township board packet - chocolay charter township earl schuster, 244 s. shag lake drive, gwinn –...

1

AGENDA CHOCOLAY TOWNSHIP BOARD

September 11th, 2017 - 5:30 P.M. I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG III. ROLL CALL: Richard Bohjanen (Supervisor), Max Engle (Clerk), Ben Zyburt

(Treasurer), Dave Lynch, Mark Maki, Donald Rhein, Judy White. IV. MINUTES

A. Township Board – Regular Meeting of August 14th, 2017.

V. AGENDA - Additions / Deletions VI. PUBLIC COMMENT VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None VIII. BILLS PAYABLE

A. Check Register Report: August 30th, 2017. B. Regular Payrolls of August 10th and August 24th, 2017.

IX. FINANCIAL REPORTS

A. Revenue & Expenditure Reports – January 1st through July 31st, 2017.

X. TREASURER’S REPORT

A. Certificates of Deposit and Investment Reports – September 1st, 2017.

B. Fund Withdrawal and Deposit Report – September 1st, 2017.

XI. PRESENTATIONS

A. Road Asset Management Plan.

B. Lake Superior Community Partnership Update. XII. APPOINTMENTS / RESIGNATIONS - None XIII. SUPERVISOR’S REPORT - None XIV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None

2

XV. NEW BUSINESS

A. Consideration of Request Regarding Short –Term Rentals.

B. 2017 Capital Improvement Fund Budget Amendment #8 to Reflect Receipt of Insurance Payment for Damaged Police Equipment.

C. 2017 Capital Improvement Fund Budget Amendment #9 to Reflect Receipt of Utility Review Committee Payment.

D. Request to Designate the Community as “Night-sky Friendly”.

XVI. PUBLIC COMMENT XVII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS

A. Minutes – Marquette Area Wastewater Treatment Authority, Regular Meeting of July

20th, 2017. B. Minutes – Marquette County Solid Waste Management Authority, Regular Meetings

of July 19th, 2017 and August 16, 2017, Draft. C. Minutes – US 41 Corridor Advisory Group, Regular Meetings of August 8th, 2017. D. Short Term Rental Correspondence

XVIII. ADJOURNMENT

1

August 14, 2017

A Regular meeting of the Chocolay Township Board was held on Monday, August 14, 2017 at the Chocolay Township Hall, 5010 U S 41 South, Marquette, MI. Clerk Engle called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

TOWNSHIP BOARD. PRESENT: Max Engle, Ben Zyburt, David Lynch, Judy White, Don Rhein, Mark Maki.

ABSENT: Richard Bohjanen.

STAFF PRESENT: Steve Lawry, Mary Sanders, Suzanne Sundell, Scott Jennings, Brad Johnson, Pat Beck.

ELECTION OF PRESIDENT PROTEM. Zyburt moved Rhein second to appoint Trustee Lynch as President Pro Tem. MOTION CARRIED.

MINUTES –JULY 10, 2017. Zyburt moved Rhein second to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 10, 2017 with the following changes - Zoning Enforcement Discussion by Trustee Maki – change line 8 to The short term rental situation is confusing to some people. Board Input on 2018 budget – clarify the motion to state Rhein moved White second that the employee portion of payment toward health insurance be increased from 15% to 17.5%. MOTION CARRIED.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS. Engle moved White second to approve the agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED.

PUBLIC COMMENT. Deborah Mulcahey, 633 Lakewood Lane – The July 10th minutes do not accurately reflect what Trustee White said about her. The minutes say nothing about Trustee Whites comments of her harassing. In fact the document states me being harassing. This needs to be clarified. Trustee White has made comments about how she does not believe someone can tell her how to utilize her property. How can the Board allow her to sit on the Planning Commission with that mind set? I love Lakenenland Park and send people there all the time. My concern is with the trailer that is there and zoning ramifications. How do you think people living in AF districts will like trailers with signs on them? I want to talk about FOIA tonight. This Township Board and staff need training with FOIA. Everything is FOIAble. I have made many FOIA requests including zoning information that has not been properly handled. Everything is FOIAble. The Township is withholding assessing records from residents. Years ago, the Township had a public computer that had

IV.A

2

assessment records on it. The Township is required by law to allow those records to be inspected and copied. The Township is failing to provide assessing records according to the General Tax Act and FOIA. I don’t know how to get through to you unless I file a law suit, and I don’t want to do that. The assessor’s license will be on the line when my complaint is made. George Meister, 394 County Road 480- Commented that GEI Consultants feels their price and qualifications are the best offered to the Township and it would keep people on the project who are homeowners in the Township. Dick Arnold, 312 County Road 545- The Township Board minutes said the Board is allowing the Zoning Administrator to negotiate solutions to ordinances of the Township. The Zoning Ordinance duties state that the Zoning Administrator shall have no power to vary or waive Ordinance requirements. He has been trying to clean up his neighborhood and has had no response from the Zoning Administrator. Earl Schuster, 244 S. Shag Lake Drive, Gwinn – Is a representative of the USA Pickle Ball Association in Marquette and Superior land Pickle Ball and we heard that Chocolay Township may have some recreation money to do some renovations in Chocolay. We are hoping that Pickle Ball will be included. Marquette City, Sands Township and Marquette Township all have Pickle Ball Courts. John Sutton, 138 Aspen Drive- Pickle Ball is now the sport for the aging population that used to play tennis and racquetball. Brenda Crothers, 196 Riverside Road – Is there any truth to the grant money possibly being sent back? Manager Lawry stated that we do not have all the funds for our portion of the grant. We must find the funds or return the grant. She is very interested in a Pickle Ball Court in Chocolay. Marlene Fisher, 277 Lakewood - In 2010 her husband tried to get Pickle Ball going in Marquette. They started with one court in the summer in Marquette and one in Sands Township. The Pickle Ball Players are willing to do work on the courts. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE. White moved Zyburt second that bills totaling $17,980.00 including checks numbered 21884-21904 and bills totaling $13,910.40 including checks numbered 21905-21915 and bills totaling $17,622.25 including checks numbered 21916-21939 and bills totaling $38,488.53 including checks numbered 21940-21971 are approved for payment. MOTION CARRIED. PAYROLL. Maki moved Engle second that payroll for July 13, 2017 for $41,504.49 including checks numbered 24044-24087 and 10508-10513 and ACH payments for Federal tax, State tax and MERS and for July 27, 2017 for $35,983.84 including checks numbered 24088-24123 and 10514-10519 and ACH payments for Federal tax, State tax and MERS are approved for payment.

3

MOTION CARRIED. TREASURER’S REPORT- Treasurer Zyburt reported to the Board that we had a $250,000 C/D mature from 1st of St. Ignace and it was reinvested with Northern Michigan Bank out of Petoskey for a rate of 1.74% maturing in May of 2020. White moved Rhein second to accept the Treasurer’s report. MOTION CARRIED. FUND WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSIT REPORT. Rhein moved White second to accept the fund withdrawal and deposit report. FINANCIAL REPORT- JUNE 2017. Zyburt moved Maki second to approve the June 2017 financial reports. MOTION CARRIED. SUPERVISOR’S REPORT. None. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR ROAD MILLAGE. Trustee White suggested that we request only 1.5 mills for the road millage. Clerk Engle stated that we are requesting up to 1.75 mills, and can change that amount to a lower millage if the engineering numbers come in lower. Trustee Maki prefers not to go above what we collected for the fire millage which is 1.7 mills. Maki moved, White second that WHEREAS, the Charter Township of Chocolay Board acknowledges the need to repair, improve and maintain local roads within Chocolay Township; and WHEREAS, the Charter Township of Chocolay Board has approved the development of a study and detailed plan to repair, improve and maintain local roads within Chocolay Township; and WHEREAS, a previous road improvement millage commencing in 2008 expired in 2012; and WHEREAS, townships may provide for construction, improvement and maintenance of public roads and other public facilities pursuant to MCL 41.722(1), MCL 42.31, and other laws of the State of Michigan; and WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on August 14, 2017, the Township Board entertained the motion to place on the November 7, 2017 ballot the question of whether to levy 1.70 mills for the purpose of providing revenue for the maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, reconstruction and improvement of public roads within the Township in compliance with an

4

asset management plan to be developed for the Township roads, for a period of fifteen (15) years from 2017 to 2031, both inclusive; and WHEREAS, the Township Board has determined that placing the millage on the ballot at the November 7, 2017 election is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the Township residents. THEREFORE, the Township Board of the Charter Township of Chocolay, Marquette County, Michigan, resolves as follows: The Township Board resolves to present to the electors of the Charter Township of Chocolay at the November 7, 2017 election a proposed increase of the amount of ad valorem taxes pursuant to the following ballot language: Shall the Charter Township of Chocolay levy a new millage of up to 1.70 mills on real and personal property in the Township for up to fifteen (15) years from 2017 to 2031, both inclusive, to provide revenue for the maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, reconstruction and improvement of public roads within the Township in compliance with an asset management plan developed for said roads, which said 1.70 mills will raise an estimated $352,000 in the first year it is levied? YES or NO The Township Clerk is authorized and directed to promptly submit this Resolution along with the above ballot language to the County Clerk so that the millage proposal may be included on the November 7, 2017 election ballot. Any resolution inconsistent with this resolution is hereby rescinded. ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, Rhein, White, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Bohjanen. MOTION CARRIED. 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND BUDGET AMENDMENT #6 TO REFLECT RECEIPT OF REBATE FROM FOX MOTORS ON REMOVAL OF EQUIPMENT FROM DAMAGED PATROL CAR. White moved Zyburt second that Whereas, a budget was adopted by the Chocolay Township Board to govern the anticipated Capital Improvement Fund receipts within the Township on October 5th, 2016 for fiscal year 2017, and Whereas, as a result of receipt of unanticipated revenue it is necessary to modify the aforesaid budget, Now Therefore, Be It Hereby Resolved, that the aforesaid budget be modified as follows: ACCOUNT PREVIOUS CHANGE AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET

REVENUE Miscellaneous 401.000.698 $ 22,233.00 +$ 924.91 $ 23,157.91

5

EXPENDITURE Police Dept. Vehicles 401.305.981.000 $125,242.27 +$ 924.91 $126,167.18 ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, Rhein, White, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Bohjanen. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND DOLLARS TO PURCHASE AND OUTFIT A NEW POLICE PATROL VEHICLE. Zyburt moved Engle second to approve the purchase of a 2018 patrol car for the Police Department. Cost of the vehicle will not exceed $30,765. Cost for transfer of equipment, graphics and pick-up costs for the new vehicle will not exceed $13,000 for a total amount not to exceed $43,765. This will be paid from the 2017 Capital Improvement Fund, Account #401-305-981 vehicles. ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, Rhein, White, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Bohjanen. MOTION CARRIED. 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND BUDGET AMENDMENT #7 AND AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE MATERIALS FOR HOCKEY RINK DASHER BOARDS. Engle moved Maki seconded Whereas, a budget was adopted by the Chocolay Township Board to govern the anticipated Capital Improvement Fund receipts within the Township on October 5th, 2016 for fiscal year 2017, and Whereas, as a result of receipt of unanticipated revenue it is necessary to modify the aforesaid budget, Now Therefore, Be It Hereby Resolved, that the aforesaid budget be modified as follows: ACCOUNT PREVIOUS CHANGE AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET

EXPENDITURE Capital Improvements Fund Recreation and Properties Land Improvements 401.756.972 $60,703.55 -$ 8,300.00 $52,403.55 Capital Improvements Fund Recreation and Properties Equipment 401.756.977 $19,127.57 +$ 8,300.00 $27,427.57

6

And that the Chocolay Township Board approves the expenditure of no more than $8,300 for the fiberglass reinforced panel (FRP) from Athletica Sports Systems and the screws needed to attach the panels. This will be purchased using funds from the Recreation and Properties Capital Improvement Fund 401.756.977. ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, Rhein, White, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Bohjanen. MOTION CARRIED. AWARD A CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES TO DEVELOP AN ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR SECONDARY ROADS WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP. Trustee Maki asked if all the Engineering firms meet all of our requirements. Manager Lawry responded that basically all did meet the requirements. The difference is the number of hours that would be put into the project. One proposed 27 hours and one proposed 46 hours. GEI mentioned that they would incorporate their results into the GIS system which is the system that we use at the Township. The add on hours will be billed up to $1,500 and Trustee Maki questioned how we keep this on the low side. Manager Lawry indicated that the additional is for meeting time and it will be on the lower side if we keep the meetings shorter. Zyburt moved Rhein second to retain the firm of GEI Municipal Engineering Services to prepare an asset management plan of public roads in Chocolay Township in accordance with the firm’s proposal dated August 1, 2017 and for a total cost not to exceed $5,500, to authorize the Township Clerk to sign a professional services agreement, as approved by the Township Attorney, for the work, and to authorize the expenditure of up to $5,500 from the Capital Improvement Fund to pay for such services. ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, Rhein, White, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Bohjanen. MOTION CARRIED. AWARD A CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES TO DEVELOP AN ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR THE TOWNSHIP SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM. Trustee White asked how much is in our fund to cover this portion of the plan? Could the $29,000 be better utilized by putting it toward the current pump stations? Manager Lawry replied that we have $80,000 set aside in this year’s budget. Whatever we do not use this year can be rolled over into next year’s budget and we have to have an analysis before we can move forward with funding decisions. Trustee White also asked if a special assessment district was planned for this work. Manager Lawry replied that would be a board decision once we have the information whether to look for outside assistance or go in house. Trustee Maki asked if GEI had done similar projects in the area. George Meister, GEI responded that yes they have 7 different SAW Grants in the Upper Peninsula. Trustee Maki asked if we have

7

ever done anything like this with the sewer system. Manager Lawry responded that unfortunately nothing has been done like this in the past and the system is forty+ years old. Trustee Rhein commented that the timing is especially pertinent now with the possibility of the KBIC project utilizing our sewer system. Manager Lawry also said that recently our flow has gone up dramatically and we are in the process of investigating what is happening to cause that. Engle moved Zyburt second to retain the firm of GEI Municipal Engineering Services to prepare an asset management plan for the Chocolay Township sanitary sewer collection system in accordance with the firm’s proposal dated August 1, 2017 for a total lump sum cost of $29,632, including $2,000 for infrared and vibration analysis, to authorize the Township Clerk to sign a professional services agreement, as approved by the Township Attorney, for the work, and to pay for such services from the Wastewater Treatment Fund operating budget. ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, Rhein, White, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Bohjanen. MOTION CARRIED. AWARD A CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES TO DESIGN A MULTI-USE PATH ON ORTMAN ROAD. Manager Lawry indicated that we are utilizing grant money for the engineering. We will need additional funds to complete the project. Trustee White questioned the price to design such a small path. Manager Lawry responded that even though it is a small path there are surveys, legal documents and drainage ditch issues that make this problematic. There are soil and safety issue also. Trustee Maki asked if we have contacted the school about this project. Manager Lawry responded that we have, but since that time our Planner has changed and the school principal has changed at Cherry Creek. White moved Zyburt second to retain Payne & Dolan Incorporated to design a multi-use path connecting Cherry Creek Road to the entrance of Cherry Creek School, to assist the Township in identifying and applying for construction grant funds for the path in accordance with their proposal dated August 1, 2017 for a lump sum price of $5,636 plus hourly compensation at rates specified in the proposal for required attendance at public meetings, to authorize the Township Clerk to sign a professional services agreement, as approved by the Township Attorney, for the work, and to authorize the expenditure of these funds from the Healthy Community – Cherry Creek Bike Project Account within the Township Capital Improvements Fund. ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle. NAYS: Rhein, White. ABSENT: Bohjanen. MOTION CARRIED.

8

AWARD A CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES TO DESIGN TENNIS COURT AREA IMPROVEMENTS AT SILVER CREEK RECREATION AREA. Manager Lawry indicated that we have received two grants toward this project and $1,000. in private funds, but the Township still does not have enough funds to complete our portion. We cannot utilize State grant funds unless we follow the agreement exactly as laid out. We are hoping that the paving company will explore many options and find one that we can afford. Maki moved White second to retain Payne & Dolan Incorporated to provide engineering services for the redesign of the tennis court area at Silver Creek Recreation Area and for construction administration services on a project to implement the new design in accordance with their proposal dated August 1, 2017 all for a lump sum price of $6,852, to authorize the Township Clerk to sign a professional services agreement, as approved by the Township Attorney, for the work, and to authorize the expenditure of these funds from the Silver Creek Tennis Court Project Account of the Capital Improvements Fund. ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, Rhein, White, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Bohjanen. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST TO WAIVE USER FEE FOR FUNDRAISER AT BEAVER GROVE SOFTBALL FIELD. White moved Zyburt second to waive the $50.00 user fee for the evening of August 4, 2018. ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, Rhein, White, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Bohjanen. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC COMMENT. John Sutton, 138 Aspen Drive- Thanked the Board for approving the grant and supporting the citizens of the Township. George Meister, 394 County Road 480- Thanked the Board for their support and also commented that there are surfaces available that will allow the Board to afford the Tennis Court project. Trustee Lynch asked Manager Lawry to continue to copy the Board on responses to Trustee Maki’s questions. Trustee Maki commented on the Planning Commission minutes needing a correction on pages 9-10. That Tom Mahaney did not correct Mr. Maki, the correction was on the agenda.

9

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS. A. Minutes – Chocolay Township Planning Commission, Regular Meeting of June 19th,

2017.

B. Minutes – Marquette Area Wastewater Treatment Authority, Regular Meeting of June 29th, 2017.

C. Minutes – Marquette County Solid Waste Management Authority, Regular Meeting of

June 21st, 2017. D. Minutes – US 41 Corridor Advisory Group, Regular Meetings of June 13th, 2017 and July

11, 2017. E. Communication – Charter Communications Changes in Rates and Fees. F. Communication – Eastwood Nursing Center RE: Marquette County Medical Care

Facility. G. Communications – Mark Maki RE: Records Access and Zoning Questions.

Zyburt moved Engle second to adjourn the meeting at 6:35 pm. MOTION CARRIED. ________________________ _________________________ Max Engle, Clerk Richard Bohjanen, Supervisor

Chocolay Township

Check Register Report

Check Date

Check Number

StatusAmount

BANK:

Vendor Number

Vendor Name Check Description

RANGE BANK 1Page:

9:24 amTime:

08/30/2017Date:

Void/Stop Date

RANGE BANK Checks

9.18 MISC MAINTENANCEACE HARDWARE2540Printed08/30/2017 21972 399.00 LAPTOPAMAZON.COM5035Printed08/30/2017 21973

3,078.00 LEGAL FEES 7/21 - 8/15BENSINGER, COTANT, & MENKES,PC

1616Printed08/30/2017 21974

996.00 12 MONTH SERVICE CONTRACTEL COM SYSTEMS1413Printed08/30/2017 21975 20.00 OVER PAYMENT ON PERMITHENDRICKSON BLDRS5052Printed08/30/2017 21976

1,525.34 GAS JULYHOLIDAY COMPANIES1445Printed08/30/2017 21977 1,200.00 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION 2017MARQUETTE AREA 4TH OF JULY 2190Printed08/30/2017 21978

3,347.64 ELECTRICITY 7/10 - 8/10MARQUETTE BD OF LIGHT & POWER

2002Printed08/30/2017 21979

22.50 SUMMER DEFERMENT ADMARQUETTE COUNTY2114Printed08/30/2017 21980 151.70 TOOLSMENARDS2583Printed08/30/2017 21981 75.00 TRAINING - 3MICHIGAN ASSOC. OF CHIEFS 2122Printed08/30/2017 21982

238.54 GLOVESMICROFLEX2575Printed08/30/2017 21983 148.06 OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT2528Printed08/30/2017 21984 30.76 MILEAGE 57.5 MILES @ .535PAT BECK3210Printed08/30/2017 21985

1,680.75 FIRE EQUIPMENTPOMASL FIRE EQUIPMENT1408Printed08/30/2017 21986 162.00 ENVELOPESPRIDE PRINTING 1705Printed08/30/2017 21987

1,516.00 PLATE RACK, RADIO POUCH, PISTOPRO-TECH SALES5053Printed08/30/2017 21988

146.11 REPAIR 2004 SILVERADOQUALITY CAR CARE CENTER1500Printed08/30/2017 21989 880.28 TRAVEL, ELECTION EQUIP,RANGE BANK CARDMEMBER

SERVICES1105Printed08/30/2017 21990

540.35 829 MILES @ .535, MOTEL & MEALSAM GERBER5051Printed08/30/2017 21991 8,428.47 HEALTH INSURANCE SEPTEMBERSBAM PLAN - GROTENHUIS BCBS 2200Printed08/30/2017 21992

56.17 NATURAL GAS AUGUSTSEMCO ENERGY GAS COMPANY 2001Printed08/30/2017 21993

512.70 LIFE, LTD, STD & AD&DSTANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY

2918Printed08/30/2017 21994

24.52 POSTAGE TO RETURN 8 TABLETSSUZANNE SUNDELL4907Printed08/30/2017 21995 108.60 REPAIRSTHE STITCH WITCH LLC4974Printed08/30/2017 21996 136.05 PAPERU P OFFICE EQUIPMENT

SYSTEMS1707Printed08/30/2017 21997

251.00 JULY IMPOUND FEESUPAWS3202Printed08/30/2017 21998 161.11 AUGUST VISIONVSP-VISION SERVICE PLAN4997Printed08/30/2017 21999 35.00 LOCK ON MAIN EMPLOYEE

ENTRANCEWOLVERINE DOOR SERVICE 2503Printed08/30/2017 22000

25,880.83 Checks Total (excluding void checks): 29Total Checks:

GENERAL FUND $22,504.54 CAPITAL IMP. FUND $ 1,532.45 WASTEWATER FUND $ 1,843.84 TOTAL $25,880.83

VIII.A

Chocolay Township Payroll

Date Amount Check Numbers

August 10, 2017 18,923.77$ 24124-24144

2,375.40$ 10520-10525

6,878.66$ Federal ACH

1,011.26$ Michigan ACH

3,196.96$ Mers ACH Employer/Employee

32,386.05$ Total Payroll

August 24, 2017 24,613.74$ 24145-24188

2,375.40$ 10526-10531

7,517.35$ Federal ACH

1,158.99$ Michigan ACH

3,267.39$ Mers ACH Employer/Employee

38,932.87$ Total Payroll

VIII.B

Chocolay Township

8/31/2017 Page: 1

8:52 am

% Bud UnencBal Encumb. YTD CURR MTH YTD Actual Amended Bud. Original Bud. For the Period: 1/1/2017 to 7/31/2017

REVENUE REPORT

Fund: 101 - GENERAL FUND

Revenues

Dept: 000.000

402.000 PROPERTY TAXES 748,000.00 748,000.00 748,839.89 0.00 -839.89 100.1 0.00 441.000 LOCAL COMM STAB SHARE TAX 0.00 0.00 2,937.54 0.00 -2,937.54 0.0 0.00 446.000 PENALTIES & INTEREST 800.00 800.00 236.09 0.00 563.91 29.5 0.00 487.000 TRAILER PARK FEES 600.00 600.00 315.00 0.00 285.00 52.5 0.00 504.000 ZONING PERMIT FEES 5,000.00 5,000.00 4,990.00 0.00 10.00 99.8 515.00 511.000 ANIMAL LICENSES 200.00 200.00 168.00 0.00 32.00 84.0 0.00 543.000 STATE OF MICHIGAN 3,500.00 3,500.00 3,931.11 0.00 -431.11 112.3 0.00 545.000 LIQUOR INSPECTION FEE 2,900.00 2,900.00 2,190.00 0.00 710.00 75.5 0.00 565.000 STATE REVENUE SHARING 450,000.00 450,000.00 234,954.00 0.00 215,046.00 52.2 0.00 579.000 PAYMENT IN LIEU 14,900.00 14,900.00 15,095.06 0.00 -195.06 101.3 0.00 583.000 FRANCHISE FEES 82,000.00 82,000.00 41,594.26 0.00 40,405.74 50.7 0.00 585.000 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 7,600.00 7,600.00 7,418.70 0.00 181.30 97.6 0.00 618.000 TAX COLLECTION FEES 49,000.00 49,000.00 19,860.18 0.00 29,139.82 40.5 2,177.76 640.000 REFUSE COLLECTION 164,000.00 164,000.00 91,095.00 0.00 72,905.00 55.5 15,846.00 645.000 RECYCLING REV 3,000.00 3,000.00 1,409.51 0.00 1,590.49 47.0 0.00 651.000 LANDFILL ADMIN FEE 4,000.00 4,000.00 2,868.00 0.00 1,132.00 71.7 552.00 660.000 ORDINANCE FINES 10,000.00 10,000.00 5,484.67 0.00 4,515.33 54.8 1,046.76 672.000 PREMIUM INTEREST 0.00 0.00 -2,435.17 0.00 2,435.17 0.0 0.00 673.000 INTEREST INCOME 2,500.00 2,500.00 3,985.40 0.00 -1,485.40 159.4 913.98 674.000 INTEREST ON LOAN 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,310.00 0.00 -10.00 100.8 0.00 678.000 REIMBURSEMENT FOR PROP TAXES 5,200.00 5,200.00 1,611.86 0.00 3,588.14 31.0 0.00 693.000 TAX COLLECTION REIMBURSEMENT 8,500.00 8,500.00 8,355.00 0.00 145.00 98.3 8,355.00 695.000 TRANSFER FROM FUND BALANCE 212,800.00 212,800.00 0.00 0.00 212,800.00 0.0 0.00 698.000 MISCELLANEOUS 24,200.00 25,946.25 12,520.60 0.00 13,425.65 48.3 80.50

1,800,000.00 1,801,746.25 1,208,734.70 0.00 593,011.55 29,487.00 67.1 Dept: 000.000

Revenues 1,800,000.00 1,801,746.25 1,208,734.70 0.00 593,011.55 29,487.00 67.1

Fund: 206 - FIRE DEPARTMENT MILLAGE

Revenues

Dept: 000.000

402.000 PROPERTY TAXES 252,600.00 252,600.00 252,014.16 0.00 585.84 99.8 0.00 695.000 TRANSFER FROM FUND BALANCE 10,710.00 10,710.00 0.00 0.00 10,710.00 0.0 0.00

263,310.00 263,310.00 252,014.16 0.00 11,295.84 0.00 95.7 Dept: 000.000

Revenues 263,310.00 263,310.00 252,014.16 0.00 11,295.84 0.00 95.7

Fund: 212 - LIQUOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

Revenues

Dept: 000.000

543.000 STATE OF MICHIGAN 2,900.00 2,900.00 220.00 0.00 2,680.00 7.6 0.00

2,900.00 2,900.00 220.00 0.00 2,680.00 0.00 7.6Dept: 000.000

Revenues 2,900.00 2,900.00 220.00 0.00 2,680.00 0.00 7.6

Fund: 265 - DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT MONEY

Revenues

Dept: 000.000

698.000 MISCELLANEOUS 0.00 0.00 1,560.80 0.00 -1,560.80 0.0 1,560.80

0.00 0.00 1,560.80 0.00 -1,560.80 1,560.80 0.0Dept: 000.000

Revenues 0.00 0.00 1,560.80 0.00 -1,560.80 1,560.80 0.0

Fund: 271 - LIBRARY MILLAGE FUND

Revenues

Dept: 790.000 LIBRARY

IX.A

Chocolay Township 8/31/2017 Page: 2

8:52 am


REVENUE REPORT

Fund: 271 - LIBRARY MILLAGE FUND Revenues

Dept: 790.000 LIBRARY 402.000 PROPERTY TAXES 149,800.00 149,800.00 149,932.36 0.00 -132.36 100.1 0.00

149,800.00 149,800.00 149,932.36 0.00 -132.36 0.00 100.1 LIBRARY

Revenues 149,800.00 149,800.00 149,932.36 0.00 -132.36 0.00 100.1

Fund: 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Revenues

Dept: 000.000 540.000 OTHER GRANTS 45,000.00 45,000.00 0.00 0.00 45,000.00 0.0 0.00 543.000 STATE OF MICHIGAN 0.00 934.00 422.75 0.00 511.25 45.3 0.00 582.000 KBIC 2% GAMING MONEY 0.00 70,000.00 70,000.00 0.00 0.00 100.0 0.00 669.000 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 2,000.00 2,000.00 3,571.88 0.00 -1,571.88 178.6 80.58 670.000 RENT 15,000.00 15,000.00 11,250.00 0.00 3,750.00 75.0 2,500.00 676.000 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 100,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 0.0 0.00 698.000 MISCELLANEOUS 0.00 22,233.00 23,157.91 0.00 -924.91 104.2 924.91

162,000.00 255,167.00 108,402.54 0.00 146,764.46 3,505.49 42.5 Dept: 000.000

Revenues 162,000.00 255,167.00 108,402.54 0.00 146,764.46 3,505.49 42.5

Fund: 571 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND Revenues

Dept: 571.000 WASTEWATER TREATMENT 655.000 HOOK-UP FEES 1,750.00 1,750.00 0.00 0.00 1,750.00 0.0 0.00 656.000 USER'S FEES 275,400.00 275,400.00 210,535.17 0.00 64,864.83 76.4 69,852.33 657.000 SINKING FUND FEES 27,540.00 27,540.00 16,381.15 0.00 11,158.85 59.5 6,993.45 673.000 INTEREST INCOME 4,010.00 4,010.00 6,500.67 0.00 -2,490.67 162.1 1,209.80 695.000 TRANSFER FROM FUND BALANCE 46,000.00 46,000.00 0.00 0.00 46,000.00 0.0 0.00 698.000 MISCELLANEOUS 0.00 0.00 2,466.44 0.00 -2,466.44 0.0 0.00

354,700.00 354,700.00 235,883.43 0.00 118,816.57 78,055.58 66.5 WASTEWATER TREATMENT

Revenues 354,700.00 354,700.00 235,883.43 0.00 118,816.57 78,055.58 66.5

2,732,710.00 2,827,623.25 1,956,747.99 112,608.87 0.00 870,875.26 Grand Total Net Effect:

Chocolay Township

8/31/2017 Page: 3

8:53 am


EXPENDITURE REPORT

Fund: 101 - GENERAL FUND

Expenditures

83,000.00 83,000.00 41,453.70 0.00 41,546.30 4,270.40 49.9 TOWNSHIP BOARD

14,600.00 14,600.00 8,513.04 0.00 6,086.96 1,050.78 58.3 TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR

7,900.00 7,900.00 3,095.49 0.00 4,804.51 447.50 39.2 ELECTION DEPARTMENT

73,800.00 73,800.00 34,148.87 0.00 39,651.13 3,367.23 46.3 ASSESSOR

104,550.00 104,550.00 49,614.75 0.00 54,935.25 6,624.28 47.5 CLERK

2,900.00 2,900.00 2,361.75 0.00 538.25 240.00 81.4 BOARD OF REVIEW

57,100.00 57,100.00 34,150.39 0.00 22,949.61 4,107.57 59.8 TREASURER

28,300.00 28,300.00 16,134.53 0.00 12,165.47 376.57 57.0 TECHNOLOGY

19,300.00 19,300.00 6,529.15 0.00 12,770.85 611.04 33.8 TOWNSHIP HALL & GROUNDS

499,500.00 499,500.00 201,786.02 0.00 297,713.98 20,320.25 40.4 OTHER GENERAL GOVERNMENT

386,500.00 387,246.25 196,270.61 0.00 190,975.64 23,291.57 50.7 POLICE DEPARTMENT

127,600.00 128,600.00 38,294.01 0.00 90,305.99 13,185.33 29.8 FIRE DEPARTMENT

27,850.00 27,850.00 11,103.93 0.00 16,746.07 1,570.88 39.9 STREETS

166,300.00 166,300.00 87,387.75 0.00 78,912.25 13,854.86 52.5 SANITARY LANDFILL

105,600.00 105,600.00 51,525.67 0.00 54,074.33 6,699.04 48.8 RECREATION AND PROPERTIES

82,900.00 82,900.00 41,452.58 0.00 41,447.42 7,213.42 50.0 ZONING

9,100.00 9,100.00 4,346.52 0.00 4,753.48 824.40 47.8 ZONING/PLANNING COMMISSION

3,200.00 3,200.00 1,071.36 0.00 2,128.64 65.25 33.5 ZONING/APPEALS BOARD

Expenditures 1,800,000.00 1,801,746.25 829,240.12 0.00 972,506.13 108,120.37 46.0

-1,800,000.00 -1,801,746.25 -829,240.12 -108,120.37 0.00 -972,506.13 Grand Total Net Effect:


8:54 am


EXPENDITURE REPORT

Fund: 206 - FIRE DEPARTMENT MILLAGE Expenditures

Dept: 000.000 980.000 INTEREST ON LOAN 1,310.00 1,310.00 1,310.00 0.00 0.00 100.0 0.00

1,310.00 1,310.00 1,310.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.0 Dept: 000.000

Expenditures 1,310.00 1,310.00 1,310.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.0

Fund: 212 - LIQUOR LAW ENFORCEMENT Expenditures

Dept: 330.000 LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT 805.000 ENFORCEMENT SERVICES 2,900.00 2,900.00 2,190.00 0.00 710.00 75.5 0.00

2,900.00 2,900.00 2,190.00 0.00 710.00 0.00 75.5 LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT

Expenditures 2,900.00 2,900.00 2,190.00 0.00 710.00 0.00 75.5

Fund: 265 - DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT MONEY

Fund: 271 - LIBRARY MILLAGE FUND Expenditures

Dept: 790.000 LIBRARY 800.000 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 149,800.00 149,800.00 0.00 0.00 149,800.00 0.0 0.00

149,800.00 149,800.00 0.00 0.00 149,800.00 0.00 0.0 LIBRARY

Expenditures 149,800.00 149,800.00 0.00 0.00 149,800.00 0.00 0.0

Fund: 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Expenditures

Dept: 190.000 ELECTION DEPARTMENT 977.000 EQUIPMENT 26,485.36 18,685.36 1,902.74 0.00 16,782.62 10.2 0.00

26,485.36 18,685.36 1,902.74 0.00 16,782.62 0.00 10.2 ELECTION DEPARTMENT Dept: 202.000 ASSESSOR

977.000 EQUIPMENT 11,500.00 11,500.00 0.00 0.00 11,500.00 0.0 0.00

11,500.00 11,500.00 0.00 0.00 11,500.00 0.00 0.0 ASSESSOR Dept: 215.000 CLERK

977.000 EQUIPMENT 18,790.40 18,790.40 0.00 0.00 18,790.40 0.0 0.00

18,790.40 18,790.40 0.00 0.00 18,790.40 0.00 0.0 CLERK Dept: 253.000 TREASURER

977.000 EQUIPMENT 723.93 723.93 0.00 0.00 723.93 0.0 0.00

723.93 723.93 0.00 0.00 723.93 0.00 0.0 TREASURER Dept: 258.000 TECHNOLOGY

977.000 EQUIPMENT 20,699.92 28,499.92 0.00 0.00 28,499.92 0.0 0.00

20,699.92 28,499.92 0.00 0.00 28,499.92 0.00 0.0 TECHNOLOGY Dept: 265.000 TOWNSHIP HALL & GROUNDS

972.000 LAND IMPROVEMENTS 9,000.00 9,000.00 0.00 0.00 9,000.00 0.0 0.00 976.000 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 13,500.55 16,500.55 6,880.00 0.00 9,620.55 41.7 0.00

22,500.55 25,500.55 6,880.00 0.00 18,620.55 0.00 27.0 TOWNSHIP HALL & GROUNDS Dept: 270.000 BUILDINGS

976.000 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 3,600.00 3,600.00 0.00 0.00 3,600.00 0.0 0.00

3,600.00 3,600.00 0.00 0.00 3,600.00 0.00 0.0 BUILDINGS Dept: 305.000 POLICE DEPARTMENT

977.000 EQUIPMENT 36,827.29 36,827.29 1,537.99 0.00 35,289.30 4.2 0.00


8:54 am


EXPENDITURE REPORT


Dept: 305.000 POLICE DEPARTMENT 981.000 VEHICLES 88,009.27 125,242.27 35,003.62 0.00 90,238.65 27.9 0.00

124,836.56 162,069.56 36,541.61 0.00 125,527.95 0.00 22.5 POLICE DEPARTMENT Dept: 306.000 POLICE TRAINING

957.000 CAPITAL OUTLAY 802.04 1,736.04 1,095.00 0.00 641.04 63.1 0.00

802.04 1,736.04 1,095.00 0.00 641.04 0.00 63.1 POLICE TRAINING Dept: 340.000 FIRE DEPARTMENT

972.000 LAND IMPROVEMENTS 48,570.00 48,570.00 0.00 0.00 48,570.00 0.0 0.00 976.000 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 6,320.65 6,320.65 0.00 0.00 6,320.65 0.0 0.00 977.000 EQUIPMENT 71,728.96 71,728.96 33,818.50 0.00 37,910.46 47.1 4,624.00 981.000 VEHICLES 105,758.14 125,758.14 0.00 0.00 125,758.14 0.0 0.00

232,377.75 252,377.75 33,818.50 0.00 218,559.25 4,624.00 13.4 FIRE DEPARTMENT Dept: 340.002 OJIBWA WATER RESERVOIR

972.000 LAND IMPROVEMENTS 0.00 25,000.00 0.00 0.00 25,000.00 0.0 0.00

0.00 25,000.00 0.00 0.00 25,000.00 0.00 0.0 OJIBWA WATER RESERVOIR Dept: 341.000 FIRE GRANT

957.000 CAPITAL OUTLAY 11,260.28 11,260.28 0.00 0.00 11,260.28 0.0 0.00

11,260.28 11,260.28 0.00 0.00 11,260.28 0.00 0.0 FIRE GRANT Dept: 440.000 STREETS

972.000 LAND IMPROVEMENTS 27,707.04 34,707.04 0.00 0.00 34,707.04 0.0 0.00

27,707.04 34,707.04 0.00 0.00 34,707.04 0.00 0.0 STREETS Dept: 440.001 HEALTHY COMM-CHERRY CREEK BIKE


12,866.67 12,866.67 0.00 0.00 12,866.67 0.00 0.0 HEALTHY COMM-CHERRY CREEK BIKE Dept: 526.000 SANITARY LANDFILL

977.000 EQUIPMENT 59,586.13 59,586.13 0.00 0.00 59,586.13 0.0 0.00

59,586.13 59,586.13 0.00 0.00 59,586.13 0.00 0.0 SANITARY LANDFILL Dept: 544.000 MARINA

972.000 LAND IMPROVEMENTS 15,164.56 15,164.56 0.00 0.00 15,164.56 0.0 0.00 977.000 EQUIPMENT 6,215.00 6,215.00 0.00 0.00 6,215.00 0.0 0.00

21,379.56 21,379.56 0.00 0.00 21,379.56 0.00 0.0 MARINA Dept: 591.000 WATER DEPARTMENT


22,055.00 22,055.00 618.00 0.00 21,437.00 0.00 2.8 WATER DEPARTMENT Dept: 708.000 RECREATION & GRANTS

971.000 LAND 30,884.43 30,884.43 0.00 0.00 30,884.43 0.0 0.00 972.000 LAND IMPROVEMENTS 13,291.34 13,291.34 0.00 0.00 13,291.34 0.0 0.00

44,175.77 44,175.77 0.00 0.00 44,175.77 0.00 0.0 RECREATION & GRANTS Dept: 708.002 MDNRTF LION'S FIELD TRAILHEAD


1,734.41 1,734.41 0.00 0.00 1,734.41 0.00 0.0 MDNRTF LION'S FIELD TRAILHEAD Dept: 708.003 TENNIS COURT FUNDING


75,000.00 75,000.00 0.00 0.00 75,000.00 0.00 0.0 TENNIS COURT FUNDING Dept: 708.004 BEAVER GROVE BALLFIELD



8:54 am


EXPENDITURE REPORT


1,500.00 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 0.00 0.0 BEAVER GROVE BALLFIELD Dept: 722.000 COMMUNITY CENTER

977.000 EQUIPMENT 5,215.42 5,215.42 0.00 0.00 5,215.42 0.0 0.00

5,215.42 5,215.42 0.00 0.00 5,215.42 0.00 0.0 COMMUNITY CENTER Dept: 724.000 CONDITIONAL DONATION

957.000 CAPITAL OUTLAY 500.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.0 0.00

500.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 0.0 CONDITIONAL DONATION Dept: 729.000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

971.000 LAND 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 0.0 0.00 972.000 LAND IMPROVEMENTS 28,000.00 28,000.00 0.00 0.00 28,000.00 0.0 0.00

33,000.00 33,000.00 0.00 0.00 33,000.00 0.00 0.0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Dept: 756.000 RECREATION AND PROPERTIES

972.000 LAND IMPROVEMENTS 60,703.55 60,703.55 10,000.00 0.00 50,703.55 16.5 0.00 977.000 EQUIPMENT 19,127.57 19,127.57 0.00 0.00 19,127.57 0.0 0.00

79,831.12 79,831.12 10,000.00 0.00 69,831.12 0.00 12.5 RECREATION AND PROPERTIES Dept: 805.000 ZONING/PLANNING COMMISSION

957.000 CAPITAL OUTLAY 2,000.00 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.0 0.00 981.000 VEHICLES 631.23 631.23 0.00 0.00 631.23 0.0 0.00

2,631.23 2,631.23 0.00 0.00 2,631.23 0.00 0.0 ZONING/PLANNING COMMISSION Dept: 958.000 MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING

957.000 CAPITAL OUTLAY 135,119.20 135,119.20 0.00 0.00 135,119.20 0.0 0.00

135,119.20 135,119.20 0.00 0.00 135,119.20 0.00 0.0 MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING

Expenditures 995,878.34 1,089,045.34 90,855.85 0.00 998,189.49 4,624.00 8.3

Fund: 571 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND Expenditures

Dept: 285.000 OTHER GENERAL GOVERNMENT 926.000 PENSION 6,372.00 6,372.00 3,548.49 0.00 2,823.51 55.7 470.40 945.000 SOCIAL SECURITY EXPENSE 4,875.00 4,875.00 2,775.09 0.00 2,099.91 56.9 353.66

11,247.00 11,247.00 6,323.58 0.00 4,923.42 824.06 56.2 OTHER GENERAL GOVERNMENT Dept: 571.000 WASTEWATER TREATMENT

702.000 SALARIES 64,930.00 64,930.00 35,766.68 0.00 29,163.32 55.1 4,704.06 715.000 TRAINING 500.00 500.00 60.00 0.00 440.00 12.0 0.00 727.000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 900.00 900.00 831.59 0.00 68.41 92.4 0.00 742.000 VEHICLE OPERATIONS 3,625.00 3,625.00 1,109.52 0.00 2,515.48 30.6 172.98 778.000 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1,050.00 1,050.00 658.70 0.00 391.30 62.7 50.68 801.000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 84,609.00 84,609.00 3,543.77 0.00 81,065.23 4.2 133.95 853.000 TELEPHONE 3,180.00 3,180.00 997.51 0.00 2,182.49 31.4 178.90 910.000 INSURANCE & BONDS 11,534.00 11,534.00 11,031.94 0.00 502.06 95.6 0.00 920.000 UTILITIES 13,250.00 13,250.00 7,091.19 0.00 6,158.81 53.5 977.90 925.000 HEALTH INSURANCE 10,597.00 10,597.00 6,490.49 0.00 4,106.51 61.2 505.68 930.000 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 7,900.00 7,900.00 1,442.41 0.00 6,457.59 18.3 202.08 951.000 CONTINGENCY 16,250.00 16,250.00 0.00 0.00 16,250.00 0.0 0.00 956.000 MISCELLANEOUS 1,540.00 1,540.00 51.78 0.00 1,488.22 3.4 5.59 958.000 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE 50,000.00 50,000.00 28,453.88 0.00 21,546.12 56.9 0.00 964.000 UTILITIES S F III 116,588.00 116,588.00 20,769.37 0.00 95,818.63 17.8 6,335.28 966.000 LOSS FROM MAWTF 7,000.00 7,000.00 0.00 0.00 7,000.00 0.0 0.00 967.000 DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE -50,000.00 -50,000.00 0.00 0.00 -50,000.00 0.0 0.00

343,453.00 343,453.00 118,298.83 0.00 225,154.17 13,267.10 34.4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT


8:54 am


EXPENDITURE REPORT

Fund: 571 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND

Expenditures 354,700.00 354,700.00 124,622.41 0.00 230,077.59 14,091.16 35.1

-1,504,588.34 -1,597,755.34 -218,978.26 -18,715.16 0.00 -1,378,777.08 Grand Total Net Effect:

Chocolay Township

Page: 8 8/31/2017

8:56 am

BALANCE SHEET

As of: 7/31/2017 Balances

Fund: 101 - GENERAL FUND Assets

206,250.71 014.000 CASH - CHECKING 1,449,888.48 016.000 CASH - INVESTMENTS

50.00 018.000 CASH - PETTY CASH 150.00 019.000 CASH - CHANGE

3,086.76 020.000 CURRENT TAXES RECEIVABLE -3,252.56 026.000 DELINQUENT TAXES RECEIVABLE

77,665.00 040.000 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 2,000.00 068.000 DUE FROM TAX COLLECTION

-25,000.00 069.000 DUE FROM CAPITAL IMPROV FUND 1,000.00 070.000 DUE FROM TRUST & AGENCY FUND 9,307.61 100.000 PREPAID HEALTH

1,721,146.00 Total Assets

Liabilities

2,874.88 340.000 DEFERRED REVENUES

2,874.88 Total Liabilities

Reserves/Balances

1,338,776.54 390.000 FUND BALANCE 379,494.58 398.000 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

1,718,271.12 Total Reserves/Balances

Total Liabilities & Balances 1,721,146.00

Fund: 204 - ROAD MILLAGE Assets

773.50 014.000 CASH - CHECKING

773.50 Total Assets

Reserves/Balances

773.50 390.000 FUND BALANCE

773.50 Total Reserves/Balances

Total Liabilities & Balances 773.50

Fund: 206 - FIRE DEPARTMENT MILLAGE Assets

1,841.20 014.000 CASH - CHECKING 1,626.88 020.000 CURRENT TAXES RECEIVABLE -1,569.14 026.000 DELINQUENT TAXES RECEIVABLE

1,898.94 Total Assets

Liabilities

965.31 340.000 DEFERRED REVENUES

965.31 Total Liabilities

Chocolay Township

Page: 9 8/31/2017

8:56 am

BALANCE SHEET


Fund: 206 - FIRE DEPARTMENT MILLAGE Reserves/Balances

-249,770.53 390.000 FUND BALANCE 250,704.16 398.000 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

933.63 Total Reserves/Balances

Total Liabilities & Balances 1,898.94

Fund: 212 - LIQUOR LAW ENFORCEMENT Assets

-1,892.60 014.000 CASH - CHECKING

-1,892.60 Total Assets

Reserves/Balances

77.40 390.000 FUND BALANCE -1,970.00 398.000 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

-1,892.60 Total Reserves/Balances

Total Liabilities & Balances -1,892.60

Fund: 265 - DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT MONEY Assets

1,931.25 014.000 CASH - CHECKING


Reserves/Balances

370.45 390.000 FUND BALANCE 1,560.80 398.000 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

1,931.25 Total Reserves/Balances


Fund: 271 - LIBRARY MILLAGE FUND Assets

134,341.31 020.000 CURRENT TAXES RECEIVABLE 16,166.52 100.000 PREPAID HEALTH


Liabilities

575.47 340.000 DEFERRED REVENUES

575.47 Total Liabilities

Reserves/Balances

149,932.36 398.000 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE


Chocolay Township

Page: 10 8/31/2017

8:56 am

BALANCE SHEET



Fund: 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Assets

123,741.94 014.000 CASH - CHECKING 758,220.00 016.000 CASH - INVESTMENTS

25,000.00 066.000 DUE FROM GENERAL FUND


Reserves/Balances

889,415.25 390.000 FUND BALANCE 17,546.69 398.000 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE



Fund: 571 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND Assets

98,410.57 014.000 CASH - CHECKING 1,548,199.00 016.000 CASH - INVESTMENTS

50.00 018.000 CASH - PETTY CASH 110,314.38 040.000 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE

-497.14 043.000 DELINQUENT USER & PENALTY FEES 578.94 100.000 PREPAID HEALTH

5,555.00 130.000 LAND 68,865.80 140.000 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT -45,217.93 141.000 DEPRECIATION - M & E

2,121,367.94 149.000 SEWER FACILITIES -1,791,763.28 151.000 DEPRECIATION - FACILITIES

276,936.00 152.000 SEWER FACILITY III 23,620.50 199.000 DEFERRED OUTFLOWS REL. PENSION


Liabilities

3,000.00 202.000 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE


Reserves/Balances

-668.25 344.000 NET PENSION LIABILITY 1,462.55 346.000 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES

2,301,364.46 390.000 FUND BALANCE 111,261.02 398.000 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

2,413,419.78 Total Reserves/Balances


Chocolay Township

Page: 11 8/31/2017

8:56 am

BALANCE SHEET


Fund: 701 - TRUST AND AGENCY FUND Assets

75,660.56 012.000 HRA-CASH 2,920.39 014.000 CASH - CHECKING


Liabilities

301.00 220.000 DUE TO COUNTY 90.50 233.000 DUE TO GENERAL FUND

1,000.00 233.001 DUE TO GEN FUND FLOAT/INTEREST 75,660.56 234.000 HRA-DUE TO OTHERS

333.00 235.000 DUE TO PLAT BOOKS 994.11 238.000 DUE TO LANDFILL-CONTRACTOR PMT 201.78 261.000 PRIVATE ROAD REQUEST



Fund: 705 - TAX COLLECTION FUND Assets

1,516.64 014.000 CASH - CHECKING 1,703,908.82 040.000 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE


Liabilities

13.00 217.000 DUE TO TRAILS 793,839.95 220.000 DUE TO COUNTY 113,118.30 221.000 DUE TO FIRE MILLAGE FUND

48.38 223.000 DUE TO LIBRARY 720,682.36 225.000 DUE TO SCHOOLS 180,114.79 228.000 DUE TO STATE -104,391.32 233.000 DUE TO GENERAL FUND

2,000.00 233.001 DUE TO GEN FUND FLOAT/INTEREST

1,705,425.46 Total Liabilities


Chocolay Township Board

Bennett Zyburt, Treasurer

Investments

9/1/2017

Charter Township of Chocolay

Certificates of Deposit

Interest Purchase Maturity

Financial Institution Amount Rate Date Date

Flagstar $250,000.00 0.95% 9/19/2016 9/19/2017

Miners State Bank $100,000.00 0.65% 7/22/2016 10/22/2017

First Bank $100,000.00 0.70% 11/22/2016 11/22/2017

First bank $150,000.00 0.90% 6/9/2017 6/9/2018

Mbank $95,000.00 1.30% 6/6/2017 1/6/2019

Mbank $95,000.00 1.30% 6/6/2017 1/6/2019

MBank $60,000.00 1.30% 6/6/2017 1/6/2019

Honor CU ($market ) $247,000.00 0.30% 3/21/2012

Baybank (business svgs) $247,000.00 0.20% 5/5/2011

Total $1,344,000.00

Total of

2 investment pages $3,768,509.05

This report is as required by Public Act 20 as amended

X.A.1

Chocolay Township Board

Bennett Zyburt, Treasurer

Investments

9/1/2017


Investments

Interest Purchase Maturity Premium Total

Financial Institution Face Value Rate Date Date Payment Paid

UBS

UBS-FNMA $250,000.00 0.875% 2/7/2017 5/21/2018 250,000.00$

UBS Fed Home Loan $225,000.00 1.05% 9/15/2016 9/28/2018 225,000.00$

UBS-FNMA $245,000.00 1.125% 7/22/2016 7/26/2019 245,000.00$

UBS-FFCB $250,000.00 1.14% 7/22/2016 10/7/2019 250,000.00$

unrealized G/L- July $3,733.58 $3,733.58

subtotal $966,266.42 966,266.42$

Stifel

Stifel-United Bank of MI $250,000.00 0.70% 250,000.00$

Stifel-Mercantile Bank $248,000.00 1.55% 9/7/2016 8/7/2018 1,145.26$ 249,145.26$

Stifel-Bank of Fenton $150,000.00 1.75% 4/20/2017 10/29/2018 1,498.84$ 151,498.84$

Stifel-Bank of Holland $150,000.00 1.75% 6/13/2017 11/27/2018 1,048.84$ 151,048.84$

Stifel-North Star Bank $250,000.00 1.50% 3/28/2017 6/28/2019 250,000.00$

Stifel-Commercial Bank $149,000.00 1.50% 2/9/2017 4/13/2020 149,000.00$

Stifel-Northern Mi of Pet. $247,000.00 1.74% 7/27/2017 5/21/2020 2,702.54$ 249,702.54$

unrealized G/L- July $7,847.15 $7,847.15

subtotal $1,451,847.15 2,424,509.05$

Total $2,418,113.57 6,395.48$ $2,424,509.05

This report is as required by Public Act 20 as amended

X.A.2


John Greenberg, TreasurerBennett Zyburt

Monthly Account Activity Report

on August

September 30,2014 9/1/2017

For September meeting

Accounts Withdrawals Deposits

Trust & Agency $76.00 $7,327.96Trust & Agency

Tax Collection Savings $601,059.85 $464,594.26

Tax Collection Checking $440,521.53 $444,933.48$0.00

Forfeiture-Police $0.00 $0.00

Roads $0.00 $0.00

Fire $0.00 $26.40General

SewerGeneral $86,219.13 $28,976.74

CapitalSewer $11,833.20 $8,293.13Sewer

Capital $11,755.12 $6,093.82

Liquor Enforcement $0.00 $0.00

X.B

MEMORANDUM Charter Township of Chocolay 5010 US 41 South, Marquette, Michigan 49855

To: Chocolay Township Board From: Steve Lawry, Manager Date: September 11, 2017 Subject: Presentation of Road Asset Management Plan

Late on Friday I learned that GEI Consultants would not be ready to present the complete road asset management plan to you today. The Company has all of the field work completed but is continuing their work on maintenance calculations and financing plans. Their original proposal called for beginning the project on August 15th in order to prepare the presentation for the Board’s September 11 meeting, however, legal review and modification of the Company’s standard project agreement by the Township and submittal of the required insurance documents led to a delay in the start of work until August 29th. At the project kick off meeting on that date GEI still felt that they could be ready for this week’s Board meeting. I checked with them on Tuesday, September 4th and they had made very good progress and still thought it possible to have a completed draft of the presentation by Friday of last week. Working out the delicate balance between millage revenue, project costs, financing options and timetable proved to be a bit more time-consuming than originally envisioned and I was notified Friday afternoon that they would not be prepared to answer all of the questions that might be anticipated from the Board at tonight’s meeting. They asked for approximately two more weeks to complete and check their work before making the public presentation. Therefore, I am requesting that the Board schedule a special meeting or work session for this purpose during the week of September 25.

The RFP issued by the Township for engineering services specified that the presentation was to be made to the Board by September 29 and that the consultant incorporate Board input into the presentation and then present it in a town hall meeting between October 9 and October 27 to help inform voters before the November 7 election. The Company is still on track to meet those deadlines. While a special meeting will involve per diem payments to Trustees, the hourly billing for meeting attendance by the consultants may be reduced in an offsetting amount by a one item agenda.

XI.A

MEMORANDUM Charter Township of Chocolay

5010 US 41 South, Marquette, Michigan 49855

To: Chocolay Township Board

From: Richard Bohjanen, Supervisor

Date: September 5, 2017

Subject: Request for Board Consideration of Short-Term Rental Issue

A group of citizens has requested to have added to the agenda for the board meeting the issue

of Short Term Rentals. As you know, this has been a topic of discussion for a considerable

period of time. There has been public comment on numerous occasions at both Planning

Commission and Township Board meetings. Most of the comments oppose short term rentals,

and have the opinion that short term rentals are a violation of the zoning ordinance. A legal

opinion was sought from our Township Attorney, and was received March 5, 2015. Salient

points from this opinion are that we have no defining language for short term rentals of private

residences, and that the definitions of hotels and resorts are not clearly inclusive of vacation

rentals of homes, so there is no real provision for this activity in the township. Prohibition of

this activity must be done only for the purpose of health, safety, and welfare of residents in the

districts in question. The Attorney has suggested that in order to make our Ordinance

enforceable, it should be amended to clearly define its purposes. He also suggests using our

other ordinances to resolve problems as they may occur as a result of vacation rentals. These

same ordinances would also apply to any residential uses of the properties.

Currently the Planning Commission is working on the amendment process. Definitions have

been rewritten in more precise language. The ordinance has not yet been finalized. The legal

question of whether or not short term rentals can or should be prohibited is not yet answered.

There is action in our State House to make a stand on this issue (HB4503 and SB329). If passed

this would define short term rentals as a noncommercial permitted use. This would take

regulation of these rentals out of the hands of Township Ordinances, except as would pertain to

issues of health, safety, and welfare. This is on the fall agenda in the legislature.

The Township Board has limited options at this time. These would include:

1. Make the amendment of the ordinance a high priority for the planning commission

2. Encourage reporting of problems related to current vacation rentals to the police

department

3. Spend legal fees on trying to enforce the current ordinance.

XV.A.1

I would recommend a motion from the board to proceed with any or all of the above, and or

any other suggestions. I would recommend that the citizens concerned attend the Planning

Commission meetings to be heard in the venue of rewriting the ordinance, both those in favor,

and those opposed. The Township Board will be tasked with the approval of the final product.

The process for amending or replacement of the current ordinance is underway. It involves

completion of the document, legal review of language, public hearing, acceptance vote of the

Planning Commission, to forward it to the Board for first and second readings, and for adoption.

This is by nature a slow but deliberate process. The time line is months.

30 August 2017

SENT: Via Email on 30 August 2018 to Steve Lawry

Chocolay Township Board Charter Township of Chocolay5010 US 41 SouthMarquette, MI 49855

Dear Chocolay Township Board Members;

This is a request for the Chocolay Township (hereinafter CT) Supervisor, Manager and Board membersto put the issue of Short Term Rental's (hereinafter STR's) in the Waterfront Residential District (hereinafter WFR) on the agenda for the 5:30 pm 11 September 2017 CT Board meeting. We ask that this request and the supporting documents that we include with this transmittal be included in the Township Board Agenda Materials. We wish to be allotted time at the 11 September 2017 to have a spokesperson present the information that we have gathered in regard to STR's on Lakewood Lane. Further we request that the CT board pass a motion to keep the Lake Superior side of Lakewood lane asit is intended for residential and recreational use, which would not allow STR's as either a permitted or conditional use. To facilitate the opportunity for residents to provide their input in regard to this issue we request that this item be placed in the beginning of the Board's agenda.

Many Chocolay Township residents that live on the Lake Superior side of Lakewood Lane have been and continue to be concerned with CT's failure to protect the family friendly residential character of ourneighborhood. We are further concerned with CT's planning commissions ongoing consideration to allow STR's in our residential neighborhood. An overwhelming majority of residents and or property owners that do not want to see STR's allowed on the Lake Superior side of Lakewood Lane have signed a petition with the following language:

“NO SHORT-TERM RENTALS to be ALLOWED on LAKEWOOD LANE in Chocolay Township, Michigan

We, the undersigned owners or residents of property located on the Lake Superior side of Lakewood Lane do not want short-term rentals on Lakewood Lane. Currently the Chocolay Township zoning ordinance indicates that short term rentals or resorts are neither a permitted or conditional use in the Waterfront Residential district. We consider any rental less than 30 days a short term rental, this includes but is not limited to daily, weekend, and weekly rentals. The basic concept of a short term rental is considered commercial, and we call on the Board of Trustees and Planning Commission to maintain the family friendly residential character of our neighborhood on Lakewood Lane and not allow short-term rentals.”

The CT zoning ordinance does not allow for Short Term Rentals in the WFR district, where the Permitted Principal Use is only single family dwellings, and the seven Conditional Uses do not include Short Term Rentals. However, Short Term Rentals are allowed either within the Agricultural/Forestry District, as a Conditional Use (Resort) or within the Commercial District as a Permitted Principal Use (Hotels.) The definitions of Resort and Hotel that are found within the CT Zoning Ordinance are as follows:

1/3

XV.A.2

Resort: Means any parcel or tract of land under the control of any person wherein buildings or building space are offered for the use of the public or members of an organization, either free of charge or for a fee, for temporary living quarters incident to recreational use for any period less than one month.

Hotel: Means a structure designed, used, or offered for residential occupancy for any period less than one month, including tourist homes, resorts and motels, but not including hospitals and nursing homes.

Research has verified that STR's have not been allowed in what is now classified as the WFR district asfar back as 1977. No zoning permits have been issued for STR's/vacation rentals from 1977 to present.

Mr. Mark Maki, who is presently a CT Trustee, was the CT zoning administrator for approximately 25 years starting in 1977. He has provided both verbal testimony and written documentation to CT Boardsand staff supporting the fact that short term rentals have not been allowed in the WFR district under prior or current zoning ordinances in CT. He also stated in public comment that if he was asked if vacation rentals (STR's) were allowed that he told those that inquired that vacation rentals (STR's) werenot allowed.

Ms. Jennifer Thum, who was the CT planner and zoning administrator in August 2011 sent the attachedcorrespondence to the CT Planning Commission in which she stated that the zoning ordinance does not allow vacation rentals in the WFR district. In this letter Ms. Thum states, "...I have noticed several homes that are located in the WFR zoning district that have been advertising their homes as vacation rental properties. Under the zoning ordinance rental properties, except bed and breakfasts, are not permitted or conditional use. According to our ordinance anything that is rented for less than a month is considered a hotel or bed and breakfast. Ms. Thum further provides the definitions provided within the ordinance of hotel and bed and breakfast.”

Ms. Thum was directed by the Planning Commission to consult with CT legal counsel and she did speak with Attorney Michael Summers. We understand that letters were sent by Ms. Thum to propertyowners that were using their properties as STR's/vacation rentals in violation of the CT zoning ordinance.

Ms. Kelly Drake Woodward became the CT planner and zoning administrator after Ms. Thum left CT. During her tenure Ms. Drake Woodward addressed the issue of resorts as being permitted as conditional uses in the AF district, and not being listed as permitted or conditional uses in the R-1 or WFR district. Further, to allow for the concept of STR's in CT within the WFR district the 2015 Master Plan was written to include language to allow for STR's.

During Ms. Drake Woodward's employment with CT she and others consulted with legal counsel RogerZappa. The CT attorney advised that vacation rentals are neither a permitted use nor a conditional use in the WFR district and are not authorized.

Mr. Dale Throenle became the CT planner and zoning administrator after Ms. Drake Woodward. In June 2017 Mr. Throenle sent a letter to CT residents who had applied for a short term rental conditionaluse permit that he was returning their application and check as there were no procedures for this type ofpermit. He most recently stated in the July 2017 Planning Commission meeting that neither he nor others employed by CT have ever told anyone that they could have a STR in the WFR district.

2/3

One should ask the question as to why the CT Planning Commission is working to allow STR's in both the WFR and R-1 Districts if they are already allowed. The fact is that STR's are not allowed in either the WFR or R-1 Districts, so the Planning Commission is now recommending changes to allow STR's in the WFR and R-1 districts.

And the more important question that must be addressed is why are the the CT Board of Trustees and Planning Commission members looking to change the rural residential character of our Lakewood Laneneighborhood by allowing STR's?

Zoning ordinances are not intended to protect uses that were not legally started or continued. An illegalnonconforming use doesn't become legal because the property owner violates the law, even for a long period of time. Within the attached or linked 22 December 2015 MSU Extension article below, Brad Neuman writes of considering regulation of short-term rentals in light of the sharing economy. Specifically he suggests that, “One of the tricks to regulating short-term rentals is to define them as a commercial use, so that they are treated similar to other lodging enterprises and different from residential uses.”

http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/considering_regulation_of_short_term_rentals_in_light_of_the_sharing_econ2

As owners or residents of property in the WFR district we should be able to reasonably expect that our properties will remain residential, for residential use. We believe that the residential character and sense of community we enjoy on LWL is more important than appeasing those that want to operate a STR in our neighborhood. STR's are an income producing activity which means they are commercial -not residential- and we request that commercial activities be left in the CT commercial district.

Sincerely yours,

Jennifer Bruggink Jennifer CammarataStephanie Gencheff Laurie KrzymowskiDeborah MulcaheyPeter Ollila

Attachments:-Jennifer Thum, August 2011 memorandum to the CT Planning Commission.-Brad Neuman, 22 December 2015 MSU Extension article

3/3

http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/considering_regulation_of_short_term_rentals_in_light_of_the_sharing_econ2http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/considering_regulation_of_short_term_rentals_in_light_of_the_sharing_econ2

XV.A.3


To: From: Date: Subject:

Chocolay Township Planning Commission Jennifer B. Thum, Planner/Zoning Administrator

August 30, 2011 Rental Properties in the Waterfront Zoning District

BACKGROUND:

Recently, I have noticed several homes that are located in the WFR Zoning District have been advertising their homes as vacation rental properties. Under the zoning ordinance rental properties, except bed and breakfasts, are not a permitted or conditional use. According to the ordinance anything that is rented for less than a month is consider a hotel or B & B. For our meeting, I would like to discuss this situation with you.

Bed and Breakfast - means a use subordinate to a single-family detached dwelling unit in which transient guest are provided sleeping rooms (not to exceed four (4) rooms} and a breakfast only, in return for payment; is the owner principal residence; is occupied by the owner at the time of rental; and, the length of stay of any guest is not exceed 14 consecutive

days and 30 days in one year.

Dwelling, Single-Family - a structure containing not more than one dwelling unit designate for residential use and conforming in all respects to the standards set forth in Section 401.

Family - means an individual or a group of two or more person related by blood, marriage, or adoption, together with not more than three additional person not related by blood, marriage,

or adoption, living together as a single housekeeping unit.

Hotel - means a structure designed, used, or offered for a residential occupancy for any

period less than one month, including tourist homes, resorts and motels, bu! not including

hospitals and nursing homes.

Thank you

8/30/2017 Considering regulation of short-term rentals in light of the sharing economy: Part 2 | MSU Extension

http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/considering_regulation_of_short_term_rentals_in_light_of_the_sharing_econ2 1/4

Considering regulation of short-term rentals in light of the sharing economy: Part 2

Short-term rentals are sometimes perceived as nuisances in neighborhoods, but the emergence of the sharing economysuggests communities may want to offer something for everyone in terms of lodging experiences for visitors of all kinds.Posted on December 22, 2015 by Brad Neumann (http://msue.anr.msu.edu/experts/bradley_neumann_1), Michigan State UniversityExtension

Part one (/news/considering_regulation_of_short_term_rentals_in_light_of_the_sharing_econom) of this article introduced the idea of offering somethingfor everyone when regulating short-term rentals in light of the sharing economy (http://www.greattransition.org/publication/debating-the-sharing-economy) . This article highlights regulatory options for communities and offers some considerations related to definitions, process ofapproval, and review standards for short-term rentals.

In Michigan, cities, villages, and townships have the authority to adopt regulations related to rentals either through the zoningordinance or a separate police power ordinance. Counties with zoning have the ability to include such regulations in their zoningordinance. Under a zoning ordinance however, property owners who had legally rented their homes prior to a zoning amendmentwould be grandfathered and would be allowed to continue their rentals as they did before the ordinance amendment (seeUnderstanding nonconformity: Are you ‘grandfathered’ in? (/news/understanding_nonconformity_are_you_granfathered_in)). Instead, rentalregulations as a general police power ordinance are not required to allow the continuation of legal non-conforming uses. It is importantto keep in mind that Michigan counties do not have police power authority and cannot adopt stand-alone ordinances on topics likeshort-term.

One of the tricks to regulating short-term rentals is to define them as a commercial use, so that they are treated similar to other lodgingenterprises and different from residential uses. This approach reflects the Constitutional protection of equal treatment in which similarlysituated individuals must be treated similarly. (The distinction of short-term rental being commercial is reinforced by court rulings onthe issue, and communities which have not carefully made that distinction have not fared as well in courts.) Then, a community wouldlist short-term rentals as a special land use in the appropriate zoning districts based on public engagement on the topic as to wherethe special use is generally acceptable. The community would then hear individual requests for a special land use permit for aparticular property in those zoning districts where it is listed as a special land use.

Another step for a community is to identify the standards that will apply when reviewing applications from property owners for theshort-term rental of their property. Such standards should include discretionary and non-discretionary standards. A discretionarystandard is something like “The use will be harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood.” This is a type of standard that a planningcommission would need to discuss in an open meeting with opportunity for public comment. A non-discretionary standard on the other

XV.A.4

http://msue.anr.msu.edu/experts/bradley_neumann_1http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/considering_regulation_of_short_term_rentals_in_light_of_the_sharing_economhttp://www.greattransition.org/publication/debating-the-sharing-economyhttp://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/understanding_nonconformity_are_you_granfathered_in

8/30/2017 Considering regulation of short-term rentals in light of the sharing economy: Part 2 | MSU Extension

http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/considering_regulation_of_short_term_rentals_in_light_of_the_sharing_econ2 2/4

hand is something that is more black or white, for instance, “two off-street parking spaces shall be provided on site for each short-termrental unit.” This standard is either met in the pending application or it is not.

Considering the sharing economy, communities may find it beneficial to consider all types of short-term rentals, beyond just theconventional ‘vacation rental’ home and develop a single set of standards that apply to all of them. Such a set of standards couldpossibly include licensing, allowable length of stay, number of rooms that can be rented, separation requirements for same rentaltypes, parking, guest register, display of fire escape routes and owner contact information, and so on.

Communities should keep in mind that a zoning ordinance that completely excludes an otherwise legal or legitimate land use issuspect. If a municipality’s ordinance is silent on the issue of short-term rentals, it typically means short-term rentals are not permittedanywhere. Zoning ordinances that are written in a permissive format state the permitted use within the district and necessarily implythe exclusion of any other use not listed. Communities that do not allow short-term rentals or do not address the topic should ask‘what’s the legitimate government purpose of prohibiting short-term rentals?’ Prohibiting short-term rentals may be a legally riskyapproach, even if motivations for doing so are thoroughly documented in the ordinance and master plan. It is important to note thatany amendment to a community’s zoning ordinance should be reviewed before adoption by the community’s corporate attorney who isexperienced in municipal and land use law.

Michigan State University Extension (/) helps communities learn how to improve their social and economic appeal to create and retainjobs. Community leaders are given the tools they need to have a positive effect on their cities, villages, townships, counties and thewhole state.

This article was published by Michigan State University Extension (http://www.msue.msu.edu). For more information, visithttp://www.msue.msu.edu (http://www.msue.msu.edu). To have a digest of information delivered straight to your email inbox, visithttp://www.msue.msu.edu/newsletters (http://www.msue.msu.edu/newsletters). To contact an expert in your area, visithttp://expert.msue.msu.edu (http://expert.msue.msu.edu), or call 888-MSUE4MI (888-678-3464).

Related Events

http://msue.anr.msu.edu/http://www.msue.msu.edu/http://www.msue.msu.edu/http://www.msue.msu.edu/newslettershttp://expert.msue.msu.edu/


To: Chocolay Township Board From: Steve Lawry, Manager Date: August 29, 2017 Subject: 2017 Capital Improvement Fund Budget Amendment #8 to Reflect

Insurance Payment for Damaged Police Equipment.

BACKGROUND: Previously, the Board amended the 2017 budget to account for payments received from the Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority for the police car destroyed in an accident earlier this year and from Fox Motors for wiring harnesses and equipment brackets damaged while trying to salvage electronics and other equipment from the wrecked car. The Township has now received a final payment from MMRMA for the cost of salvaging that equipment and installing it in the replacement vehicle. To credit that payment to the Capital Improvement Fund account from which the invoices for the replacement vehicle and its set up were paid, one last budget amendment is necessary.

FISCAL EFFECTS: A table of the reimbursement payments received for the damaged equipment and the invoices paid for the replacement vehicle and equipment is attached. It reveals that all but $12,485.63 of the cost of replacement was reimbursed. While this amount is still significant, the destroyed vehicle had been in police service for just over one year. Considering that the anticipated life of a vehicle in this type of use is three to four years, the price difference can be attributed to depreciation. It should also be noted that MMRMA does not offer full replacement cost coverage on this type of vehicle, but does make it available on larger more expensive pieces of equipment such as fire trucks. The Township does purchase replacement coverage on its fire equipment fleet.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board amend the 2017 Capital Improvement Fund Budget to reflect the insurance proceeds for transfer of salvaged electronics and peripheral equipment to the new police car. As with the previous payments received, it is recommended that the funds be added to the Police Department Vehicles Account of the Capital Improvement Fund.

XV.B.1

SUGGESTED MOTION: ______________moved _____________seconded that Whereas, a budget was adopted by the Chocolay Township Board to govern the anticipated Capital Improvement Fund receipts within the Township on October 5th, 2016 for fiscal year 2017, and Whereas, as a result of receipt of unanticipated revenue it is necessary to modify the aforesaid budget, Now Therefore, Be It Hereby Resolved, that the budget be modified as follows:

ACCOUNT PREVIOUS CHANGE AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET

REVENUE Miscellaneous Revenue 401.698.000 $ 23,157.91 +$3,088.93 $ 26,246.84

EXPENDITURE Police Vehicles 401.305.981.000 $126,167.14 +$3,088.93 $129,256.07 A roll call vote is required.

ALTERNATIVES: The Board may wish to approve an alternate allocation of funds received in which case an alternate budget amendment would be prepared for your next meeting.

XV.B.2Date Monies Received

2/9/2017 Accident

MMRMA

3/31/2017 MMRMA

7/25/2017 Fox

8/4/2017 MMRMA

Cost to Purchase

Amount

$ 19,750.00 $ 2,483.00 $ 924.91 $ 3,088.93 $ 26,246.84

Signature Ford $ 35,510.00 Ford refund of extended warrant $ (791.37) Eleam $ 1,302.99 elcom installation $ 2,240.00 DH Wireless $ 125.85 Digital Ally $ 60.00 Signs Unlimited $ 285.00

$ 38,732.47

Purchase

MMRMA and Fox

$ 38,732.47 $ 26,246.84 $ 12,485.63


To: Chocolay Township Board From: Steve Lawry, Manager Date: August 29, 2017 Subject: 2017 Capital Improvement Fund Budget Amendment #9 to Reflect

Receipt of Funds from the Utility Review Committee

BACKGROUND: Chocolay Township is one of six local townships that signed an inter-governmental agreement to form the Utility Review Committee for the purpose of monitoring the business actions of the Marquette Board of Light & Power and taking actions as a unified body to protect the interests of the member townships to oppose BLP decisions when necessary. The Committee is made up of Chocolay, Marquette, Negaunee, Sands, Skandia, and West Branch Townships. The URC is funded by a franchise fee on the monthly electric bills of BLP utility customers in each of those townships and maintains a bank account from which to finance its activities. The annual costs consist primarily of compensating a member to attend all BLP Board meetings to monitor their actions and provide input as deemed necessary, but a fund balance deemed sufficient by the Committee to initiate legal action if necessary is maintained per the terms of a 2009 agreement. Annually, if the Franchise Fee Fund balance exceeds $142,000, the excess is distributed by the URC to each of its members based upon the number of electrical customers served by the BLP in each township. At its 2017 regular meeting on August 9, the URC approved the distribution of $5,366.86 according to the attached spreadsheet. Chocolay Township’s share of this total amounted $1,417.39. This revenue was not included in the anticipated receipts of the Township when the 2017 budget was adopted.

For the last several years the Township Board has adopted budget amendments to credit the funds received from this source to the Streets Department in the Capital Improvement Fund with the expressed intent of using them to fund future street lighting or energy conservation improvements. Adding this year’s distribution will bring the portion of the account set aside for this purpose to $13,709.39. Other funds in this same account have been budgeted for development of the road asset management plan.

FISCAL EFFECTS: Unanticipated revenue for fiscal year 2017 in the amount of $1,417.39 has been received.

XV.C.1

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board continue its past practice of assigning Utility Review Committee revenue to the Land Improvements account of the Capital Improvement Fund Streets Department. From there it can be used to finance a future street lighting improvement project or possible street light relocation costs associated with future road maintenance. If a more appropriate project is identified in the future, such as the purchase of backup generators for the sewer pump stations, the money can be reallocated by Board action. A proposed budget amendment to acknowledge receipt of and allocate the most recent check to this account follows.

SUGGESTED MOTION: ______________moved _____________seconded that Whereas, a budget was adopted by the Chocolay Township Board to govern the anticipated Capital Improvement Fund receipts within the Township on October 5th, 2016 for fiscal year 2017, and Whereas, as a result of receipt of unanticipated revenue it is necessary to modify the aforesaid budget, Now Therefore, Be It Hereby Resolved, that the budget be modified as follows:

ACCOUNT PREVIOUS CHANGE AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET

REVENUE Miscellaneous Revenue 401.698.000 $26,246.84 +$1,417.39 $27,664.23

EXPENDITURE Streets 401.440.972 -Land Improvements $34,707.04 +$1, 417.39 $36,124.43 A roll call vote is required.

ALTERNATIVES: The Board may wish to approve an alternate allocation of funds received in which case an alternate budget amendment would be prepared for your next meeting.

UTILITY REVIEW COMMITTEE

Calculation of Excess Assets Available for Distribution

Work Session Date

Calculation of Assets as of: June 30, 2017

Cash in Bank: Amount

Checking Account

1. Range Bank $5,289.66

Certificates of Deposits:

Financial Institution Number

Interest

Rate

Purchase

Date

Maturity

Date

2. Range Bank 1984 $76,337.22

3. Range Bank 1989 $30,120.56

4. Range Bank 2027 $35,619.42

5.

6. TOTAL ASSETS Lines 1+2+3+4+5 $147,366.86

7. Franchise Fee Fund Cap 142,000.00

8. Amount Available for Distribution Line 6- Line 7 $5,366.86

Rounding

Township Distributions Percent Correction

9. Chocolay Township 26.41% Times Line 8 $1,417.39 0.00

10. Marquette Township 30.80% Times Line 8 $1,652.98 -0.01

11. Negaunee Township 18.11% Times Line 8 $971.94 0.00

12. Sands Township 14.61% Times Line 8 $784.10 0.00

13. Skandia Township 5.22% Times Line 8 $280.15 0.00

14. West Branch Township 4.85% Times Line 8 $260.29 0.00

15. Total 100.00% Total Lines 9-14 $5,366.85

Date 6/30/2017

Customer Base Rounding

From BLP % Correction

9. Chocolay Township 1,988 26.41% 0.00%

10. Marquette Township 2,318 30.80% -0.01%

11. Negaunee Township 1,363 18.11% 0.00%

12. Sands Township 1,100 14.61% 0.00%

13. Skandia Township 393 5.22% 0.00%

14. West Branch Township 365 4.85% 0.00%

Total 7,527 100.00%

XV.C.2

Streets

Account 440

FY 2017

Current

Designated

Balance

Department

Annual

Request

Manager

Recommended

2017 Additions

Manager

Recommended

2017

Expenditures

Board

Approved 2017

Adjustment

End of 2017

Projected

Balance

Total

Goal

Projected

Expenditure

Year

Department Totals 12,707.04$ 4,100.00$ 15,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 22,707.04$ 17,500.00$

440.972 LAND IMPROVEMENTS 12,707.04$ 4,100.00$ 15,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 22,707.04$ 17,500.00$

Public street or right of way improvements.

Preparation of street improvement plan for

road millage request.

415.04$ 600.00$ 15,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 10,415.04$ 2,500.00$

Lighting improvements funded with Utility

Review Committee distributions.

($1,693.85 rec'd from URC in 2016.)

12,292.00$ 3,500.00$ -$ -$ -$ 12,292.00$ 15,000.00$

Streets and lighting

9/6/2017 Streets

XV.C.3

XV.D.1

* * * * * * * STARRY SKIES LAKE SUPERIOR

Dear Community Leader,

Call to Community Leaders

July 26, 2017

We are reaching out to you, as the leader of a community around Lake Superior, in support of lessening light pollution, and calling attention to an asset we share which is our relatively dark night skies. And we are offering three invitations to you and your community.

The goal of our organization, Starry Skies Lake Superior IDA (a non-profit chapter of the International Dark-Sky Association) is two-fold; to end light pollution in our region, and to have the Lake Superior area known for its spectacular night skies.

Right now the wonders of our night skies are inaccessible to 80% of our national popula-tions due to over-lighting at night. Most of the kids in Canada and the US have never seen the Mi I ky Way. (https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/what-is-l ight-pol lution-and-how-does-it-affect-ca nad i ans/69026) ( http ://www. d a rksky. org/80-of-world-popu I ation-1 ives-u nder-skyglow-new-study-f i nds/)

We are inviting you to join in by designating your community as "night-sky friendly" and envisioning Lake Superior as a region known for it's night skies. This is not an "official" classification; it is simply acknowledging your support for this idea.

By inviting you as leaders of cities, towns, villages, townships and First Nations/ Native American communities to be "night sky friendly," we seek to engage your community in a way that fits your infrastructure decisions, resources, and values.

Secondly, we are inviting you to participate in "Celebrate the Night Sky Week" this September 17-23. Events are happening around Lake Superior, and we encourage you to host an event in your community and contact us to post it on our website.

Thirdly, we invite you to Duluth, Minnesota for a day-long "Night Sky Seminar" Thursday Sept. 21, 2017. Join us as we learn and discuss with experts how lighting design, human health, the needs of the environment, and human culture intersect around lighting at night. ( StarrySkiesLS.org/night-sky-seminar)

Protecting our visual access to our night skies supports human health, the health of our environment and our quality of life. Light pollution travels, and skyglow becomes sky trespass when excess light from one area can hinder others' views of the night sky. Safeguarding our access to the night sky is a regional endeavor.

township board packet - chocolay charter township earl schuster, 244 s. shag lake drive, gwinn –...

Documents