to making sure (Sustainability Office) in partnership with that we have and will continue to have, the various sponsors developed the Muskegon water, materials, and resources to protect County Household Recycling & Disposal human health and our environment.” Guide. The guide provides information on how to recycle or dispose of everything Muskegon County is engaged in several from antifreeze to yard waste, identified tips activities to promote sustainable practices for conserving energy, and shares listings and waste reduction. The Muskegon County for disposal and recycling facilities. The Environmental Coordinating Council and promotion of the principles of Reduce, the Muskegon Area Sustainability Coalition Reuse, and Recycle (in that order) is are just two volunteer organizations that are promoted in the document in the belief that striving to create a sustainable community. doing so can curb energy and raw material consumption in the face of growing demand The mission of the Muskegon County on our natural resources. Environmental Coordinating Council (MCECC) is to advance the environmental A copy of the Muskegon County Household well being of the Muskegon Region by Recycling & Disposal Guide can be providing opportunities for collaboration, downloaded from the MCECC website at education and stewardship. The MCECC www.mcecc.org, or for additional resources, was formed in 1991 to promote cooperation contact the Muskegon County Sustainability between governments, community groups, Office online at regulators and local business throughout the www.co.muskegon.mi.us/sustainability. County. Over the years, the MCECC has played, and continues to play, an important Muskegon County Sustainability Plan
8-2
8-3
8-4
The Muskegon County Sustainability Plan were incorporated into the plan in order to was also developed as part of Muskegon operate and live in a more sustainable way. County’s Pollution Prevention Grant from the Michigan Department of Environmental It is the hope of the Muskegon County Quality. This is the same grant that made Public Works staff that the Muskegon the MAP update possible. Muskegon County Sustainability plan will be utilized as County’s purpose for the grant was to a guide and incorporated by other develop a Sustainability Plan for its municipalities and organizations toward the governmental operations. The effort was development of their own sustainability undertaken by the Muskegon County plans and guides for operation. Department of Public Works. Exchange West Michigan Muskegon County’s Public Works staff worked collaboratively with internal As part of the Muskegon County Pollution partners and stakeholders throughout the Prevention Grant, which helped fund the course of the grant. These partners included Muskegon Area-wide Plan update, the representatives from various county Employers Association of West Michigan departments, elected officials, and county developed a Universal Waste Management employees. The process identified and and Materials Exchange Forum. The prioritized existing and potential actions that purpose of the Forum is to increase and add to the sustainability of the county. The build efficiency into commercial recycling complete Muskegon County Sustainability and proper management of Universal Waste, Plan available in the appendix of the MAP specifically, cardboard, office paper, and plastics, scrap metal, fluorescent lamps, and batteries, as well as to facilitate materials/by-product exchange through the facilitation and creation of an online forum. Users can post items or view listings of items from other users.
The web based service for the exchange of reusable items from business, municipalities, and non-profit organizations is located at www.exchangewestmi.com.
Muskegon County Solid Waste Management Plan Update
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) requires each county in Michigan to have a solid waste management The process of developing the plan and plan. The Muskegon County Solid Waste resulting collaboration resulted in a Management Plan was last updated in 2000. framework that can be used by the county as The plan reviews current waste disposal it incorporates sustainable practices into its operations and facilities, analyzes historical, operations. The three legs of sustainability current and projected population include social, economic, and environment demographics, waste generation volumes and waste diversions via recycling
8-5
enterprises. The plan also identified goals to post a rising score. This category and objectives to assist in developing a promotes the concept of reduce, reuse, and general policy framework in which to recycle; as well as the conservation of identify alternatives to meet current and energy and water. This category measures a future solid waste management issues. 3.3 score for Muskegon County indicating a sustainable level has been achieved. The Muskegon County Solid Waste Environmental Integrity indicators have Planning Committee is initiating the process continued to improve each year since 2007. of updating the County’s Solid Waste Management Plan. Based on discussions of the Solid Waste Planning Committee, the updated plan will help to develop and strategize future recycling efforts in Muskegon County.
Prosperity Index
The Prosperity Index, developed by the Muskegon Area Sustainability Coalition, began as a method to define and measure sustainability by condensing volumes of data and presenting it in a simple and easy to understand format. The Index was designed as a tool to track progress and guide actions. The purpose for the index is to help Muskegon County develop a more cohesive response to challenges and opportunities, while ensuring that the county is a thriving area and is enjoyed by current and future generations.
The summary report of the Prosperity Index for Muskegon County has been produced annually since 2007 and calculates scores and trends in three categories including Social Equity, Environmental Integrity, Economic Prosperity, as well as provides an overall average for the county. The report also compares Muskegon County numbers to West Michigan (Muskegon, Kent, Ottawa), Michigan, and the United States.
The numbers in Muskegon County are consistent to that of the West Michigan, Michigan, and the United States with Social Equity, Economic Prosperity, and the Overall Average declining. Environmental Integrity was the only category for each area
8-6
Chapter 9: Conclusions
9-1
Conclusions The Muskegon Area-wide Plan (MAP), which began in the fall of 1998, has brought the citizens of Muskegon County through the process of identifying a common vision for the future of the community. Through the involvement of nearly one thousand participants in the project over the past few years, visions and goals were established, a development scenario was chosen, and implementation strategies were created.
The MAP Steering Committee, community leaders, and the public have continually shown their support and commitment to the success of this most important project. Many of the individuals, organizations, and local governments involved in the MAP have also made a pledge to continue their participation in the project in order to carry out the vision established through the detailed process of creating the Muskegon Area-wide Plan.
The update of the MAP began in 2011. During the two year update process, many of the same strategies were utilized to engage the community and strengthen support of the MAP. New implementation strategies were developed and evaluation criteria established.
The MAP Advisory Committee, WMSRDC, and numerous local organizations will strive to implement the strategies identified in the MAP and follow the Smart Growth Principles.
9-2