The Upper Peninsula’s Tension between Infrastructure Spending and Infrastructure Needs

We are publishing this article by Mia Brodeur, a Research Assistant at the University of Michigan Ford School of Public Policy’s Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP).

This article is part of a series from the “CLOSE UP on the UP” project, a collaboration between CLOSUP, U-M’s UP Scholars Program, and Rural Insights.

A team of undergraduate students from the UP who attend the University of Michigan are using CLOSUP survey data, with a particular emphasis on the responses from over 130 local governments in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula who respond each survey wave, to look at issues important to their home region and analyze the insights of the UP’s local government leaders.

It’s no secret that Michigan struggles to maintain quality infrastructure. According to the 2023 Infrastructure Report Card, Michigan as a whole ranks a “C-” for the overall quality of its infrastructure, with individual facets – like roads, bridges, and public parks – receiving mediocre to poor ratings. The American Society for Civil Engineers reports that “Michigan’s infrastructure suffered the impacts of chronic underinvestment,” although investments from the state and federal government have spurred progress over the past five years.

In the Upper Peninsula, local officials have reported rising infrastructure needs along with rising infrastructure spending. The Spring 2023 edition of the statewide Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS) asked local leaders whether their community’s infrastructure needs have changed compared to the previous fiscal year. In response, the number of U.P. jurisdictions reporting growing infrastructure needs is increasing. As shown in Figure 1 below, in 2023 almost two-thirds of U.P. local officials reported that infrastructure needs had somewhat (48%) or greatly (13%) increased compared with the previous year. In 2022, those percentages were similarly high, and up from the 55% who reported increases in 2021. 

Figure 1. Percentage of U.P. local governments reporting a change in infrastructure needs in their jurisdiction over the previous year

Moreover, as shown in Figure 2, when asked about infrastructure spending, 38% of U.P. respondents reported their jurisdiction had or was likely to somewhat increase infrastructure spending over the next fiscal year in 2023. An additional 18% stated that their jurisdiction had or was likely to greatly increase infrastructure spending. In 2022, these numbers were 49% for somewhat increase spending and 14% for greatly increase spending. These data suggest that although the majority of U.P. jurisdictions continue to increase infrastructure spending, they aren’t necessarily able to keep up with growing needs.

Figure 2. Percentage of U.P. local governments reporting a change in plans for infrastructure spending in their jurisdiction in the coming year

One recent way the federal government has invested in Michigan’s rising infrastructure needs is through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The Spring 2023 edition of MPPS also asked local leaders about their plans for the allocation of said ARPA funds. When asked what projects jurisdictions will support with ARPA, only 35% of U.P. respondents selected roads and other transportation infrastructure. The percentage decreased to 31% for water and sewer infrastructure. Just over half (54%) of respondents reported plans to spend on capital improvements, including public buildings and parks, and only 3% of jurisdictions said they either did not apply for or accept ARPA funding. Altogether, with rising needs in many U.P. jurisdictions, some are prioritizing various infrastructure projects for ARPA support, while some channel their funding into other projects like public health or revenue loss replacement.

Figure 3. Percentage of U.P. jurisdictions planning to support certain projects with ARPA funds

For those Upper Peninsula jurisdictions who allocated ARPA funding to infrastructure, various projects have been supported. In the Fall 2022 edition of Crossroads, the County Road Association of Michigan highlighted several Upper Peninsula county’s successful acquisition and use of ARPA funds. For instance, Marquette County Road Association received $2 million to use for chip sealing, a process which extends a road’s lifespan. In another example, the Menominee County Road Commission worked with local townships to ultimately obtain $750,000 from ARPA, most of which was used for placing gravel on local roads (31). Finally, Houghton County has spent much of its $800,000 ARPA funds on improving water and sewer infrastructure according to a 2024 article from the Keweenaw Report.

Local governments have until December 31st of this year to commit any remaining ARPA funds, and until December 31st of 2026 to spend the money. As of June 2024, the State Budget Office reported that $546.7 million of ARPA’s fiscal recovery funds has been committed to infrastructure projects in Michigan. Only $133.9 million has been spent. 

There is no one easy solution to Michigan’s infrastructure problem, yet the stories from Marquette, Menominee, and Houghton County show that federal funding can play a critical role in its improvement. As local leaders in the Upper Peninsula look ahead at the deadline for investing portions of their ARPA funds within the next two years, perhaps our infrastructure spending will be in a better position to keep up with infrastructure needs.

The survey responses presented here are those of local Michigan officials, while this analysis represents the views of the author. Neither necessarily reflects the views of Rural Insights, the University of Michigan, or other partners in the MPPS.