Township Board packet F. Recommendation from Personnel Committee on Ad Hoc Committee for Policy ... Gail Varty, 208 Timber Lane- Would like to reserve time to speak on item XIV. B

1

AGENDA CHOCOLAY TOWNSHIP BOARD

January 9th, 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, and Judy White. IV. MINUTES

A. Township Board – Regular Meeting of December 7th, 2016.

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

A. Check Register Reports: December 6th, December 15th, and December 29th, 2016. B. Regular Payrolls of December 1st, December 15th, and December 29th, 2016, and

Special Longevity Payroll of December 2nd, 2016. IX. FINANCIAL REPORT

A. Revenue & Expenditure Report - January 1st through November 30th, 2016. X. TREASURER’S REPORT

A. Certificates of Deposit Report – December 1st, 2016.

B. Fund Withdrawal and Deposit Report – December 1st, 2016.

XI. PRESENTATIONS

A. U. P. 200 Sled Dog Committee Presentation. B. Planning Intern Presentation.

XII. APPOINTMENTS / RESIGNATIONS – None. XIII. SUPERVISOR’S REPORT – None.

2

XIV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

A. Bureau of Indian Affairs Request for Comments on Application for Trust Status for Land in Chocolay Township.

B. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Proposal for Water System Improvements. C. Payment for Hydraulic Analysis Required by FEMA Flood Insurance Program for

208 Timber Lane. XV. NEW BUSINESS

A. First Reading of Proposed New Ordinance #62 Animal Control Ordinance. B. 2016 General Fund Budget Amendment #5 to Account for Office of Highway Safety

Grants to Police Department for Overtime Enforcement. C. 2016 General Fund Budget Amendment #6 to Transfer Salary Contingency to Police

Department Salaries Account. D. 2016 Capital Improvement Fund Budget Amendment #11 to Account for Receipt of

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community 2% Gaming Funds. E. Recommendation from Personnel Committee on Police Officer Starting Salary. F. Recommendation from Personnel Committee on Ad Hoc Committee for Policy

Review. G. Authorization to Expend Capital Improvement Fund Dollars for Digital Tablets for

Board of Trustees and Planning Commission. H. Authorization to Expend Capital Improvement Fund for Shelving and Laptops for the

Elections. I. Township Manager’s Annual Evaluation and Compensation Approval.

XVI. PUBLIC COMMENT XVII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS

A. Minutes – Chocolay Township Planning Commission, Regular Meeting of November

21st, 2016.

B. Minutes – Marquette Area Wastewater Treatment Authority, Regular Meeting of November 17th, 2016.

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

November 30th, 2016 Draft.

3

D. Minutes – Minutes – US 41 Corridor Advisory Group, Regular Meeting of October 11th, 2016.

E. Communication – Anonymous Re: Casino Expansion Project. F. Communication – Annual Report of Upper Peninsula Substance Enforcement Team.

XVIII. ADJOURNMENT

1

December 7, 2016

A Regular meeting of the Chocolay Township Board was held on Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at the Chocolay Township Hall, 5010 U S 41 South, Marquette, MI. Supervisor Bohjanen called the Township Board meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

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

ABSENT: None.

STAFF PRESENT: Steve Lawry, Mary Sanders, Suzanne Sundell, Dale Throenle, Scott Jennings.

MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 2, 2016. Lynch moved Zyburt seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 2, 2016 as amended. MOTION CARRIED.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS. Maki moved White seconded to approve the agenda presented. MOTION CARRIED.

PUBLIC COMMENT. Supervisor Bohjanen read a statement that public comment will be addressed in one of three ways. We will acknowledge the comment and refer it for further consideration at another time and another agenda, we will consider the comment during Board discussion tonight or in the future or we will refer it to the Planning Commission for consideration or to staff for evaluation.

Gail Varty, 208 Timber Lane- Would like to reserve time to speak on item XIV. B. authorization to retain engineering services for FEMA hydraulics study.

PUBLIC HEARING- ORDINANCE #22 WINTER PARKING BAN. The public hearing was opened and Supervisor Bohjanen explained that the change to the Ordinance was to remove the section requiring the Township to post No Parking Signs at the Township corporate limits during the winter parking ban from November 15th to April 15th each year. We do not have the signs currently and eliminating the need to purchase signs will save the Township a considerable amount of money.

There was no public comment, public hearing was closed.

IV.A

2

White moved Rhein seconded to adopt the proposed amendment to Ordinance #22 by deletion of Section 3 of the Ordinance. ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, Rhein, White, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle, Bohjanen. NAYS: None. MOTION CARRIED. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE. Zyburt moved Lynch seconded that bills totaling $45,702.77 including checks numbered 21377-21420 and bills totaling $13,154.61 including checks numbered 21421-21435 are approved for payment. MOTION CARRIED. PAYROLL. Engle moved Zyburt seconded that the payroll for November 3, 2016 for $31,417.06 including checks numbered 23502-23519 and 10394-10399 and ACH payments for Federal tax, State tax and MERS, and November 17, 2016 for $37,050.94 including checks numbered 23520-23562 and 10400-10405 and ACH payments for Federal tax, State tax and MERS are approved for payment. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL REPORT- OCTOBER 2016. Lynch moved Rhein seconded to approve the October 2016 financial report. MOTION CARRIED. TREASURER’S REPORT/FUND WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSIT REPORT. Treasurer Zyburt reported that we renewed a $100,000. Certificate of Deposit from First Bank and the renewal rate went from .65% to .70%. Engle moved Rhein seconded to accept the Treasurer’s report and the Fund Withdrawal and Deposit report. MOTION CARRIED. APPOINTMENTS AND RESIGNATIONS. Andy Sikkema and Bruce Ventura have both submitted resignations from the Planning Commission effective December 2016 and Richard Bohjanen is no longer eligible to be the Board representative to the Planning Commission by virtue of his new position on the Township Board. Engle moved Lynch seconded to accept the resignations from the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED. Supervisor Bohjanen said that a letter or Certificate of Appreciation should be prepared for the resigning Planning Commission members.

3

Greg Zyburt submitted a letter of resignation from the position of Police Chief and the Pension Board; he will be leaving employment with Chocolay Township at the end of December to become the Marquette County Sheriff in January 2017. White moved Rhein seconded to accept the resignation of Greg Zyburt from the pension committee. MOTION CARRIED. Engle moved Rhein seconded to accept the resignation of Greg Zyburt as Police Chief of Chocolay Township. MOTION CARRIED. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. Trustee Maki asked if CABA was still meeting. Clerk Engle said that they are inactive at this point. Trustee Maki indicated that the Board did not get copies of the Planning Commission applications and wondered if Jon Kangas and Donna Campbell were present. Mr. Kangas is present, but Ms. Campbell had a prior engagement. Trustee Maki offered to sit on the Personnel Committee if Trustee White wanted to step down. Trustee Maki asked about the attendance record of the current Planning Commission members. Supervisor Bohjanen stated that the members do not have perfect attendance, but there is always a good number of Commissioners at each Planning Commission meeting. Trustee Maki asked about Donna Campbell’s background, he would like information before he votes for someone. Supervisor Bohjanen indicated that she is a community active person from Ironwood. She has been on the Library Board and Planning Commission in Ironwood. Bohjanen moved Lynch seconded the appointment or reappointment of:

Ben Zyburt as Board representative to Pension Committee for a term ending 12-31-22,

Mary Sanders as employee representative to the Pension Committee to complete a term ending 12-31-2018,

Scott Jennings to the Personnel Committee for a new term ending 12-31-17,

Dale Throenle to the Personnel Committee for a new term ending 12-31-17,

Judy White to the Personnel Committee for a new term ending 12-31-18,

Max Engle to the Personnel Committee for a new term ending 12-31-18,

Judy White as Board representative to the Planning Commission for a term ending 11-20-20,

Jon Kangas to the Planning Commission to complete a term ending 12-31-17,

Donna Mullen-Campbell to the Planning Commission to complete a term ending 12-31-18,

Andy Smith to the Planning Commission for a new term ending 12-31-19, and

Tom Mahaney to the Planning Commission for a new term ending 12-31-19. MOTION CARRIED.

4

Maki moved Zyburt seconded to appoint or reappoint the following individuals to the boards, committees, and councils for the specified terms:

Chris Lucas as alternate delegate to the Marquette Area Wastewater Treatment Authority to complete a term ending 12-31-18,

Mark Maki as Board of Trustees representative to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a new term ending 11-20-20,

Michelle Wietek-Stephens to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a new term ending 12-31-19,

Geno Angeli to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a new term ending 12-31-19,

Albert Denton to the Board of Review for a new term ending 12-31-18,

Dennis Hickey to the Board of Review for a new term ending 12-31-18,

Robert Pecotte to the Board of Review for a new term ending 12-31-18,

Paul Charboneau as alternate to the Board of Review for new term ending 12-31-18,

Max Engle to the Marquette County Townships Association for a new term ending 12-31-18,

Judy White to the Election Commission for a new term ending 11-20-20,

David Lynch to the Election Commission for a new term ending 11-20-20,

Mary Sanders as representative to the Northern Michigan Public Service Academy Board for a new term ending 12-31-18, and

Max Engle as alternate to the Northern Michigan Public Service Academy Board for a new term ending 12-31-18.

MOTION CARRIED.

CONFIRMATION OF NEW POLICE CHIEF. The Police Chief Selection committee made up of Ex-Supervisor Gary Walker, Supervisor Richard Bohjanen and Manager Lawry followed the personnel manual and advertised locally and on State MESC website. We received four applications, the committee reviewed all four application packets and elected to interview three. After interviewing the three very qualified candidates, the decision was to select Sergeant Jennings as the new Police Chief. Maki moved Lynch seconded to confirm the Township Manager’s appointment of Scott S. Jennings as Chocolay Township Chief of Police effective January 1, 2017. MOTION CARRIED. SUPERVISOR’S REPORT. Supervisor Bohjanen announced his regular office hours open to staff and public on Tuesdays from 1:00 pm until 4:00 pm and will also be available at other times by request. SECOND READING OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE #63 ADDRESS NUMBER ORDINANCE. White moved Zyburt seconded that the phrase “not less than two (2) inches in height” in section 4.B of the proposed ordinance # 63 be modified to read “not less than three and one-half (3 1/2) inches in height.”

5

Trustee White asked if the police department would monitor and enforce the change in address numbering size. Supervisor Bohjanen indicated that is not the intent of this change. The purpose of this change is to make it possible to identify the residence/structure not create difficulties to our residents. Trustee Maki asked if the assessing summer worker could monitor the house numbering. Manager Lawry feels that a public education campaign is the direction that the Township should go with house identification. ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, Rhein, White, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle, Bohjanen. NAYS: None. MOTION CARRIED. Maki moved White seconded that after review of the proposed modifications of the Township Address Numbers Ordinance, the input from a public hearing, and the recommendations of the Township Planning Commission, that the Board waive the reading and adopt the proposed language of Ordinance # 63 as written, file the motion with the Township Clerk to publish a notice of adoption in the local newspaper and on the Township website within fifteen days of adoption, and record the amendment in the Township Ordinance Book within one week after publication, with Ordinance # 63 to become effective thirty days after adoption and Ordinances # 29 and # 29A to be repealed concurrently. ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, Rhein, White, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle, Bohjanen. NAYS: None. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION TO RETAIN ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR FEMA HYDRAULICS STUDY. Manager Lawry explained to the Board that since putting the agenda together; the hydraulics study has been completed. He does have a copy and it should serve as appropriate backup material to FEMA for the change in the mapping. The next step is that the local governmental agency presents the information to FEMA to amend the maps for this area and allow the fill to remain on the property. Gail Varty expressed to the Board that Google maps, GIS maps and some of the elevation maps County wide are not correct. She feels feel that this study is ready to be sent into FEMA. Supervisor Bohjanen noted that according to the study; the level of change of the floodplain that would occur is measurable at .002 and the FEMA requirement is that it be less that one. So this should meet their criteria. Engle moved Lynch seconded to authorize the Township Manager to submit the FEMA application that would have the floodplain map changed. MOTION CARRIED.

6

CONSIDERATION OF 2017 MEETING SCHEDULE. The Board discussed changing the Township Board meeting from the first Wednesday to the first or second Monday of the month. The first Monday would conflict with many holidays and create too many changes to the schedule. The second Monday of the month will work for all of the Board members. Maki moved Lynch seconded to approve the first Monday of each month at 5:30 pm for the Regular Township Board Meeting. MOTION WITHDRAWN. Maki moved Lynch seconded to approve to change the Township Board of Trustees regular meeting to the second Monday of each month at 5:30 pm. The following dates are approved for all Boards for 2016: Chocolay Township Board – 5:30 PM Chocolay Township Planning Comm– 7:00 PM January 9 July 10 January 16 July 17 February 13 August 14 February 20 August 21 March 13 September 11 March 20 September 18 April 10 October 9 April 17 October 16 May 8 November 13 May 15 November 20 June 12 December 11 June 19 December 18

Chocolay Township Zoning Board of Appeals – 7:00 PM January 26 July 27 February 23 August 24 March 23 September 28 April 27 October 26 May 25 November 16 June 22 December 28

Chocolay Township Fire Department – 7:00 PM 1st Thursday of each month – Business Meeting 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Thursday of each month – Training

Chocolay Township Tax Board of Review – Times to be set March 7 March 7, 13, 14 July 18 December 12 The Joint Meeting of the Chocolay Township Board and the Chocolay Township Planning Commission will be determined at a later date.

MOTION CARRIED.

7

ANNUAL REVIEW OF TOWNSHIP BOARD POLICIES. Rhein moved Zyburt seconded to accept the Chocolay Township Board Policies with the amendment of the Meetings policy to change the Township Board meeting date to the second Monday of the month at 5:30 pm and also the preparation of Township Board agenda dates. MOTION CARRIED. MANAGEMENT LETTER FROM AUDITOR. Maki moved Lynch seconded to authorize the Township Supervisor to sign the Management Letter from Anderson Tackman and Co. MOTION CARRIED. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON APPLICATION FOR TRUST STATUS FOR LAND IN CHOCOLAY TOWNSHIP. Manager Lawry informed the Board that the letter from the Bureau of Indian Affairs seeks Township comments on an application filed recently by the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community to place three parcels of property they own near the Ojibwa II Casino into trust status with the United States government. The land constitutes all of the tribal land surrounding the present casino and housing development that is not presently in trust and includes several forested parcels zoned for residential development and one small commercial parcel. The casino expansion project currently under design is anticipated to expand into portions of Parcel “C” and may lead to the development of support facilities on any of these parcels. The extent, layout, and construction project are not yet known, but improvements on land that does not have trust status would generate property taxes to local government jurisdictions. He did notify MARESA and MAPS about the request. They would like our comments forwarded. The Township has three options - decline to comment at all, oppose the project and hope that new developments will create tax revenue or support the planners of this project and comment to put the property into Trust. Jennifer Misegan, Council V.P – Introduced Jason Ayres, Real Estate Director Officer, Bernie Blaker, Housing Authority, Daniel Web, Attorney, and Larry Denomie, Chief Executive Officer. Jason Ayres, Real Estate Director- There are some proposed changes in land use for the hotel and retail space. Larry Denomie, Chief Executive Officer- the proposed project will include a 75 room hotel, restaurant, a new facility for gaming and a 1200 seat entertainment venue. Infrastructure will include a drain field and two new wells. Expanding the number of housing units to include three town houses, two single unit and one double unit apartment type town houses. The project will still move forward if the Trust status does not change. We hope to get Township Board support in our activities out there to continue to potentially increase the 2% money and also increase employment in Chocolay Township. Clerk Engle commented that we have received two complaints from residents about water issues that occurred after the two existing wells were put in place. The Board would like more

8

information about the two replacement wells. Trustee Maki would like this information to go to the Planning Commission. Larry Denomie, indicated that they have not submitted their rezoning application for the non-trust land yet because they are waiting for engineering drawings. We want to work with the Township and will get any information the Township needs. Manager Lawry pointed out that actual development plans are not required with a rezoning application. The rezoning should not be made for a specific plan because the rezoning should be based on the best potential use of the land. Engle moved Zyburt seconded to request a 30 day extension from the date of December 17, 2016 to gather more information on the project. MOTION CARRIED. KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY PROPOSAL FOR WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS. Manager Lawry noted that the Keweenaw Bay Indian Council will have excess capacity in the water system they are developing. They have made an offer to share the excess capacity with the Township. They have requested that Chocolay Township act as a pass through agency for the funding of the elevated water storage tank. This tank will at a minimum provide water for our fire department and in the future possibly provide water for residents in the area. Currently we have no way to finance a public water system for the residents in this area. They propose to fund us the money with a single payment under the 2% money and ask us to forward the money onto the contractor. Manager Lawry read a USGA Hydrologic water study that was done 16 years ago for KBIC showing the effects of the two wells. The study shows water flow and rock structure in the area and basically indicated that the residential area of Kawbawgam should not be affected. There are a couple of areas off M-28 with shallow rock bed that could potentially be affected. Trustee Lynch asked why the map does not show properties along the lake to be considered to be serviced with water. Manager Lawry explained that distance of the run would be over 1000 feet and would not be practical. Trustee Lynch asked if as a resident in that area, he should abstain from voting on this issue. Engle moved Lynch seconded to act as a pass through agency to pay for the water storage tank and that Keweenaw Bay Indian Council will cover the expense of the water tank with a 2% money payment for us to pay the contractor. MOTION CARRIED. (One no vote- White) Maki moved Engle seconded that the Board authorize up to $5,000 from the Capital Improvement Fund Water Account for engineering services that might be required to quantify some of the costs involved. ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, Rhein, Zyburt, Engle, Bohjanen.

9

NAYS: White. ABSTAIN: Lynch. MOTION CARRIED. Zyburt moved Rhein seconded to allow Trustee Lynch to abstain from the above motion. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION AMENDING GENERAL FUND FY 2016 - BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 4 BOARD OF REVIEW SALARY ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENT. Maki moved Lynch seconded that Whereas, a budget was adopted by the Chocolay Township Board to govern the expenditures of anticipated general fund receipts within the township On November 4, 2015, for the next fiscal year, and, Whereas, as a result of unanticipated changes in revenues and/or needed expenditures, it is necessary to modify the aforesaid budget between revenues and expenditures, Now Therefore, Be It Hereby Resolved, that the aforesaid budget be hereby modified as follows: EXPENDITURE PREVIOUS CHANGE AMENDED

101.247.710 $1620.00 +$ 480.00 $2100.00 Board of Review Per Meeting Compensation 101.202.705 $5000.00 -$ 480.00 $4520.00 Assessing Temporary & Part Time ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, Rhein, White, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle, Bohjanen. NAYS: None. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND DOLLARS FOR REPLACEMENT OF A POLICE DEPARTMENT DESK. Lynch moved Zyburt seconded to approve the purchase of an office desk for the Police Department with a cost not to exceed $1,000. This will be paid from the Capital Improvements Fund –Police Equipment account 401.305.977. ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, Rhein, White, Lynch, Zyburt, Engle, Bohjanen. NAYS: None. MOTION CARRIED. MARQUETTE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY DECISION REVIEW. Engle moved Zyburt seconded that the County of Marquette remain as a constituent municipality of the Marquette County Solid Waste Management Authority Intergovernmental Agreement. MOTION CARRIED.

10

Clerk Engle feels that the Marquette County Solid Waste Management Authority does not have the right to alter the Intergovernmental Agreement. The constituent members should vote to make changes to the Agreement. TOWNSHIP MANAGER’S ANNUAL EVALUATION. The Board should complete and turn in the Manager evaluation by December 19, 2016. The evaluations will be compiled and put on the January 2017 agenda.

PUBLIC COMMENT. Jennifer Misegan, KBIC Council V.P. – Thanked the Board for their time tonight and reassured the Board that they will draw up a memorandum of agreement regarding the water tower and how the repayment will be made with 2% money and that the Township will continue to receive 2% as in the past. Trustee Maki welcomed Richard Bohjanen as the new Township Supervisor. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS.

A. Minutes – Chocolay Township Planning Commission, Regular Meeting of October 17th, 2016.

B. Minutes – Marquette Area Wastewater Treatment Authority, Regular Meeting of October 20th, 2016.

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

November 9th, 2016, Draft. D. Minutes – Marquette County Township Association, Regular Meeting of September

28th, 2016, Draft. E. Correspondence – Michigan Liquor Control Commission Regarding Transfer of SDM

License for BFE Enterprises, LLC. Supervisor Bohjanen adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. ________________________ _________________________ 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:

8:34 amTime:

12/06/2016Date:

Void/Stop Date

RANGE BANK Checks

128.72 MISC MAINTENANCE & STAINACE HARDWARE2540Printed12/06/2016 21436

465.39 ELECTRICITY 9/29 -10/31ALGER-DELTA CO-OPERATIVE2003Printed12/06/2016 21437

73.50 NAMEPLATESAMERICAN NAMEPLATE 2535Printed12/06/2016 21438

300.74 LEASE LINESAT&T2007Printed 12/06/2016 21439 171.70 CALIBRATE LIFT STATIONB & M TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. 4951Printed12/06/2016 21440

10.50 CORRESPONDENCEBENSINGER, COTANT, & MENKES,PC

1616Printed12/06/2016 21441

579.11 FIELD PAINTBSN SPORTS4186Printed12/06/2016 21442

289.90 LEASE LINESCHARTER COMMUNICATIONS1934Printed12/06/2016 21443

47,250.07 BOND PAYMENT & OCTOBER

WASTEWACITY OF MARQUETTE 2104Printed12/06/2016 21444

40.00 REATTACH CABELS TO MODEMEL COM SYSTEMS1413Printed12/06/2016 21445

494.75 2 PAIR WORKBOOTS 1 WORK JACKET

GETZ'S2563Printed12/06/2016 21446

1,178.47 GAS OCTOBERHOLIDAY COMPANIES1445Printed12/06/2016 21447

51.68 SHREDDING ELECTION MATERIALLAKESTATE INDUSTRIES4939Printed12/06/2016 21448

113.99 TOOLS & SUPPLIESLOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC.4058Printed12/06/2016 21449

9.99 BURLAPMARES-Z-DOATS FEED 3234Printed12/06/2016 21450

3,315.08 ELECTRICITY 10/10 - 11/7MARQUETTE BD OF LIGHT &

POWER2002Printed12/06/2016 21451

342.84 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIESMENARDS2583Printed12/06/2016 21452

1,536.12 PENSION BOARD & COMM & FIREMIDAMERICA ADMINISTRATIVE & 1104Printed12/06/2016 21453

158.77 NAME BAR & UNIFORM PANTSNYE UNIFORM COMPANY2533Printed12/06/2016 21454

45.00 TOPSOILOBERSTAR4823Printed12/06/2016 21455

591.20 TIRESPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE, INC.1437Printed12/06/2016 21456

27.45 MISS DIG DECEMBERRANGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS2004Printed12/06/2016 21457

23.54 VAN ACCESS SIGNRENT-A-FLASH 2516Printed12/06/2016 21458

252.05 GAS 9/30 -10/31SEMCO ENERGY GAS COMPANY 2001Printed12/06/2016 21459

25.17 PAINTSHERWIN WILLIAMS2208Printed12/06/2016 21460

593.38 NOVEMBER LIFE, LTD, STD & AD&DSTANDARD INSURANCE

COMPANY2918Printed12/06/2016 21461

354.24 MILEAGE 656 @ .54STEVE LAWRY4809Printed12/06/2016 21462

17.00 VEST REPAIRTHE STITCH WITCH LLC4974Printed12/06/2016 21463

19.39 SHIPPINGTHE UPS STORE #53564025Printed12/06/2016 21464

451.88 REIMB LASER SITE & THERMO CAMTONY CARRICK4845Printed12/06/2016 21465

407.42 FUEL HAMMERDRILLTOTAL TOOL4826Printed12/06/2016 21466

136.05 COPY PAPERU P OFFICE EQUIPMENT

SYSTEMS1707Printed12/06/2016 21467

140.00 PICK & DELIVERY CHARGE FORU P TRACTOR, INC.4971Printed12/06/2016 21468

165.50 DECEMBER VISION INSURANCEVSP-VISION SERVICE PLAN4997Printed12/06/2016 21469

59,760.59 Checks Total (excluding void checks): 34Total Checks:

General Fund $ 9,964.59 Capital Imp. Fund $ 135.03 Wastewater Fund $49,660.97

Total $59,760.59

VIII.A.1

Chocolay Township


Check Date

Check Number

StatusAmount

BANK:

Vendor Number


RANGE BANK 1Page:

2:15 pmTime:

12/15/2016Date:

Void/Stop Date

RANGE BANK Checks

28.33 MISC MAINTENANCEACE HARDWARE2540Printed12/15/2016 21470

456.26 ELEC LIONS FIELD &STREET LIGHTALGER-DELTA CO-OPERATIVE2003Printed12/15/2016 21471

112.00 BRONZE PLAQUEAMERICAN NAMEPLATE 2535Printed12/15/2016 21472

487.95 SEWER LEASE LINES & TELEPHONECHARTER COMMUNICATIONS1934Printed12/15/2016 21473

1,600.00 OTHER COMPENSATION

BUDGETED

CHOCOLAY TWP. VOL. FIRE.

DEPT.2117Printed12/15/2016 21474

3,822.61 WASTEWATER NOVEMBERCITY OF MARQUETTE 2104Printed12/15/2016 21475

412.50 REIMB MQT CO ROAD ATLASGARY JOHNSON3306Printed12/15/2016 21476

1,498.00 GIS SERVICESGEI CONSULTANTS5034Printed12/15/2016 21477

226.00 REIMB PHYSICAL FITNESSGERALD TROTOCHAUD3900Printed12/15/2016 21478

12,385.68 CONTRACT DUEGEROU EXCAVATING5023Printed12/15/2016 21479

8,757.61 RESIDENTIAL REFUSE DECEMBER &

GREAT AMERICAN DISPOSAL2217Printed12/15/2016 21480

998.17 GAS NOVEMBERHOLIDAY COMPANIES1445Printed12/15/2016 21481

10.00 REIMB FOR MCLEAA DUESJENNIFER STANAWAY4838Printed12/15/2016 21482

1,038.50 RE-ROUTE WIRING FIREHALLJP ELECTRIC PROFESSIONALS, INC

4004Printed12/15/2016 21483

67.90 GAS NOVEMBERKRIST OIL COMPANY5000Printed12/15/2016 21484

722.50 FIRE EXTINGUISHERSLAMMI FIRE PRETECTION, INC.5033Printed12/15/2016 21485

18.03 DRILLLOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC.4058Printed12/15/2016 21486

3,798.82 LANDFILL NOVEMBERMARQUETTE COUNTY SOLID

WASTE2150Printed12/15/2016 21487

451.77 TOOLS & MAINTENANCE SUPPLIESMENARDS2583Printed12/15/2016 21488

149.00 NEW OFFICIAL TRAININGMICHIGAN TOWNSHIPS ASSOCIATION

2105Printed12/15/2016 21489

119.27 LATEX GLOVESMICROFLEX2575Printed12/15/2016 21490

52.20 LEGAL ADMINING JOURNAL1301Printed12/15/2016 21491

88.21 OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT2528Printed12/15/2016 21492

314.43 BUNKER BOOTSPOMASL FIRE EQUIPMENT1408Printed12/15/2016 21493

537.16 TIRES DODGE & BALANCE TAHOEPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE, INC.1437Printed12/15/2016 21494

360.10 CAMERA, CABINET, CLASS & ELECRANGE BANK CARDMEMBER

SERVICES1105Printed12/15/2016 21495

9,886.55 HEALTH INSURANCE JANUARYSBAM PLAN - GROTENHUIS BCBS 2200Printed12/15/2016 21496

400.00 PUMP 2 VAULTSSODERGREN SEPTIC SERVICE2238Printed12/15/2016 21497

370.50 ANNUAL MAINTENANCESPS STRATIGIC PRODUCTS &

SERVI2022Printed12/15/2016 21498

5,000.00 2016 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPSUPERIOR WATERSHED

PARTNERSHIP2130Printed12/15/2016 21499

335.63 COPIER CONTRACTU P OFFICE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS

1707Printed12/15/2016 21500

177.32 BROADBAND & CELL PHONESVERIZON4183Printed12/15/2016 21501


General Fund $37,407.96 Capital Imp Fund $12,454.83 Wastewater Fund $ 4,820.21

Total $54,683.00

VIII.A.2

Chocolay Township


Check Date

Check Number

StatusAmount

BANK:

Vendor Number


RANGE BANK 1Page:

3:24 pmTime:

12/29/2016Date:

Void/Stop Date

RANGE BANK Checks

3,362.41 COMPUTER EQUIPMENTAMAZON.COM5035Printed12/29/2016 21502

495.00 HOUSING FOR CHIEFS

CONFERENCEAMWAY GRAND PLAZA HOTEL 3001Printed12/29/2016 21503

10.50 LEGAL FEES DECEMBERBENSINGER, COTANT, &

MENKES,PC1616Printed12/29/2016 21504

1,279.20 PAGERSEL COM SYSTEMS1413Printed12/29/2016 21505

490.74 BRAKES 2004 CHEVGOODWIN'S GENERAL AUTO

REPAIR1596Printed12/29/2016 21506

3,505.40 ELECTRICITY 11/7 - 12/8MARQUETTE BD OF LIGHT &

POWER2002Printed12/29/2016 21507

123.75 PERSONAL PROPERTY

STATEMENTSMARQUETTE COUNTY2114Printed12/29/2016 21508

330.56 TOOLSMENARDS2583Printed12/29/2016 21509

255.00 2017 CONFERENCEMICHIGAN ASSOC. OF CHIEFS 2122Printed12/29/2016 21510

115.00 MEMBERSHIPMICHIGAN ASSOC. OF CHIEFS 2122Printed12/29/2016 21511

917.18 OFFICE EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT2528Printed12/29/2016 21512

2,648.68 BOOTS,AMPLIFIER,HEADLAMP,POMASL FIRE EQUIPMENT1408Printed12/29/2016 21513

209.99 LION'S FIELD PROJECTSANDERS & CZAPSKI

ASSOCIATES4944Printed12/29/2016 21514

250.00 PHYSICAL FITNESSSCOTT JENNINGS 3208Printed12/29/2016 21515

709.55 GAS 10/31 - 12/1SEMCO ENERGY GAS COMPANY2001Printed12/29/2016 21516

65.00 SKATE RINK RULESSIGNS UNLIMITED3964Printed12/29/2016 21517

530.05 LTD,STD, AD& D & LIFESTANDARD INSURANCE

COMPANY2918Printed12/29/2016 21518

292.72 CHRISTMAS BENEFITSUPER ONE FOODS3959Printed12/29/2016 21519

175.00 CAR WASH TOKENSSUPERIOR FAST LUBE & WASH1505Printed12/29/2016 21520

1,339.95 ANNUAL FURNACE SERVICESWAILES PLUMBING & HEATING4989Printed12/29/2016 21521

804.56 TASER CARTRIDGES & BATTERIESTASER INTERNATIONAL3991Printed12/29/2016 21522

50.43 SHIPPINGTHE UPS STORE #53564025Printed12/29/2016 21523

50.00 SERVICE CALLWOLVERINE DOOR SERVICE 2503Printed12/29/2016 21524


General Fund $13,415.68 Capital Imp Fund $ 3,572.40 Wastewater Fund $ 1,022.59

Total $18,010.67

VIII.A.3

Chocolay Township Payroll

Date Amount Check Numbers

December 1, 2016 17,736.39$ 23563-23580

2,623.62$ 10406-10411

7,038.67$ Federal ACH

965.13$ Michigan ACH

3,259.93$ Mers ACH Employer/Employee

31,623.74$ Total Payroll

December 2, 2016 2,505.32$ 23581-23592

Longevity Pay 589.65$ Federal ACH

91.11$ Michigan ACH

378.75$ Mers ACH Employer/Employee


December 15,02016 18,185.58$ 23593-23610

2,403.53$ 10412-10417


976.97$ Michigan ACH



December 29, 2016 20,335.79$ 23611-23645

17,903.53$ 10418-10423


1,083.55$ Michigan ACH



VIII.B

Chocolay Township

12/15/2016 Page: 1

3:05 pm

% Bud UnencBal Encumb. YTD CURR MTH YTD Actual Amended Bud. Original Bud. For the Period: 1/2/2016 to 11/30/2016

REVENUE REPORT

Fund: 101 - GENERAL FUND

Revenues

Dept: 000.000

402.000 PROPERTY TAXES 738,000.00 738,000.00 743,407.11 0.00 -5,407.11 100.7 0.00 446.000 PENALTIES & INTEREST 800.00 800.00 454.36 0.00 345.64 56.8 0.00 487.000 TRAILER PARK FEES 600.00 600.00 472.50 0.00 127.50 78.8 0.00 504.000 ZONING PERMIT FEES 5,000.00 5,000.00 3,770.00 0.00 1,230.00 75.4 85.00 511.000 ANIMAL LICENSES 200.00 200.00 292.00 0.00 -92.00 146.0 0.00 540.000 OTHER GRANTS 0.00 0.00 600.00 0.00 -600.00 0.0 0.00 543.000 STATE OF MICHIGAN 3,500.00 3,500.00 4,888.89 0.00 -1,388.89 139.7 0.00 545.000 LIQUOR INSPECTION FEE 2,900.00 2,900.00 1,200.00 0.00 1,700.00 41.4 0.00 565.000 STATE REVENUE SHARING 466,000.00 466,000.00 454,425.00 0.00 11,575.00 97.5 79,510.00 579.000 PAYMENT IN LIEU 11,000.00 11,000.00 14,960.42 0.00 -3,960.42 136.0 0.00 582.000 KBIC 2% GAMING MONEY 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 100.0 0.00 583.000 FRANCHISE FEES 81,000.00 81,000.00 63,324.81 0.00 17,675.19 78.2 0.00 585.000 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 5,400.00 5,400.00 7,591.95 0.00 -2,191.95 140.6 0.00 618.000 TAX COLLECTION FEES 48,000.00 48,000.00 49,441.74 0.00 -1,441.74 103.0 167.57 640.000 REFUSE COLLECTION 140,000.00 140,000.00 154,755.00 0.00 -14,755.00 110.5 16,020.00 645.000 RECYCLING REV 3,000.00 3,000.00 2,614.61 0.00 385.39 87.2 0.00 651.000 LANDFILL ADMIN FEE 800.00 800.00 5,256.00 0.00 -4,456.00 657.0 372.00 660.000 ORDINANCE FINES 12,500.00 12,500.00 10,149.47 0.00 2,350.53 81.2 397.65 673.000 INTEREST INCOME 1,000.00 1,000.00 5,395.50 0.00 -4,395.50 539.6 0.00 674.000 INTEREST ON LOAN 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 100.0 0.00 678.000 REIMBURSEMENT FOR PROP TAXES 0.00 0.00 1,523.93 0.00 -1,523.93 0.0 0.00 693.000 TAX COLLECTION REIMBURSEMENT 8,500.00 8,500.00 8,357.50 0.00 142.50 98.3 0.00 695.000 TRANSFER FROM FUND BALANCE 129,000.00 129,000.00 0.00 0.00 129,000.00 0.0 0.00 698.000 MISCELLANEOUS 20,300.00 29,164.28 32,256.13 0.00 -3,091.85 110.6 1,366.85

1,679,000.00 1,692,864.28 1,571,636.92 0.00 121,227.36 97,919.07 92.8 Dept: 000.000

Revenues 1,679,000.00 1,692,864.28 1,571,636.92 0.00 121,227.36 97,919.07 92.8

Fund: 206 - FIRE DEPARTMENT MILLAGE

Revenues

Dept: 000.000

402.000 PROPERTY TAXES 331,000.00 331,000.00 332,408.72 0.00 -1,408.72 100.4 0.00 446.000 PENALTIES & INTEREST 0.00 0.00 1.31 0.00 -1.31 0.0 0.00 673.000 INTEREST INCOME 0.00 0.00 42.51 0.00 -42.51 0.0 0.00

331,000.00 331,000.00 332,452.54 0.00 -1,452.54 0.00 100.4 Dept: 000.000

Revenues 331,000.00 331,000.00 332,452.54 0.00 -1,452.54 0.00 100.4

Fund: 212 - LIQUOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

Revenues

Dept: 000.000

543.000 STATE OF MICHIGAN 2,900.00 2,900.00 2,951.85 0.00 -51.85 101.8 0.00

2,900.00 2,900.00 2,951.85 0.00 -51.85 0.00 101.8 Dept: 000.000

Revenues 2,900.00 2,900.00 2,951.85 0.00 -51.85 0.00 101.8

Fund: 271 - LIBRARY MILLAGE FUND

Revenues

Dept: 790.000 LIBRARY

402.000 PROPERTY TAXES 148,000.00 148,000.00 148,842.03 0.00 -842.03 100.6 0.00

148,000.00 148,000.00 148,842.03 0.00 -842.03 0.00 100.6 LIBRARY

Revenues 148,000.00 148,000.00 148,842.03 0.00 -842.03 0.00 100.6

Fund: 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND

Revenues

IX.A

Chocolay Township 12/15/2016

Page: 2

3:05 pm


REVENUE REPORT

Fund: 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Revenues

Dept: 000.000 540.000 OTHER GRANTS 0.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 100.0 0.00 543.000 STATE OF MICHIGAN 0.00 503.15 27,934.36 0.00 -27,431.21 5551.9 26,919.96 582.000 KBIC 2% GAMING MONEY 0.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 0.00 0.00 100.0 0.00 665.000 INTEREST ON SAVINGS 1,500.00 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 0.0 0.00 669.000 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 0.00 0.00 3,751.44 0.00 -3,751.44 0.0 0.00 670.000 RENT 15,000.00 15,000.00 16,250.00 0.00 -1,250.00 108.3 0.00 676.000 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 25,000.00 25,000.00 0.00 0.00 25,000.00 0.0 0.00 698.000 MISCELLANEOUS 0.00 6,207.03 31,207.03 0.00 -25,000.00 502.8 0.00

41,500.00 90,710.18 121,642.83 0.00 -30,932.65 26,919.96 134.1 Dept: 000.000

Revenues 41,500.00 90,710.18 121,642.83 0.00 -30,932.65 26,919.96 134.1

Fund: 571 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND Revenues

Dept: 000.000 674.000 INTEREST ON LOAN 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 0.00 -1,500.00 0.0 0.00

0.00 0.00 1,500.00 0.00 -1,500.00 0.00 0.0 Dept: 000.000 Dept: 571.000 WASTEWATER TREATMENT

655.000 HOOK-UP FEES 1,750.00 1,750.00 2,210.00 0.00 -460.00 126.3 0.00 656.000 USER'S FEES 273,600.00 273,600.00 280,130.54 0.00 -6,530.54 102.4 1,022.63 657.000 SINKING FUND FEES 9,120.00 9,120.00 9,364.29 0.00 -244.29 102.7 36.57 673.000 INTEREST INCOME 3,030.00 3,030.00 5,409.50 0.00 -2,379.50 178.5 0.00 695.000 TRANSFER FROM FUND BALANCE 49,500.00 49,500.00 0.00 0.00 49,500.00 0.0 0.00 698.000 MISCELLANEOUS 0.00 0.00 4,943.66 0.00 -4,943.66 0.0 153.44

337,000.00 337,000.00 302,057.99 0.00 34,942.01 1,212.64 89.6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT

Revenues 337,000.00 337,000.00 303,557.99 0.00 33,442.01 1,212.64 90.1

2,539,400.00 2,602,474.46 2,481,084.16 126,051.67 0.00 121,390.30 Grand Total Net Effect:


Page: 3

3:06 pm


EXPENDITURE REPORT

Fund: 101 - GENERAL FUND Expenditures

81,000.00 81,000.00 60,581.20 0.00 20,418.80 5,111.19 74.8 TOWNSHIP BOARD

45,900.00 45,900.00 16,232.13 0.00 29,667.87 1,492.38 35.4 TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR

18,000.00 25,699.33 22,709.04 0.00 2,990.29 5,125.29 88.4 ELECTION DEPARTMENT

73,000.00 73,000.00 52,932.65 0.00 20,067.35 4,225.38 72.5 ASSESSOR

100,600.00 101,483.03 86,757.74 0.00 14,725.29 7,455.54 85.5 CLERK

2,400.00 2,400.00 2,396.51 0.00 3.49 0.00 99.9 BOARD OF REVIEW

52,500.00 52,500.00 45,355.56 0.00 7,144.44 2,967.03 86.4 TREASURER

20,500.00 20,500.00 16,570.65 0.00 3,929.35 1,446.68 80.8 TECHNOLOGY

16,000.00 16,000.00 7,637.45 0.00 8,362.55 78.28 47.7 TOWNSHIP HALL & GROUNDS

414,600.00 414,600.00 283,288.15 0.00 131,311.85 18,438.39 68.3 OTHER GENERAL GOVERNMENT

386,100.00 386,100.00 293,601.09 0.00 92,498.91 27,455.55 76.0 POLICE DEPARTMENT

121,300.00 121,300.00 72,161.83 0.00 49,138.17 5,897.74 59.5 FIRE DEPARTMENT

17,700.00 17,700.00 11,750.47 0.00 5,949.53 21.99 66.4 STREETS

162,000.00 162,000.00 136,585.12 0.00 25,414.88 13,379.46 84.3 SANITARY LANDFILL

96,100.00 101,381.92 85,872.86 0.00 15,509.06 4,901.99 84.7 RECREATION AND PROPERTIES

58,400.00 58,400.00 42,013.69 0.00 16,386.31 3,833.80 71.9 ZONING

9,700.00 9,700.00 4,053.22 0.00 5,646.78 340.00 41.8 ZONING/PLANNING COMMISSION

3,200.00 3,200.00 425.25 0.00 2,774.75 0.00 13.3 ZONING/APPEALS BOARD

Expenditures 1,679,000.00 1,692,864.28 1,240,924.61 0.00 451,939.67 102,170.69 73.3

-1,679,000.00 -1,692,864.28 -1,240,924.61 -102,170.69 0.00 -451,939.67 Grand Total Net Effect:


Page: 4

3:07 pm


EXPENDITURE REPORT

Fund: 206 - FIRE DEPARTMENT MILLAGE Expenditures

Dept: 000.000 980.000 INTEREST ON LOAN 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 100.0 0.00

3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.0 Dept: 000.000

Expenditures 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 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 1,200.00 0.00 1,700.00 41.4 0.00

2,900.00 2,900.00 1,200.00 0.00 1,700.00 0.00 41.4 LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT

Expenditures 2,900.00 2,900.00 1,200.00 0.00 1,700.00 0.00 41.4

Fund: 271 - LIBRARY MILLAGE FUND Expenditures

Dept: 790.000 LIBRARY 800.000 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 148,000.00 148,000.00 0.00 0.00 148,000.00 0.0 0.00

148,000.00 148,000.00 0.00 0.00 148,000.00 0.00 0.0 LIBRARY

Expenditures 148,000.00 148,000.00 0.00 0.00 148,000.00 0.00 0.0

Fund: 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Expenditures

Dept: 190.000 ELECTION DEPARTMENT 977.000 EQUIPMENT 23,952.43 29,452.43 2,967.07 0.00 26,485.36 10.1 0.00

23,952.43 29,452.43 2,967.07 0.00 26,485.36 0.00 10.1 ELECTION DEPARTMENT Dept: 202.000 ASSESSOR

977.000 EQUIPMENT 6,500.00 6,500.00 0.00 0.00 6,500.00 0.0 0.00

6,500.00 6,500.00 0.00 0.00 6,500.00 0.00 0.0 ASSESSOR Dept: 215.000 CLERK

977.000 EQUIPMENT 21,639.88 21,639.88 2,849.48 0.00 18,790.40 13.2 0.00

21,639.88 21,639.88 2,849.48 0.00 18,790.40 0.00 13.2 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 15,375.56 15,375.56 270.07 0.00 15,105.49 1.8 270.07

15,375.56 15,375.56 270.07 0.00 15,105.49 270.07 1.8 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 13,500.55 0.00 0.00 13,500.55 0.0 0.00

22,500.55 22,500.55 0.00 0.00 22,500.55 0.00 0.0 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 37,562.03 37,562.03 0.00 0.00 37,562.03 0.0 0.00 981.000 VEHICLES 45,542.30 58,643.27 12,734.00 0.00 45,909.27 21.7 0.00


Page: 5

3:07 pm


EXPENDITURE REPORT


83,104.33 96,205.30 12,734.00 0.00 83,471.30 0.00 13.2 POLICE DEPARTMENT Dept: 306.000 POLICE TRAINING

957.000 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,198.89 1,702.04 900.00 0.00 802.04 52.9 0.00

1,198.89 1,702.04 900.00 0.00 802.04 0.00 52.9 POLICE TRAINING Dept: 340.000 FIRE DEPARTMENT

972.000 LAND IMPROVEMENTS 32,570.00 36,570.00 0.00 0.00 36,570.00 0.0 0.00 976.000 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 9,223.22 9,223.22 8,102.57 0.00 1,120.65 87.8 0.00 977.000 EQUIPMENT 81,728.96 81,728.96 10,000.00 0.00 71,728.96 12.2 0.00 981.000 VEHICLES 57,507.61 67,507.61 6,749.47 0.00 60,758.14 10.0 0.00

181,029.79 195,029.79 24,852.04 0.00 170,177.75 0.00 12.7 FIRE DEPARTMENT 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 11,013.19 12,707.04 0.00 0.00 12,707.04 0.0 0.00

11,013.19 12,707.04 0.00 0.00 12,707.04 0.00 0.0 STREETS Dept: 440.001 HEALTHY COMM-CHERRY CREEK BIKE


5,666.67 5,666.67 0.00 0.00 5,666.67 0.00 0.0 HEALTHY COMM-CHERRY CREEK BIKE Dept: 526.000 SANITARY LANDFILL

977.000 EQUIPMENT 57,673.92 59,586.13 0.00 0.00 59,586.13 0.0 0.00

57,673.92 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 10,000.00 11,000.00 4,785.00 0.00 6,215.00 43.5 0.00

25,164.56 26,164.56 4,785.00 0.00 21,379.56 0.00 18.3 MARINA Dept: 591.000 WATER DEPARTMENT


22,055.00 22,055.00 0.00 0.00 22,055.00 0.00 0.0 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

972.000 LAND IMPROVEMENTS 98,300.00 98,300.00 83,808.90 0.00 14,491.10 85.3 17,106.70

98,300.00 98,300.00 83,808.90 0.00 14,491.10 17,106.70 85.3 MDNRTF LION'S FIELD TRAILHEAD Dept: 708.003 TENNIS COURT FUNDING

972.000 LAND IMPROVEMENTS 0.00 27,500.00 0.00 0.00 27,500.00 0.0 0.00

0.00 27,500.00 0.00 0.00 27,500.00 0.00 0.0 TENNIS COURT FUNDING Dept: 708.004 BEAVER GROVE BALLFIELD

972.000 LAND IMPROVEMENTS 0.00 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.00 0.0 0.00

0.00 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


Page: 6

3:07 pm


EXPENDITURE REPORT


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 53,203.55 35,703.55 0.00 0.00 35,703.55 0.0 0.00 977.000 EQUIPMENT 18,877.05 18,877.05 6,749.48 0.00 12,127.57 35.8 0.00

72,080.60 54,580.60 6,749.48 0.00 47,831.12 0.00 12.4 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 1,949.39 133,119.20 0.00 0.00 133,119.20 0.0 0.00

1,949.39 133,119.20 0.00 0.00 133,119.20 0.00 0.0 MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING

Expenditures 750,311.39 930,691.38 139,916.04 0.00 790,775.34 17,376.77 15.0

Fund: 571 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND Expenditures

Dept: 285.000 OTHER GENERAL GOVERNMENT 926.000 PENSION 6,280.00 6,280.00 5,325.73 0.00 954.27 84.8 471.58 945.000 SOCIAL SECURITY EXPENSE 4,800.00 4,800.00 4,052.80 0.00 747.20 84.4 353.79

11,080.00 11,080.00 9,378.53 0.00 1,701.47 825.37 84.6 OTHER GENERAL GOVERNMENT Dept: 571.000 WASTEWATER TREATMENT

702.000 SALARIES 63,991.00 63,991.00 53,236.25 0.00 10,754.75 83.2 4,715.76 715.000 TRAINING 500.00 500.00 120.00 0.00 380.00 24.0 0.00 727.000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 800.00 800.00 674.93 0.00 125.07 84.4 0.00 742.000 VEHICLE OPERATIONS 3,700.00 3,700.00 1,521.72 0.00 2,178.28 41.1 0.00 778.000 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1,050.00 1,050.00 539.98 0.00 510.02 51.4 0.00 801.000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,945.00 11,945.00 4,571.70 0.00 7,373.30 38.3 44.15 853.000 TELEPHONE 3,170.00 3,170.00 2,635.75 0.00 534.25 83.1 39.21 910.000 INSURANCE & BONDS 11,187.00 11,187.00 7,144.00 0.00 4,043.00 63.9 0.00 920.000 UTILITIES 10,200.00 10,200.00 7,668.90 0.00 2,531.10 75.2 0.00 925.000 HEALTH INSURANCE 12,005.00 12,005.00 11,575.05 0.00 429.95 96.4 830.12 930.000 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 7,400.00 7,400.00 1,891.44 0.00 5,508.56 25.6 1,105.67 951.000 CONTINGENCY 15,000.00 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 15,000.00 0.0 0.00 956.000 MISCELLANEOUS 1,500.00 1,500.00 296.76 0.00 1,203.24 19.8 0.00 958.000 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE 55,000.00 55,000.00 40,648.40 0.00 14,351.60 73.9 0.00 964.000 UTILITIES S F III 118,472.00 118,472.00 31,072.60 0.00 87,399.40 26.2 0.00 966.000 LOSS FROM MAWTF 25,000.00 25,000.00 0.00 0.00 25,000.00 0.0 0.00 967.000 DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE -55,000.00 -55,000.00 0.00 0.00 -55,000.00 0.0 0.00 970.000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 40,000.00 40,000.00 28,188.75 0.00 11,811.25 70.5 0.00

325,920.00 325,920.00 191,786.23 0.00 134,133.77 6,734.91 58.8 WASTEWATER TREATMENT

Expenditures 337,000.00 337,000.00 201,164.76 0.00 135,835.24 7,560.28 59.7

-1,241,211.39 -1,421,591.38 -345,280.80 -24,937.05 0.00 -1,076,310.58 Grand Total Net Effect:

Chocolay Township

Page: 7 12/15/2016

3:08 pm

BALANCE SHEET

As of: 11/30/2016 Balances

Fund: 101 - GENERAL FUND Assets

106,664.01 014.000 CASH - CHECKING 996,039.51 016.000 CASH - INVESTMENTS

50.00 018.000 CASH - PETTY CASH 150.00 019.000 CASH - CHANGE -34.56 020.000 CURRENT TAXES RECEIVABLE

108.20 026.000 DELINQUENT TAXES RECEIVABLE 157,346.00 040.000 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE

2,000.00 068.000 DUE FROM TAX COLLECTION 1,000.00 070.000 DUE FROM TRUST & AGENCY FUND

10,658.02 100.000 PREPAID HEALTH 262,000.00 190.000 DUE FROM FIRE LOAN

1,535,981.18 Total Assets

Liabilities

46.40 340.000 DEFERRED REVENUES

46.40 Total Liabilities

Reserves/Balances

1,205,222.47 390.000 FUND BALANCE 330,712.31 398.000 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

1,535,934.78 Total Reserves/Balances

Total Liabilities & Balances 1,535,981.18

Fund: 204 - ROAD MILLAGE Assets

773.50 014.000 CASH - CHECKING

773.50 Total Assets

Liabilities

1,031.31 340.000 DEFERRED REVENUES

1,031.31 Total Liabilities

Reserves/Balances

-257.81 390.000 FUND BALANCE

-257.81 Total Reserves/Balances

Total Liabilities & Balances 773.50

Fund: 206 - FIRE DEPARTMENT MILLAGE Assets


-15.49 020.000 CURRENT TAXES RECEIVABLE 43.08 026.000 DELINQUENT TAXES RECEIVABLE

Chocolay Township

Page: 8 12/15/2016

3:08 pm

BALANCE SHEET


Fund: 206 - FIRE DEPARTMENT MILLAGE

11,636.07 Total Assets

Liabilities

262,000.00 300.101 DUE TO GEN-LOAN 20.83 340.000 DEFERRED REVENUES


Reserves/Balances

-579,837.30 390.000 FUND BALANCE 329,452.54 398.000 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

-250,384.76 Total Reserves/Balances

Total Liabilities & Balances 11,636.07

Fund: 212 - LIQUOR LAW ENFORCEMENT Assets

1,877.40 014.000 CASH - CHECKING


Reserves/Balances

125.55 390.000 FUND BALANCE 1,751.85 398.000 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

1,877.40 Total Reserves/Balances


Fund: 265 - DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT MONEY Assets

370.45 014.000 CASH - CHECKING

370.45 Total Assets

Reserves/Balances

370.45 390.000 FUND BALANCE

370.45 Total Reserves/Balances

Total Liabilities & Balances 370.45

Fund: 271 - LIBRARY MILLAGE FUND Assets

124,289.02 020.000 CURRENT TAXES RECEIVABLE 24,562.35 100.000 PREPAID HEALTH


Liabilities

9.34 340.000 DEFERRED REVENUES

Chocolay Township

Page: 9 12/15/2016

3:08 pm

BALANCE SHEET


Fund: 271 - LIBRARY MILLAGE FUND

9.34 Total Liabilities

Reserves/Balances

148,842.03 398.000 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE



Fund: 401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Assets



Reserves/Balances

839,981.20 390.000 FUND BALANCE -18,273.21 398.000 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE



Fund: 571 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND Assets

168,258.83 014.000 CASH - CHECKING 1,427,000.00 016.000 CASH - INVESTMENTS

50.00 018.000 CASH - PETTY CASH 95,328.60 040.000 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 17,944.88 043.000 DELINQUENT USER & PENALTY FEES

771.89 100.000 PREPAID HEALTH 5,555.00 130.000 LAND

63,994.31 140.000 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT -66,143.31 141.000 DEPRECIATION - M & E

2,121,367.94 149.000 SEWER FACILITIES -1,758,288.14 151.000 DEPRECIATION - FACILITIES

313,937.00 152.000 SEWER FACILITY III 24,598.78 199.000 DEFERRED OUTFLOWS REL. PENSION

2,414,375.78 Total Assets

Liabilities

3,000.00 202.000 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE


Reserves/Balances

12,414.58 344.000 NET PENSION LIABILITY 2,296,567.97 390.000 FUND BALANCE

102,393.23 398.000 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE

2,411,375.78 Total Reserves/Balances

Chocolay Township

Page: 10 12/15/2016

3:08 pm

BALANCE SHEET


Total Liabilities & Balances 2,414,375.78

Fund: 701 - TRUST AND AGENCY FUND Assets

58,878.94 012.000 HRA-CASH 2,311.45 014.000 CASH - CHECKING


Liabilities

535.50 220.000 DUE TO COUNTY 115.00 233.000 DUE TO GENERAL FUND

1,000.00 233.001 DUE TO GEN FUND FLOAT/INTEREST 58,878.94 234.000 HRA-DUE TO OTHERS

111.00 235.000 DUE TO PLAT BOOKS 549.95 238.000 DUE TO LANDFILL-CONTRACTOR PMT



Fund: 705 - TAX COLLECTION FUND Assets

1,542.67 014.000 CASH - CHECKING 346,835.42 040.000 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE


Liabilities

2,520.41 217.000 DUE TO TRAILS 113,821.11 220.000 DUE TO COUNTY 151,488.84 221.000 DUE TO FIRE MILLAGE FUND

36.08 223.000 DUE TO LIBRARY 792,329.03 225.000 DUE TO SCHOOLS -558,000.81 228.000 DUE TO STATE -155,816.57 233.000 DUE TO GENERAL FUND

2,000.00 233.001 DUE TO GEN FUND FLOAT/INTEREST



Chocolay Township Board

Bennett Zyburt, Treasurer

Investments

12/1/2016

Charter Township of Chocolay

Certificates of Deposit

Interest Purchase Maturity Premium

Financial Institution Amount Rate Date Date Payment

Mbank $250,000.00 0.77% 7/15/2016 2/5/2017

River Valley Bank $250,000.00 0.45% 3/10/2016 3/10/2017

CDARS $100,000.00 0.50% 6/9/2016 6/8/2017

Miners State Bank $150,000.00 0.55% 6/9/2016 6/9/2017

First bank $150,000.00 0.90% 6/9/2016 6/9/2017

1st of St. Ignace $250,000.00 0.75% 7/15/2016 7/15/2017

Stifel-United Bank of Mi $250,000.00 0.70% 8/22/2016 8/22/2017

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

Stifel-Mercantile Bank $248,000.00 1.55% 9/7/2016 8/7/2018 3,083.06$

UBS-Fed Home Loan $225,000.00 1.050% 9/15/2016 9/28/2018

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

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

Honor CU ($market ) $147,000.00 0.30% 3/21/2012

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

Total $3,212,000.00 3,083.06$

This report is as required by Public Act 20 as amended

X.A

Charter Township of ChocolayCharter Township of Chocolay

John Greenberg, TreasurerBennett Zyburt Treasurer

Monthly Account Activity Report

On November

September 30,2014 12/1/2016

For January MeetingFor January Meeting

Accounts Deposits Withdrawals

Trust & Agency $9,666.89 $9,507.12Trust & Agency

Tax Collection Savings $11,034.38 $11,033.56

Tax Collection Checking $11,033.56 $11,033.56$0.00

Forfeiture-Police $0.00 $0.00

Roads $0.00 $0.00

Fire $0.00 $0.00General

SewerGeneral $98,115.94 102.367.56

CapitalSewer $10,984.31 $7,581.05Sewer

Capital $26,919.96 $17,376.77

Liquor Enforcement $0.00 $0.00

This report is as required by Public Act 20 as amended

X.B

MEMORANDUM Charter Township of Chocolay

5010 US 41 South, Marquette, Michigan 49855

To: Chocolay Township Board From: Steve Lawry, Manager Date: December 28, 2016 Subject: Request for Trust Status for KBIC Land

BACKGROUND: Attached is the letter received last month from the Bureau of Indian Affairs requesting comments on the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community request to put acreage surrounding the present Ojibwa II Casino into trust status. The Board previously directed me to request a thirty day extension of the due date for such comments and the correspondence granting an extension until January 21, 2017 is also attached. The Marquette County Board also requested an extension of time and has not yet commented on the issue.

I have attached for the Board’s consideration the comments submitted to BIA by Governor Snyder’s office after consultation with the staff of various State departments within his administration. That consultation included the staff of the local Michigan Department of Environmental Quality office in Marquette, which would be charged with reviewing and permitting portions of the water supply and wastewater disposal systems for the proposed new gaming complex if the land retains its present non-trust status.

I have also attached the proposed footprint of the new development being proposed by KBIC. Based upon this layout the land covered by the trust application is scheduled to be improved with a 80-100 room motel with swimming pool, a 120 seat restaurant, an expanded parking lot, relocated campground, 2-3 townhomes, new wells, pumphouse, treatment filters, and a 75,000 to 100,000 gallon elevated water storage tank, new in-ground wastewater treatment system, and additional access roads. A potential future additional 100 room motel would lie approximately 50% on the subject land.

If it is assumed that the project will be constructed as planned, with or without the trust status on the land, then I believe the Board must evaluate at least three issues in determining whether it should support, oppose, or remain neutral with regard to the application to BIA. The first of these is the level of local and State control over items such as zoning, building codes, water and wastewater system design, and permitting. Under the present conditions the project will need to comply with Township zoning, building and health codes administered by Marquette County Resource Management and Health Departments, and the Michigan Departments of Environmental Quality. I believe that portions of the complex would also be subject to safety and other codes enforced by MIOSHA and other divisions of the Department of Labor, tax codes, and other State regulations. Township ordinances and State statutes will apply to activities

XIV.A.1

on the non-trust property, but Township staff, particularly the Police Department will be responsible for all law enforcement on this portion of the property. The second issue is the cost of providing services to the portion of the expanded complex lying outside of the present trust land and the confusion that will no doubt exist over jurisdiction depending upon where on the property a response is needed. Even if additional tribal officers are employed at the complex, their powers of arrest are limited to the trust portion of the property, while Township officers can arrest violators only on non-trust land. The laws that apply can differ substantially, as well. Just policing the parking lot and traffic entering and leaving the site for a major event could require additional manpower for the Township police force. Expanding the present police force by one fulltime officer is anticipated to cost approximately $100,000 per year for salary, benefits, equipment, and vehicle. Other services would need to be cut to redirect funds to this purpose. The status of the land would not affect other Township services such as the fire protection provided. The third issue to be examined is tax revenue. I have again included the sheet provided last month that lists the property taxes presently collected by various taxing authorities on the 64 acres which are the subject of the application. This information is somewhat deceiving, however, in that the property record card lists and values the property as undeveloped. In reality, there is a lighted parking lot, well, wastewater drain field, small campground, equipment building, and access road on these parcels that are subject to property tax. This oversight has apparently existed since the improvements were put into place and the Township Assessor has added a second column listing preliminary estimates of what the true taxes should be on the present improvements. Finally, a third column has been added to illustrate what the taxable value of all improvements shown on the development plan for this acreage might be after the project is completed. It must be noted that this is based upon a very rough estimate of value upon completion and could differ substantially once the improvements are constructed and may be examined in place. It should also be noted that the Township previously collected personal property tax on the slot machines in the present casino, but lost that revenue in 2014 when the total taxable value fell beneath the new $80,000 cap imposed by personal property tax reform included in Proposal 1 on the August 2014 ballot. The new casino is proposed to be outfitted with 600 slots instead of the present 375 which would make the value again subject to personal property tax if they remain leased property. However, depreciation occurs so rapidly that the value cannot be counted upon to remain above the cap on an annual basis few years. There are also other factors that the Board may wish to consider in its deliberations that are not directly affected by the trust status of the property, but may be impacted in some manner by the overall cost of development and operations. These include the overall value of the total project, the number of local jobs created and the wages paid, the caliber and size of events held at the site and the economic impact to other businesses in the Township created by the traffic generated by such events, as well as increased daily attendance. Additionally, the amount of 2% gaming funds

distributed to the Township and other local taxing authorities may be affected by whether the Township is also collecting property tax on a portion of the casino property. FISCAL EFFECTS: While there definitely are fiscal effects associated with the ultimate trust status of the property surrounding the casino, they are very difficult to estimate with any accuracy at this stage in the expansion project. Moreover, this is a decision that should be based upon much more than the fiscal effects related to the taxable value of property. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board review the attached information and formulate a response to the Bureau of Indian Affairs prior to the January 21 extended deadline. It is also suggested that comments returned to the BIA be shared with Marquette County and the Governor’s Office. ALTERNATIVE: The Board may choose not to comment at all on this issue.

XIV.A.2United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Michigan Agency 2845 Ashmun St.

IN REPLY.REFER TO

Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 49783-3732 (906) 632-6809 Phone (906) 632-0689 Fax

(877) 659-5028. TOLL FREE Realty

November 17, 2016

NOTICE OF (NON-GAMING) LAND ACQUISITION APPLICATION

Pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 25, INDIANS, Part 151, notice is given of the application filed by the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community to have real property accepted "in trust" for said applicant by the United States of America. The determination whether to acquire this property "in trust'' will be made in the exercise of discretionary authority which is vested in the Secretary of the Interior, or his authorized representative, U.S. Department of the Interior. To assist us in the exercise of this discretion, we invite your comments on the proposed acquisition. In order for the Secretary to assess the impact of the removal of the subject property from the tax rolls, and if applicable to your organization, we also request that you provide the following information:

1) If known, the annual amount of property taxes currently levied on the subject property allocated to your organization; .

2) Any special assessments, and amounts thereof, that are currently assessed against the property in support of your organization;

3) Any governmental services that are currently provided to the property by your organization; and

4) If subject to zoning, how the intended use is consistent, or inconsistent, with the zoning.

We provide the following information regarding this application:

Applicant:

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

Legal Land Description/Site Location:

Property Address: None

Tax ID Nos. Parcel A: 52-02-112-052-00; 52-02-112-053-00 Parcel B: 52-02-007-034-00; 52-02-007-046-50; 52-02-112-051-20; 52-02-112-051-30; 52-02-112-051-40; 52-02-112-048-70 Parcel C: 52-02-112-048-00; 52-02-112-048-50; 52-02-112-048-55; 52-02-112-048-70; 52-02-112-052-00; 52-02-112-053-00

Those certain pieces _or parcel of land situated and being in the Township of Chocolay, County of Marquette, and State of Michigan, more particularly described as follows:

Parcel A: Part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12, Town 47 North, Range 24 West, Chocolay Township, Marquette County, Michigan more fully described as Commencing at the East 1/4 comer of said Section. 12; thence S89°37'32"W, 1324.21' along the East-West 1/4 line of said Section to the East 1/16 line of said Section; thence S00°25'56"E, 204.76' along said 1/16 line to the Southerly Right-of-Way (R/W) line of State Highway M-28 (200' R/W) and the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing S00°25'56"E, 160.28' along said 1/16 line to the Northerly R/W line of an abandoned Railroad; thence N89°12'53"W, 241.15' along said Northerly Railroad R/W line; thence N00°25'56"W, 114.58' to said Southerly Highway R/W line; then.ce Northeasterly, 244.49' along said Highway R/W line on a 7,739.44' radius curve to the left, delta angle of and' chord bearing N80°00'56"E, 244.48' to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing .76 acres, more or less.

Parcel B: Part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12, Town 47 North, Range 24 West, and part of the West 1/2 of Section 7, Tqwn 47 North, Range 23 West, all in Chocolay Township, Marquette County, Michigan ·more fully described as BEGINNING at the East 1/4 comer of said Section 12; thence N00°26'35"W, 155.80' along the line common to said Sections 7 and 12 to the Southerly Right~of-Way (R/W) line of State Highway M-28 (variable width R/W); thence N71 °39'35"E, 173.88' along said Southerly R/W line to the Westerly R/W line of County Road 'BI' (66' R/W); thence S00°27'56"E, 239.34' along said Westerly R/WHne; thence S89°35'33"W, 165.55' to the line common to said Sections 7 and 12; thence S00°27'57"E, 361.86' along said common line to the Northerly R/W line of an abandoned Railroad (100' R/W); thence N89°12'53"W, 1024.67' along said Northerly R/W line; thence N00°25'56"W, 228.19' to said Southerly Highway R/W line; thence Northeasterly, 557.89' along said Southerly R/W line on the arc of a 7,739.44' radius curve to the left, delta angle of 04°07'49" and chord bearing N74°46'41 "E, 557.77' to the East-West 1/4 line of Section 12; thence N89°37'53"E, 484.75' along said East-West 1/4 line to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 8.85 acres, more or less.

Parcel C: Part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 and part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12, Town 47 North, Range 24 West, Chocolay Township, Marquette County, Michigan more fully described as Commencing at the East 1/4 comer of said Section 12; thence S00°27'57"E, 491.87' along the East line of said Section to the Southerly Right-of-Way (R/W) line of an abandoned railroad (100' R/W) and the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing S00°27'57"E, 366.10' along said East line; thence S89°39'18"W, 137.00'; thence S00°27'57"E, 330.00'; thence N89°32'04"E, 137.00' to 'said East line; thence S00°27'57"E, 722.67' along said East line; thence S89°39'18"W, 1325.32' to the East 1/16 line of said Section; thence S00°25'56"E, 732.01' along said 1/16 line to the South line of said Section; thence S89°39'16"W, 241.09';. along said South line; thence N00°25'56"W, ·2181.67' to said Southerly abandoned railroad R/W line; thence S89°12'53"E, 1565.94' along' said Southerly R/W line to the POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT a parcel of land more fully described as Commencing at the East 1/4 comer of said Section 12; thence S00°27'56!1E, 791.98' along the East line of said Section to the Northwest comer of the Plat of Kawbawgam Village #1 and the Northerly R/W line of a road Easement; thence S89°32'03"W, 203.00' along said Northerly R/W line to the Westerly R/W line of said Easement; thence S00°27'57"E, 20.24' along said Westerly R/W line to the EXCEPTION POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing S00°27'57"E, 150.00' along said Westerly R/W line; thence S89°39'18"W, 150.00'; thence N00°27'57"W, 150.00'; thence N89°39'18"E, 150.00' to the EXCEPTION POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 54.06 acres,, more or less.

Project Description/Proposed Land Use:

This parcel is contiguous to the Tribe's Ojibwa II Casino and a portion of the property is being used for parking. The remaining property is vacant, wooded land. No change in land use is anticipated.

As indicated above, the purpose for seekingyour comments-regarding-the prepesed trust-land acquisition --is to obtain sufficient data that would enable an analysis of the potential impact on local/state government, which may result from the removal of the subject property from the tax roll and local jurisdiction.

This notice does not constitute, or replace, a notice that might be issued for the purpose of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of (NEPA) of 1969.

Your written comments should be addressed to the Bureau of Indian Affairs office listed at the top of this notice. Any comments received within thirty days of your receipt of this notice will be considered and made a part of our record. You may be granted one (1) thirty day extension of time to furnish comments, provided you submit a written justification requesting such an extension within thirty days of receipt of this letter.

Additionally, copies of all comments will be provided to the applicant for a response. You will be notified of the decision to approve or deny the application.

If any party receiving this notice is aware of additional.governmental entities.that may be affected by the subject acquisition, please forward a copy to said party.

Should you have any questions, please contact Esther M. Johnson, Realty Officer, at the above number, ext. 3128. ·

cc: By Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested

The Honorable Rick Snyder Governor of Michigan Office of the Governor P.O. Box 30013 Lansing, MI 48909

Marquette County Commissioners 234 W. Baraga Avenue Marquette, MI 49855

Charter Township of Chocolay 5010 US 41 South Marquette,MI49855

cc: By regular mail

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Warren C. Swartz, Jr., President 16429 Beartown Road Baraga, MI 49908

CertifiedMailNo. 70131710000104926749

Certified Mail No. 7013 1710 0001 0492 6756

Certified Mail No. 7013 1710 0001 0492 6763

XIV.A.3United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Michigan Agency

2845 Ashmun Street Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 49783-3732

(906) 632-6809 Phone (906) 632-0689 Fax IN REPLY REFER TO:

REALTY

Charter Township of Chocolay 5010 US 41 South Marquette,}.1]49855

877-659-5028 TOLL FREE

December 27, 2016

ATTN: Steve Lawry, Township Manager

RE: Request for Extension - Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Trust Application (Chocolay Township)

Dear~. Lawry:

We are in receipt of your letter dated December 13, 2016, requesting an extension for your office to provide a written response to the BIA consultation letter dated November 17, 2016. Based on our extension guidelines, you are allowed one (1) 30 day extension of the comment period. Based on your initial response received December 19, 2016, we are hereby granting you an additional 30 days to provide comments. The new deadline for submitting your response will be January 21, 2017.

Any questions may be directed to Esther M. Johnson, Realty Officer, at the above number, ext.3128 or via e-mail at [email protected].

XIV.A.4

RICK SNYDER GOVERNOR

Mr. Jason D. Oberle Superintendent, Michigan Agency

STATE OF MICHIGAN

EXECUTIVE OFFICE LANSJNG

December 21, 2016

United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs 2845 Ashmun Street Sault Ste. Marie, Ml 49783-3732

BRIAN CALLEY LT, GOVERNOR

RE: Proposed Trust Acquisition of Land (Ojibwa Express parcel) In Marquette County for the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

Dear Superintendent Oberle:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment 011 the Department's consideration of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Communitis request to have approximately sixty .. foUr acre5ot real property, described as Parcels A, B1 and C, located in the Charter Township of Chocolay, Marquette County, taken into trust by th~ U.nited States. Governor Snyder has ask:ed rne to respond on his behalf.

As you noted, determincltion of whether to acquire the described parcf;:!ls in trust will be made under the Secretary's discretionary authority pursuant to part 151 pf title 25 of the Code bf Federal ~egulations, which was promulgated pursuantto Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act Part 151 requtresthe Secretary to consider several factors to guide this exerqise of discretion fortrust acquisition request$, including, ;nter ali&i jµrisdictional problems and potential conflicts of land use which may arise frorn the resulting trust status.

The comments in this letter are provided to inform the Secretary of the State's concern$ regarding the Community's apparent development plans for the parcels as they rell:}te to drinking water supply, wastewater disposal, and water withdrawal impacts from the development. It is the State's understt:lridihg that the Chaxter Township of Chocolay intends to provide additional comments on the proposed acquisition.

Since receiving initial notice from your office on November 21, 2016, public reports indicate thatthe Commµnity intends to utiJize the described parcels for non.., gaming attributes ofa planned $35.5 million casino, hotel, and enteria.intnent development projectthatwoulct build upon the Commun1fy's existing Class III gaming

GEORGE W. ROMNEY BUILDING • i 1 i S:OUTH CAPITOL AVENUE• ~ LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909 www,,ni9higan.gov

I -

I

I I I

Page2 December 21, 2016

facility, the Ojibwa II Casino.1 It is the State's understanding that all gaming-related expansion associated with the project will occur on land already held in trust by the United States.

On an initial survey of matters related to the Community's plans for water supply, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) met with the Community's contractors and has engaged separate conversatfons with Chocolay Towns hip officials and the Marquette County Health Department. While the layout of the expanded facility has not been finalized, it appears as that the Community's hotel, swimming pool, water supply wells! and wastewater drain field and disposal system are planned for lands that are subject to this pending trust application.

Based on these initial discussicms, MDEQ understands the intent for the Community's proposed project is to furthere.conomic opportunity for tribal citizens and the local community. The purpose of the State's comment is not to address the merits of the proposed project, but rat'1er to inform the Secretary of several significant environmental concerns regarding lands that are scheduled for developmentand subject to the trust appJicatfon. These concerna, also extend to potential impapts to nontribal lands anq resources that are outside the la11ds idEmtified in the trust application.

The following is a preliminary oVeNiew of MDEQ's key environmental concerns orlssues that may be affected by truststatus for Parcels A, 8, and C:

L Wastewater Disposal

MDEQ expects wastewater flows from the facility to be greater than 10,000 gallons per day. Preliminary plans conveyed to MDEQ indicate that the Community is considering a septic tank and drain field for wastewater. MDEQ is concerned about the potential for nitrogen or phosphorous discharges that could be harmful to drinking Water we!!sandior surtace waters from a discharge. Several alternative options exist for the discharge, including: a lagoon system with discharge to surtace waters; a sophisticated treatment system to remove nitrogen with a discharge to groundwater; and connecting the development to public sewer approximately five miles west of the site in que3stion.

IL Drinking Water Supply

The current drinking water supply for the Ojibwa II Casino also serves Commynity citizen housing to th$ south. MDEQ believes that it will be difficultto fihd local groundwater that is available in an acceptable quantity and quality to seNe the proposed facility expansion.

1 See, e.g., Ryan Jarvi, KEJIC$eeks trust $tdtusln cd$/no expcmsioh project,THE MtNrNGJquRNAL, Dec.11, 2016 (qvailable dt http:/ /www.nilhingJourn~l.net/news/front-page·news/2016/12/kbic-seek~-trOsN,tatusqn-c:asinoexpa11sion0project/).

I ·-

Page 3 December 21, 2016

[II. Water Withdrawal

MDEQ understands that the Community proposes to withdraw less than 100,000 gaHons of water per day to serve the expanded facility. However, water use on this site could increase over time to the point where it may negatively impact off-site drinking water wells.

IV. Other Issues

As with any construction project of this size. MDEQ remains concerned about the potential soil erosion and sediment discharges to stormwater and surface water. The Departmeht maintains additional questions about the proposed swimming pooll including construction and operational safeguards that will be implemented to protect the public health.

MbEQ also recognizes that projects of this scale can be subject to regular and substantial revision, especially at this early stage in development, furthering the State's concerns about any regulatory uncertainty that may result from the proposed trust status for Parcels A, B, and C.

While MDEQ fully intends to work cooperatively with the Community and further expects its concerns to be resolved through partnership with its contractors in the design phase for this project, as well as through t.he state regulatory process, the Department remains concerned that trust status at this stage in the development may interrupt the state regulatory process and raise additional questions regarding the Co111munlty's obligations to fully mitigate these environmental risks in a manner that will protect the health, safety, and welfare of our mutual citizens. For these reasons, the State respectfully requests the Secretary to carefully consider the timing of its decision for the proposed trust acquismon and further requests the Secretary to postpohe any decision until after construction of the proposed development is complete and the State has had additional opportunity to review whether appropriate safeguards are in place to address the aforementioned regulatory concerns.

Sincerely,

~~&-Dave Nyberg Deputy Le,gal Counsel

CG: Diane Rosen, Midwest Regional Director Richard Bohjanen, Supervisor1 Chocolay Township Chocolay Township Board of Trustees

XIV.A.5

Ojibwa Casino· Marquette • Site

,-----------------' -~=====c====------I I -----------------

I _

I

I I I I I I

= : I I I I I

I

C:

w

Cl

D D

D

D

D

D

D

CUNINGHAM G R O U p

OJIBWA TRIBE

CASINO

TRIBE

RES

RES

RESRES

RES

PLAY GROUND

BLD

BLD

AC

OR

N T

RA

IL

AC

RE

T

RA

IL

KEWEENAW TRAIL

CASINO ENTRANCE ROAD

CASINO PARKING LOT

WOODED

WOODED

WOODED

WOODED

WOODED

WOODED

WOODED

WOODED

WOODED

WOODED

WOODEDWOODED

WOODED

WOODED

WATER

BLD

REFG

SEPTIC

FIELD

GRASS

GRASS

GRASS

P

R

O

P

O

S

E

D

H

O

M

E

N

o

.

1

P

R

O

P

O

S

E

D

H

O

M

E

N

o

.

2

P

R

O

P

O

S

E

D

H

O

M

E

N

o

.

3

P

R

O

P

O

S

E

D

3

-

U

N

I

T

T

O

W

N

H

O

M

E

0+

00

1+

00

2+

00

3+

00

4+

00

5+

00

6+

00

7+

00

8+

00

9+

00

10

+0

01

1+

00

11

+9

1

PROPOSED

SITE PLAN

XX

C-XX

\\mqt1s-fs01\ W:\Gundlach_Champion\1611426_KBIC Casinos\Marquette\CAD\Design\Sheets\XX-Proposed Site Plan.dwg - 1/6/2017

GEI Project 1611426

GEI CONSULTANTS OF MICHIGAN, P.C.

109 W. BARAGA AVENUE

MARQUETTE, MI 49855

(906)451-4021

Consultants

GUNDLACH CHAMPION

180 TRADERS MINE RD

IRON MOUNTAIN, MI

If this scale bar does not measure

1" then drawing is not original scale.

Attention:

0 1"

Designed:

Checked:

Drawn:

SNB

-

-

-

KEWEENAW BAY

INDIAN COMMUNITY

OJIBWA CASINO

IMPROVEMENTS

CHOCOLAY

TOWNSHIP LOCATION

NO. DATE ISSUE/REVISION APP

0

Preliminary

SHEET NO.

DWG. NO.

0

SCALE:

60 120

1" = 60'

XIV.A.5 (revised as of 01-06-17)

paulj

Line

paulj

Line

paulj

Line

XIV.A.6

DATE:

RE:

January 4, 2017


5010 US 41 South

Marquette, Ml 49855 Phone: 906-249-1448 Fax: 906-249-1313

www.chocolay.org

Property Tax Revenue estimates on the Non-Trust Land over the next two years

In order for the Township Board to assess the impact of the Non-Trust lands subject to ad valorem taxation being removed

from the tax rolls and the subsequent years estimated property taxes gained based upon improvements being assessed on the

Non-Trust land owned by the KBIC I have prepared the following information:

1) The 2016 annual amount of property taxes currently levied on the Non-Trust land subject to ad valorem taxation and

allocated to our organization and other taxing authorities. The Total Taxable Value of Non-Trust land in 2016 is

$61,145.

2) The 2017 projected property taxes expected to be levied on the Non-Trust land subject to ad valorem taxation and

allocated to our organization and other taxing authorities. The estimated Taxable Value of Non-Trust land with

existing improvements in 2017 will be approximately $124,500.

3) The 2018 projected property taxes expected to be levied on the Non-Trust land subject to ad valorem taxation with

the proposed build out and allocated to our organization and other taxing authorities. The estimated Taxable Value

of Non-Trust land with proposed improvements build out will be approximately $2,980,000.

Millage 2016 2017 2018

Rates Taxes actual Taxes projected Taxes est. with buildout

Choe.Twp. 3.7026 $ 226.39 $ 460.97 $11,033

Fire Hal 1.2500 $ 76.43 $ 155.63 $ 3,725

Library 0.7414 $ 45.33 $ 92.30 $ 2,209

Heritage Tr. 0.2000 $ 12.22 $ 24.90 $ 596

Mqt. Sch. Bnd 0.5700 $ 34.85 $ 70.97 $ 1,698

Mqt. Sch. 18.0000 $1,100.61 $2,241.00 $53,640

Sinking Fund 0.9500 $ 58.08 $ 118.28 $ 2,831

Special Ed. 2.0000 $ 122.29 $ 249.00 $ 5,960

ISD 0.2048 $ 12.52 $ 25.50 $ 610

Vet. Affairs 0.8000 $ 48.91 $ 99.60 $ 2,384

Cnty. Rescue 0.1525 $ 9.32 $ 18.98 $ 454

Cnty Dis.0.4970 $ 30.38 $ 61.87 $ 1,481

Cnty M.0.E. 0.5500 $ 33.62 $ 68.48 $ 1,639

Cnty Aging 0.4474 $ 27.35 $ 55.70 $ 1,333

Cnty Transit 0.6000 $ 36.68 $ 74.70 $ 1,788

Cnty Oper. 5.2938 $ 323.68 $ 659.08 $15,775

Stat e Ed. 6.0000 $ 366.87 $ 747.00 $17,880

-----------------------------------------------------------------

$ 2,565.53 $5,223.96 $125,036

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

To: Chocolay Township Board From: Steve Lawry, Manager Date: January 4, 2016 Subject: Kawbawgam Road Area Water System

BACKGROUND: Last month the Board agreed to partner with the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community on the construction of a water system to serve the expanded casino resort complex. The Tribe agreed to make any excess capacity of the new water system available to the Township to serve neighboring residences through a Township operated public water system. In exchange, the Township agreed to pay for the cost of constructing the system’s proposed 75,000 gallon elevated storage tank with 2% gaming funds advanced by the Tribe. I have checked with the engineering firm designing the system for KBIC and learned that there is presently estimated to be 20,000 gallons per day of capacity beyond the needs of the project being built this year. The Tribe is building this excess capacity to accommodate the construction of a second motel on the property at some point in the future, if business conditions permit. If they learn early enough in the schedule of their project that the Township wishes to contract for this capacity, they could choose to install a larger tank or commit the capacity to the Township and provide by provisions within that contract the responsibilities of each party in expanding the system when demand dictates.

The Township identified approximately 80 homes along Kawbawgam Road and the north shore of Lake Kawbawgam that might be served by such a neighborhood system. If all connected they would require about 16,000 gallons per day. In order to determine whether the residents of these homes would be willing to abandon their private wells in favor of connecting to a public system the Township will need to survey of the property owners involved and provide them with projections of the water rates that would be required to construct and operate the system. Last month the Board authorized the expenditure of up to $5,000 from the Capital Improvement Fund for engineering services to layout a schematic design for the system and develop those cost and rate projections. The engineers would also be charged with identifying possible funding sources to aid in the construction.

Attached is a proposed contract with GEI Consultants of Michigan, P. C. designed to accomplish those goals. GEI is the engineering firm designing the portions of the water system on tribal land for KBIC. Since the system being explored by the Township would merely be an extension of that system, they are the logical choice to determine the information needed by the Township.

XIV.B.1

FISCAL EFFECTS: The contract is based upon established hourly personnel and equipment rates and is for a not to exceed amount of $5,000. Because it is difficult to determine at this time whether the engineers will be asked to make public presentations of their findings to the Board and affected property owners, prepare presentation materials, work with potential funding agencies, or perform other work peripheral to the preliminary design and calculations, a lump sum contract is not appropriate in this instance. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board authorize the Township Supervisor to execute the attached contract with GEI Consultants to develop preliminary design and cost data related to the construction of a public water system in the Kawbawgam Road area of the Township as an extension of the system being developed to support the Ojibwa II casino resort. SUGGESTED MOTION: ___________ moved, ___________ seconded to authorize the Township Supervisor to execute the attached contract agreement with GEI Consultants of Michigan, P. C. for an amount not to exceed $5,000. ALTERNATIVES: The Board could decide at the present time that it is not interested in entering the water utility business and so notify the tribe. It could also define some other scope of work it would like the engineering firm to perform before making a decision on whether to pursue construction of a public water system in this area.

GEI Consultants of Michigan, P.C. 109 W. Baraga Avenue, Marquette, Michigan 49855

906-451-4021www.geiconsultants.com

Consulting

Engineers and

Scientists

December 22, 2016 GEI Proposal No. 610043

Mr. Steve Lawry Chocolay Township 5010 U.S. 41 South Marquette, Michigan 49855

RE: Review of Proposed Water System Extension Proposal, Chocolay Township, Michigan

Dear Mr. Lawry:

GEI Consultants of Michigan, P.C. (GEI) is pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional engineering services to Chocolay Township (Township). This proposal describes our understanding of the project, scope of services, proposed project schedule and project costs.

Project Understanding and Purpose

The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (Tribe) is presently undergoing a development project which will incorporate a new water system. The Township and the Tribe have had preliminary discussions regarding a cooperative agreement for joint use of the water system pumping and storage facilities. In an effort to better understand the potential impact to the Township citizens, the Township Board is requesting preliminary water system routing within the Township accompanied by a preliminary engineering cost opinion. The purpose of this project is to identify potential water user rates based on available U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development loan/grant funding scenarios for the proposed water distribution system routes.

Scope of Services

To meet the objectives described above, GEI anticipates a program consisting of the following services for this project:

Conceptual route map depicting proposed water distribution system layout;

Engineer’s Preliminary Cost Opinion for conceptual route;

Approximate number of potential water users and user type (commercial/residential) alongconceptual route;

Complete a preliminary water user rate analysis for capital improvements and potentialoperating cost based on current USDA Rural Development loan rates and terms; and

Summary letter stating findings of conceptual water system study.

Assumptions

In developing the above scope of engineering services, GEI made the following assumptions:

Township will provide an estimated volumetric water purchase cost based on discussionswith Tribe or alternatively, GEI will base expected water purchase cost on typicalregional/local rates;

XIV.B.2

Chocolay Township -2- December 22, 2016

USDA funding for water distribution construction based on varied grant and loan ratios; and;

Conceptual water distribution system layout will be based on information furnished by the Township.

It is understood that easements will be required for the project to be constructed; however, no provisions for easements are to be made at this conceptual phase.

Project Schedule

GEI proposes to complete the proposed scope of services in approximately four weeks from notice to proceed.

Project Fees

The proposed scope of services outlined above will be performed on a time and materials basis with a not-to-exceed cost of $5,000 in accordance with the attached Fee Schedule. Following initiation of GEI’s services, proposed changes to the scope of work, if any, will be discussed with you prior to additional work being performed. Invoiced amounts will be based on the actual units used at the rates shown on the attached Fee Schedule. Upon reaching this budget limit, GEI will stop performing services unless we receive written approval from you or an authorized representative of the Township to amend the fee.

Conditions of Engagement

We have attached a copy of GEI’s Standard Professional Services Agreement which are expressly incorporated into, and are an integral part of, our contract for professional services. Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal by having an authorized representative execute a copy, and return one copy to our office.

We thank you for the opportunity to submit our proposal for this project. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact George Meister at (906) 662-4747. We look forward to working with you on this project.

Sincerely,

GEI CONSULTANTS OF MICHIGAN, P.C.

George Meister, PE Scott Richards, PE Project Manager Senior Engineer

Attachments: Standard Professional Services Agreement Fee Schedule

STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

GEI Branch 4300


1. AGREEMENT. This Agreement is made and entered into by and between GEI Consultants of Michigan, P.C. (GEI),

109 W. Baraga Avenue, Marquette, Michigan 49855 and Chocolay Township, 5010 US 41 South, Marquette, Michigan 49855

By this Agreement, the parties do mutually agree as follows: 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES.

GEI shall perform the services described herein and in Exhibit A.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the latter of the acceptance dates indicated in Article 16, Acceptance. Acceptance of this Agreement by both parties shall serve as GEI’s Notice to Proceed with the services described in Exhibit A.

4. TIMES FOR RENDERING SERVICES. a) GEI shall endeavor to perform the services under this Agreement in an orderly and efficient manner,

consistent with the schedule or milestone dates provided in Exhibit A. b) GEI shall not be responsible for delays caused by factors beyond GEI’s reasonable control. When such

delays beyond GEI’s reasonable control occur, CLIENT agrees that GEI shall not be responsible for damages, nor shall GEI be deemed in default of this Agreement.

5. COMPENSATION. a) CLIENT agrees to pay GEI in accordance with the payment terms provided in Exhibit B. b) GEI will submit invoices monthly or upon completion of a specified scope of service in accordance with

GEI’s standard invoicing practices, or as otherwise provided in Exhibit B. c) Payment is due upon receipt of the invoice. Payments will be made by either check or electronic transfer

to the address specified by GEI, and will reference GEI’s invoice number. d) Interest will accrue at the rate of 1% per month of the invoiced amount in excess of 30 days past the

invoice date, or as otherwise provided in Exhibit B. e) In the event of a disputed or contested invoice, only that portion so contested will be withheld from

payment, and the undisputed amounts will be paid.

6. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. a) GEI will perform its services under this Agreement in a manner consistent with that degree of skill and

care ordinarily exercised by members of GEI’s profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. GEI makes no other warranties or representations, either expressed or implied, regarding the services provided hereunder.

b) GEI shall correct deficiencies in services or documents provided under this Agreement without additional cost to CLIENT; except to the extent that such deficiencies are directly attributable to deficiencies in CLIENT-furnished information.

c) Unless otherwise specifically indicated in writing, GEI shall be entitled to rely, without liability, on the accuracy and completeness of information provided by CLIENT, CLIENT’s consultants and contractors, and information from public records, without the need for independent verification.

7. INSURANCE. a) GEI will carry the types and amounts of insurance in the usual form as provided in Exhibit C. b) Upon written request of CLIENT, GEI will furnish Certificates of Insurance indicating the required

coverages and conditions.


GEI Branch 4300

8. ALLOCATION OF RISKS. a) Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, GEI agrees to indemnify and hold CLIENT

harmless from and against any liabilities, claims, damages, and costs (including reasonable attorney’s fees) to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of GEI in the performance of services under this Agreement.

b) Limitation of Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the total liability, in the aggregate, of GEI and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and independent professional associates and consultants, and any of them, to CLIENT and any one claiming by, through or under CLIENT, for any and all injuries, claims, losses, expenses, or damages whatsoever arising out of or in any way related to GEI's services, the project or this Agreement, will not exceed the total compensation received by GEI under this Agreement, or available proceeds from GEI’s insurance, whichever is less. This limitation will apply regardless of legal theory, and includes but is not limited to claims or actions alleging negligence, errors, omissions, strict liability, breach of contract, breach of warranty of GEI or its officers, directors, employees, agents or independent professional associates or consultants, or any of them. CLIENT further agrees to require that all contractors and subcontractors agree that this limitation of GEI’s liability extends to include any claims or actions that they might bring in any forum.

c) Consequential Damages. GEI and CLIENT waive consequential damages, including but not limited to damages for loss of profits, loss of revenues, and loss of business or business opportunities, for claims, disputes or other matters in question arising out of or relating to this Agreement.

9. CONFIDENTIALITY. a) Unless compelled by law, governmental agency or authority, or order of a court of competent jurisdiction,

or unless required pursuant to a subpoena deemed by GEI to be duly issued, or unless requested to do so in writing by CLIENT, GEI agrees it will not convey to others any proprietary non-public information, knowledge, data or property relating to the business or affairs of CLIENT or of any of its affiliates, which is in any way obtained by GEI during its association with CLIENT. GEI further agrees to strive to limit, to a "need to know" basis, access by its employees to information referred to above.

b) Unless compelled by law, governmental agency or authority, or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or unless required pursuant to a subpoena deemed by CLIENT to be duly issued, CLIENT will not release to its employees or any other parties any concepts, materials, or procedures of GEI deemed by GEI to be proprietary and so explained to CLIENT.

10. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. Drawings, diagrams, specifications, calculations, reports, processes, computer processes and software, operational and design data, and all other documents and information produced in connection with the project as instruments of service (Project Documents), regardless of form, will be confidential and the proprietary information of GEI, and will remain the sole and exclusive property of GEI whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. CLIENT retains the right to use Project Documents for the furtherance of the project consistent with the express purpose(s) of the Project Documents, and for CLIENT’s information and reference in connection with CLIENT’s use and occupancy of the project. Any use of Project Documents for purposes other than those for which they were explicitly prepared shall be at CLIENT’s sole risk and liability. CLIENT agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold GEI harmless from and against any claims, losses, liabilities, and damages arising out of or resulting from the unauthorized use of Project Documents.

11. TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION. a) This Agreement may be terminated by CLIENT for any reason upon 10 days written notice to GEI. b) This Agreement may be terminated by GEI for cause upon 30 days written notice to CLIENT. c) In the event that this Agreement is terminated for any reason, CLIENT agrees to remit just and equitable

compensation to GEI for services already performed in accordance with this Agreement, subject to the limitations given in this Article 11, Termination and Suspension.

d) In the event Client terminates this Agreement for cause, in determining just and equitable compensation to GEI for work already performed, CLIENT may reduce amounts due to GEI by amounts equal to additional costs incurred by CLIENT to complete the Agreement scope. Such additional costs incurred by CLIENT may include but are not limited to: (1) the additional costs incurred by CLIENT to engage another


GEI Branch 4300

qualified consultant to complete the unfinished scope; and (2) CLIENT’s labor costs and expenses to demobilize and remobilize its personnel to the site to coordinate with the new consultant.

e) GEI may suspend any or all services under this Agreement if CLIENT fails to pay undisputed invoice amounts within 90 days following invoice date, by providing a 10-day written notice to CLIENT, until payments are restored to a current basis. In the event GEI engages counsel to enforce overdue payments, CLIENT will reimburse GEI for all reasonable attorney's fees and court costs related to enforcement of overdue payments, provided that CLIENT does not have a good faith dispute with the invoice. CLIENT will indemnify and save GEI harmless from any claim or liability resulting from suspension of the work due to non-current, undisputed payments.

12. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Both parties agree to submit any claims, disputes, or controversies arising out of or in relation to the interpretation, application, or enforcement of this Agreement to non-binding mediation pursuant to the Rules for Commercial Mediation of the American Arbitration Association, as a condition precedent to litigation or any other form of dispute resolution.

13. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. a) Authorized Representatives. The following individuals are authorized to act as CLIENT’s and GEI’s

representatives with respect to the services provided under this Agreement:

For Client: Mr. Steve Lawry For GEI: Mr. George Meister

b) Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as establishing a fiduciary relationship between Client and

GEI. c) Notices. Any notice required under this Agreement will be in writing, submitted to the respective party’s

Authorized Representative at the address provided in this Article 13, General Considerations. Notices shall be delivered by registered or certified mail postage prepaid, or by commercial courier service. All notices shall be effective upon the date of receipt.

d) Controlling Law. This Agreement is to be governed by the laws of the State of Michigan. e) Survival. All express representations, indemnifications, or limitations of liability included in the

Agreement will survive its completion or termination for any reason. However, in no event shall indemnification obligations extend beyond the date when the institution of legal or equitable proceedings for professional negligence would be barred by an applicable statute of repose or statute of limitations.

f) Severability. Any provision or part of this Agreement held to be void or unenforceable under any law or regulation shall be deemed stricken and all remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding upon GEI and CLIENT.

g) Waiver. Non-enforcement of any provision by either party shall not constitute a waiver of that provision, nor shall it affect the enforceability of that provision or of the remainder of this Agreement.

h) Headings. The headings used in this Agreement are for general reference only and do not have special significance.

i) Certifications. GEI shall not be required to sign any documents, no matter by whom requested, that would result in GEI having to certify, guaranty, or warrant the existence of conditions or the suitability or performance of GEI's services or the project, that would require knowledge, services or responsibilities beyond the scope of this Agreement.

j) Third Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with, or a cause of action in favor of, a third party against either CLIENT or GEI. GEI's services hereunder are being performed solely for the benefit of CLIENT, and no other entity shall have any claim against GEI because of this Agreement or GEI's performance of services hereunder.


GEI Branch 4300

14. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS. a) If Field Services are provided under this Agreement, the additional provisions included in Exhibit D shall

apply. Field Services are defined as services performed on property owned or controlled by CLIENT, any federal, state, or local government or governmental agency, or other third party, and include, but are not limited to: site inspection, site investigation, subsurface investigation, sample collection, or sample testing.

b) If the services of a Licensed Site Professional (LSP) or Licensed Environmental Professional (LEP) are provided under this Agreement, the additional provisions included in Exhibit E shall apply.

c) If Engineering Design Services are provided under this Agreement, the additional provisions included in Exhibit F shall apply.

d) If Opinions of Probable Construction Cost are provided under this Agreement, the additional provisions included in Exhibit G shall apply.

e) If Construction Services are provided under this Agreement, the additional provisions included in Exhibit H shall apply.

15. EXHIBITS. The following Exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A, Scope of Services and Schedule

Exhibit B, Payment Terms

Exhibit C, Insurance Exhibit D, Special Provisions for Field Services

Exhibit E, Special Provisions for Services of Licensed Site/Environmental Professionals

Exhibit F, Special Provisions for Engineering Design Services

Exhibit G, Special Provisions for Opinions of Probable Construction Costs Exhibit H, Special Provisions for Construction Services

16. ACCEPTANCE. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the dates shown below. For CLIENT: For GEI:

By: By: (Signature) (Signature)

George Meister, PE (Print Name) (Print Name)

Project Manager (Title) (Title)

12-22-2016 (Date) (Date)

STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT EXHIBITS A - H

GEI Branch 4300


EXHIBIT A Scope of Services and Schedule See Attached Letter/Proposal Dated (12-22-2016). EXHIBIT B Payment Terms See Attached Letter/Proposal Dated (12-22-2016). EXHIBIT C Insurance GEI will carry the following types and amounts of insurance: A. Worker’s Compensation and Employer’s Liability (statutory):

1. In accordance with the laws of the state(s) in which services are performed. B. Commercial General Liability (CGL) Insurance:

1. Bodily Injury and Property Damage Combined: $1,000,000 per occurrence and in aggregate. 2. Including explosion, underground drilling excavation, and collapse hazards. 3. Including an endorsement providing Additional Insured Status to CLIENT under the policy.

C. Comprehensive Automobile Insurance: 1. Bodily Injury and Property Damage Combined: $1,000,000 per accident. 2. Includes all owned, non-owned, and hired vehicles used in connection with the services under this

Agreement. D. Professional Liability Insurance:

1. $1,000,000 per claim and in aggregate.

EXHIBIT D Special Provisions for Field Services A. Right of Entry. CLIENT agrees to furnish GEI with right-of-entry and a plan of boundaries of the site where GEI

will perform its services. If CLIENT does not own the site, CLIENT represents and warrants that it will obtain permission for GEI’s access to the site to conduct site reconnaissance, surveys, borings, and other explorations of the site pursuant to the scope of services in the Agreement. GEI will take reasonable precautions to minimize damage to the site from use of equipment, but GEI is not responsible for damage to the site caused by normal and customary use of equipment. The cost for restoration of damage that may result from GEI's operations has not been included in GEI’s fee, unless specifically stated in Exhibit B.

B. Underground structures. CLIENT will identify locations of buried utilities and other underground structures in areas of subsurface exploration. GEI will take reasonable precautions to avoid damage to the buried utilities and other underground structures noted. If locations are not known or cannot be confirmed by CLIENT, then there will be a degree of risk to CLIENT associated with conducting the exploration. In the absence of confirmed underground structure locations, CLIENT agrees to accept the risk of any damages and losses resulting from the exploration work.

C. Presence of Hazardous Materials. If the services under this Agreement do not include services relating to hazardous waste, oil, asbestos, or other hazardous materials, as defined by federal, state, or local laws or regulations, and if such materials are discovered during GEI's work, CLIENT agrees to negotiate appropriate revisions to the scope, schedule, budget, terms, and conditions of this Agreement. When such hazardous materials are suspected, GEI will have the option to stop work, without financial penalty, until a modification to this Agreement is made or a new Agreement is reached. If a mutually satisfactory Agreement cannot be reached between both parties, this Agreement will be terminated, and CLIENT agrees to pay GEI for all services rendered up to the date of termination, including any costs associated with termination.


GEI Branch 4300

D. Disposal of Samples and Wastes Containing Regulated Contaminants. In the event that samples collected by GEI or provided by CLIENT, or wastes generated as a result of site investigation activities, contain or potentially contain substances or constituents which are or may be regulated contaminants as defined by federal, state, or local statutes, regulations, or ordinances, including but not limited to samples or wastes containing hazardous materials, said samples or wastes remain the property of CLIENT and CLIENT will have responsibility for them as a generator. If set forth in the Agreement, GEI will, at CLIENT's expense, perform necessary testing, and either (a) return said samples and wastes to CLIENT, or (b) using a manifest signed by CLIENT as generator, have said samples and/or wastes transported to a location selected by CLIENT for disposal. CLIENT agrees to pay all costs associated with the storage, transport and disposal of said samples and/or wastes. Unless otherwise provided in the Agreement, GEI will not transport, handle, store, or dispose of waste or samples or arrange or subcontract for waste or sample transport, handling, storage, or disposal. CLIENT recognizes and agrees that GEI is working as a bailee and at no time assumes title to said waste or samples or any responsibility as generator of said waste or samples.

E. Contribution of Hazardous Materials. CLIENT agrees that GEI has not contributed to the presence of hazardous wastes, oils, asbestos, biological pollutants such as molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and by-products of any such biological organisms, or other hazardous materials that may exist or be discovered in the future at the site. GEI does not assume any liability for the known or unknown presence of such materials. GEI’s scope of services does not include the investigation or detection of biological pollutants such as molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and by-products of any such biological organisms. CLIENT agrees to indemnify and hold harmless GEI, its subconsultants, subcontractors, agents, and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses, and costs (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) that may result from the detection, failure to detect, or from the actual, alleged, or threatened discharge, dispersal, release, escape, or exposure to any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant, asbestos in any form, or contaminants including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalies, chemicals, waste, oil, hazardous materials, or biological pollutants. CLIENT’s obligations under this paragraph apply unless such claims, damages, losses, and expenses are caused by GEI’s sole negligence or willful misconduct.

EXHIBIT E Special Provisions for Services of Licensed Site/Environmental Professionals For services under this Agreement that require the engagement of a Licensed Site Professional (LSP) or a Licensed Environmental Professional (LEP) registered with and subject to the laws and regulations promulgated by the state in which the services are provided (collectively the LSP/LEP Program), the following will apply: A. Under the LSP/LEP Program, the LSP/LEP owes professional obligations to the public, including, in some

instances, a duty to disclose the existence of certain contaminants to the state in which the services are provided.

B. CLIENT understands and acknowledges that in the event that the licensed professional’s obligations under the LSP/LEP Program conflict in any way with the terms and conditions of this Agreement or the wishes or intentions of CLIENT, the licensed professional is bound by law to comply with the requirements of the LSP/LEP Program. CLIENT recognizes that the licensed professional is immune from civil liability resulting from any such actual or alleged conflict.

C. CLIENT agrees to indemnify and hold GEI harmless from any claims, losses, damages, fines, or administrative, civil, or criminal penalties resulting from the licensed professional's fulfillment of the licensed professional’s obligations under the LSP/LEP Program.

EXHIBIT F Special Provisions for Engineering Design Services A. Design Without Construction Phase Services. CLIENT understands and agrees that if GEI’s services under this

Agreement include engineering design and do not include Construction-Related Services, then CLIENT: 1. Assumes all responsibility for interpretation of the construction Contract Documents. 2. Assumes all responsibility for construction observation and review. 3. Waives any claims against GEI that may be in any way connected thereto.


GEI Branch 4300

For purposes of this Agreement, Construction-Related Services include, but are not limited to: construction observation; review of the construction contractor’s technical submittals; review of the construction contractor’s progress; or other construction-phase services.

B. Use of Documents. 1. The actual signed and sealed hardcopy construction Contract Documents including stamped drawings,

together with any addenda or revisions, are and will remain the official copies of all documents. 2. All documents including drawings, data, plans, specifications, reports or other information recorded on or

transmitted as Electronic Files are subject to undetectable alteration, either intentional or unintentional, due to transmission, conversion, media degradation, software error, human alteration, or other causes.

3. Electronic Files are provided for convenience and informational purposes only and are not a finished product or Contract Document. GEI makes no representation regarding the accuracy or completeness of any accompanying Electronic Files. GEI may, at its sole discretion, add wording to this effect on electronic file submissions.

4. CLIENT waives any and all claims against GEI that may result in any way from the use or misuse, unauthorized reuse, alteration, addition to, or transfer of the Electronic Files. CLIENT agrees to indemnify and hold harmless GEI, its officers, directors, employees, agents, or subconsultants, from any claims, losses, damages or costs (including reasonable attorney’s fees) which may arise out of the use or misuse, unauthorized reuse, alteration, addition to, or transfer of Electronic Files.

EXHIBIT G Special Provisions for Opinions of Probable Construction Costs GEI’s Opinions of Probable Construction Cost provided under this Agreement are made on the basis of GEI’s experience and qualifications, and represent GEI’s best judgment as an experienced and qualified professional generally familiar with the industry. However, since GEI has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over a contractor’s methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, GEI cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction costs will not vary from Opinions of Probable Construction Cost prepared by GEI. If CLIENT wishes greater assurance as to probable construction costs, CLIENT agrees to employ an independent cost estimator. EXHIBIT H Special Provisions for Construction Services In accordance with the scope of services under this Agreement, GEI will provide personnel to observe the specific aspects of construction stated in the Agreement and to ascertain that construction is being performed, in general, in accordance with the approved construction Contract Documents. A. GEI cannot provide its opinion on the suitability of any part of the work performed unless GEI’s personnel make

measurements and observations of that part of the construction. By performing construction observation services, GEI does not guarantee the contractor's work. The contractor will remain solely responsible for the accuracy and adequacy of all construction or other activities performed by the contractor, including: methods of construction; supervision of personnel and construction; control of machinery; false work, scaffolding or other temporary construction aids; safety in, on, or about the job site; and compliance with OSHA and construction safety regulations and any other applicable federal, state, or local laws or regulations.

B. In consideration of any review or evaluation by GEI of the various bidders and bid submissions, and to make recommendations to CLIENT regarding the award of the construction Contract, CLIENT agrees to hold harmless and indemnify GEI for all costs, expenses, damages and attorneys' fees incurred by GEI as a result of any claims, allegations, administrative proceedings, or court proceedings arising out of or relating to any bid protest or such other action taken by any person or entity with respect to the review and evaluation of bidders and bid submissions or recommendations concerning the award of the construction Contract. This paragraph will not apply if GEI is adjudicated by a court to have been solely negligent or to have actually engaged in intentional and willful misconduct without legitimate justification, privilege, or immunity; however, CLIENT will be obligated to indemnify GEI until any such final adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction.

EXHIBIT B

FEE SCHEDULE AND PAYMENT TERMS

MI Fee Schedule 2016

FEE SCHEDULE Hourly Billing Rate

Personnel Category $ per hour

Staff Professional – Grade 1 $ 78

Staff Professional – Grade 2 $ 83

Project Professional – Grade 3 $ 90

Project Professional – Grade 4 $ 96

Senior Professional – Grade 5 $ 107



Senior Consultant – Grade 8 $ 222

Senior Consultant – Grade 9 $ 245

Senior Principal – Grade 10 $ 245

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Senior CADD Drafter and Designer $ 89

CADD Drafter and Designer $ 74

*Senior Technician $ 70

*Technician II $ 66

* Technician I $ 57

Word Processor, Administrative Staff, $ 60

Office Aide $ 53

Rates will increase up to 5% annually, at GEI’s option, for all contracts that extend beyond twelve (12) months

after the date of the contract. Rates for Deposition and Testimony are increased 1.5 times.

*The scope of work is based on a normal work week, Monday through Friday, eight (8) hours per day. Overtime

will be charged at 1.3 times the specified rate; Sunday and holiday hours will be charged at two times the personnel

rate, with a minimum charge of eight (8) hours

OTHER PROJECT COSTS Subconsultants, Subcontractors and Other Project Expenses - All costs for subconsultants, subcontractors and other

project expenses will be billed at cost plus a 15% service charge. Examples of such expenses ordinarily charged to

projects are subcontractors; subconsultants: chemical laboratory charges; rented or leased field and laboratory

equipment; outside printing and reproduction; communications and mailing charges; reproduction expenses; shipping

costs for samples and equipment; disposal of samples; rental vehicles; fares for travel on public carriers; special fees for

insurance certificates, permits, licenses, etc.; fees for restoration of paving or land due to field exploration, etc.; state

sales and use taxes and state taxes on GEI fees.

Field and Laboratory Equipment Billing Rates – GEI-owned field and laboratory equipment such as pumps, sampling

equipment, monitoring instrumentation, field density equipment, portable gas chromatographs, etc. will be billed at a

daily, weekly, or monthly rate, as needed for the project. Expendable supplies are billed at a unit rate.

Transportation and Subsistence - Automobile expenses for GEI or employee owned cars will be charged at the rate

per mile set by the Internal Revenue Service for tax purposes plus tolls and parking charges, or at a day rate negotiated

for each project. When required for a project, four-wheel drive vehicles owned by GEI or the employees will be billed

at a daily rate appropriate for those vehicles. Per diem living costs for personnel on assignment away from their home

office will be negotiated for each project.

PAYMENT TERMS Invoices will be submitted monthly or upon completion of a specified scope of service, as described in the accompanying

contract (proposal, project, or agreement document that is signed and dated by GEI and CLIENT).

Payment is due upon receipt of the invoice. Interest will accrue at the rate of 1% of the invoice amount per month, for

amounts that remain unpaid more than 30 days after the invoice date. All payments will be made by either check or

electronic transfer to the address specified by GEI and will include reference to GEI’s invoice number.


To: Chocolay Township Board From: Steve Lawry, Manager Date: January 3, 2017 Subject: Hydraulic Analysis for FEMA

BACKGROUND: The issue of providing to FEMA a hydraulic analysis of the effect 780 cubic yards of fill placed on a residential building lot at 208 Timber Lane would have on the projected 100 year base flood elevation of the Chocolay River has appeared on the Board’s agenda for the last two months. The considerable background material that explained the efforts of property owners Dale and Gail Varty to obtain all of the necessary clearances to build upon their lot was included in both of those agenda packets, but has not been repeated here. The Vartys obtained a zoning compliance permit from the Township in September 2015 and the County soil erosion control and building permits and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Flood Hazard Area permit shortly thereafter. The County and State permits required the building site to be raised to provide that building footings would be above the projected flood elevation of the river, but when the Vartys surveyor filed a request to revise flood prediction maps to account for the fill, FEMA raised an objection with the Township. FEMA asserted that the Township had failed to carry out its responsibilities under the National Flood Insurance Program by allowing fill to be placed within the predicted floodway. Since neither Chocolay Township, nor Marquette County employs staff or has the in-house resources to define wetland areas, floodplains, and floodways, the Township has historically issued its zoning compliance permits contingent upon permits from the appropriate divisions of MDEQ authorizing the applied for construction. The floodplain management specialist at FEMA objected to this approach in this instance, though the agency had not objected previously. She demanded that the Township provide a hydraulic analysis documenting that the fill would not raise the flood elevation by as much as 0.00 feet and required a Township certification that compliance with the Endangered Species Act and protection of the proposed building site from flooding had been achieved. Township staff was told failure on the part of the Township to provide the requested documentation or to require removal of the fill would result in ineligibility of the Township and its residents to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.

In November the Board was asked to evaluate the attached proposal from North Country Engineering to perform the hydraulic analysis that FEMA said was needed. My recommendation from that agenda packet to accept the firm’s proposal is also attached. At that meeting, Ms. Varty asked that the Board delay

XIV.C.1

action on the item and allow her an opportunity to contract directly with North Country Engineering. The Board delayed action for a month and at its December meeting learned that Ms. Varty had just received the completed analysis and delivered it to the Township to be forwarded to FEMA. She did not yet have an invoice from the engineering firm. On January 3, Ms. Varty presented the attached invoice from North Country with a request that the Township pay the cost of the engineering services, since she had been issued a zoning compliance permit that indicated that her building plans complied with the Township administered regulations. She was not made aware of this expense or numerous others she has incurred in trying to implement her plans to build on the site, which FEMA maps indicate is a part of the Chocolay River floodway. Despite numerous attempts to confirm with FEMA that the work performed will satisfy that agency’s requirements, no answer is yet available. The reviewer that has handled the case for the last year has gone on maternity leave and messages left for her replacement have so far gone unanswered. FISCAL EFFECTS: The proposal submitted to the Township by North Country Engineering was for $2,150. Ms. Varty was able to obtain the analysis for $1,806.25. At this writing, it is not yet clear whether additional work may be required to satisfy FEMA’s requirements, but none is anticipated at this time. The Township could elect to pay the invoiced amount as a cost to maintain participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, as a good faith gesture because it failed to fully educate the property owner about the difficulties of attempting to build in the FEMA-mapped floodway, or it could determine the cost should rightfully be paid by the Vartys. If the Board chooses to pay this invoice, funds are available in the Legal/Consulting Services Account of the Township Board 2016 budget. RECOMMENDATION: Although my recommendation in November was to assess the cost of the study against the property owners, my review of the numerous documents and conversations with the parties involved now leads me to recommend that the Township cover the cost of the analysis completed to date by North Country Engineers. This is done as a measure of proper customer service rather than a clear obligation and should not be construed as precedent setting or obligate the Township to further expense for additional analyses. I found no evidence that Township staff withheld any information from the applicant for a zoning compliance permit, nor is it likely that the Zoning Administrator believed this application might be handled differently than previous ones by the County, MDEQ, or FEMA. However, this case has proven quite a learning experience for both Township personnel and the property owner and I will expect future applicants to be advised in far greater detail about the potential risks and costs of attempting to build within flood hazard areas, before they invest so heavily in their projects.

SUGGESTED MOTION: ____________ moved, ___________ seconded to authorize payment of $1,806.25 to North Country Engineering for development of a hydraulic analysis of flood elevations of the Chocolay River in the vicinity of 208 Timber Lane, without such payment obligating the Township for payment of any further analysis required by FEMA or establishing a precedent for analysis of other locations. ALTERNATIVES: The Board could choose to split the cost of the work performed by North County Engineering with the Vartys or could opt not to participate in paying for the study.

XIV.C.2North Country Engineering, Inc.

706 Chippewa Square Suite 102 Marquette.l'vfl 49855 906-226-7683

I Bill To GaH & Dai, V ""> 208 Timl:>er Lane Marquette, Mi 49855

Quantity

1.5 PE 1.25 PE 3.25 PE

2.15 PE

2.5 PE

3.5 PE

3.75 PE

2.15 PE

Item

Invoice Date

......

Account#

16-1644

Description Rate Amount

Document Review At NC£ with Owner 85.00 127.50 Document Organization & Reproduction for Files 85.00 106.25 MDEQ Contact & C(lfrespondence for Permit Review & 85.00 276.25 Background lnformation Research Avallability of Additional Topographic 85.00 233.75 Mapping Review 1962 Chocolay Township Ariel Topography by 85.00 212.50 Abrams Review & compile Available FEM.'\ BFE Geometric 85.00 297.50 Sectional Data for Displacement Calculations Calculations for Effects on the BFE from Inclusion of the 85.00 318. 75 Earth Fill Volume Preparation ofLetter Report Signed & Sealed with 85.00 233.75 A.ttached FEMA Reference Docum~nl.5

Total $1,806.25

XIV.C.3

NORTH COUNTRY ENGINEERING

Steve Lawry, Manager Charter Township of Chocolay 5010 US 41 South Marquette, Michigan 49855

Re: FEMA LOMR-F Case #16-05-3400A 208 Timber Lane, Chocolay Township

Dear Mr Lawry:

Civil Engineering, Surveying & Construction Services 706 Chippewa Square + Suite 102 + Marquette, Ml 49855

Phone 906-226-7683 + Fax 906-226-7089 Website: www.NorthCountryEngineering.com

25th October 2016

This is NCE's proposal in response to your request for professional engineering services to be provided for the resolution of the situation at the above property owned by Dale and Gail Varty. According to the correspondence from FEMA Region 5, Chicago to Chocolay Township, dated 1st September 2016, fill placed within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) must be accompanied by assurance from the local participating community that the fill will cause no rise (0.00) to the Base Flood Elevation (BFE).

The correspondence goes on to state that this assurance requires the applicant to provide a hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) analysis along with a sealed statement of "no rise" above BFE from a professional engineer licensed in the State of Michigan (reference 44CFR 60.3(d)(3) - "This can be demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice, that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of base flood discharge."

NCE has made inquiries of local and state agencies for available topographic survey data to be used in stream and floodplain modelling (US Anny Corps of Engineers HEC-RAS software) typically used for applications such as bridge design and permitting. The north side of the Chocolay at the Varty property has been well-surveyed for topography by Van Este Survey, but the large area of flood plain which extends to the former LS&I railroad grade to the south has not been surveyed to the best of our knowledge.

For present purposes, and in lieu of detailed survey data, NCE proposes to present an analysis based on information given to date: base flood elevation, stream section geometric data, flood stage velocities and dimensions of fill placed at the Varty property. This service would be provided for a lump sum amount of $2,150 which would include calculations, methodology and a signed and sealed statement, as per FEMA requirements.

If surveying services are necessary, NCE would be available to provide these services at our standard professional rates.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this quote for engineering services on the above project. If this proposal is acceptable, please sign and date both copies and return one to us. Should you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call our office at 906-226-7683 or my cell phone at 906-869-1186.

Sincerely, NORTH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.

~wt cJ 01Jimand!

Kurt J Simandl, PE Owner/Engineer

Authorizing Signature Date

XIV.C.4


To: From: Date: Subject:

Chocolay Township Board Steve Lawry, Manager October 26, 2016 Hydraulic Analysis for FEMA

BACKGROUND: In September of 2015 Mr. & Mrs. Dale and Gail Varty were issued a zoning compliance permit by then Chocolay Township Zoning Administrator Kelly DrakeWoodward to construct a single family home on property zoned R1 at 208 Timber Lane. The Township permit noted the need to obtain a Flood Hazard Area permit from the MDEQ and a Soil and Sedimentation Control permit from the County, in addition to the home construction permit from the County Building Codes Department. The property owners subsequently obtained all of these with the MDEQ permit authorizing placement of a maximum 1000 cubic yards of fill to raise the site of the building footprint one foot above the 100-year flood elevation of 614.0, as determined by FEMA. The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map of the area showed the building site to be within the designated floodway, but inspections by Ms. Woodward and MDEQ's floodplain manager, as well as a topographic survey prepared for the lot owners seemed to indicate that the building site was within the floodplain, but not the floodway. The Varty's surveyor therefore filed application with FEMA for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). Because the fill was put into place before the LOMR was received, FEMA would not or could not approve the map revision without a professional hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the site with calculations to show that the fill will not raise the Base Flood Elevation by as much as one tenth of a foot. Mr. Van Neste, the Varty's surveyor submitted drawings, data, and calculations to show that the fill area is separated from the river floodway by a ridge of higher ground. The Varty's also employed Professional Engineer Brian Savolainen who reviewed Mr. Van Neste's work, NOAA Hydrologic Prediction Service data, and a 1999 Chocolay River Watershed report and submitted a written opinion supporting the position that the Varty building site was not within the floodway and that the 780 cubic yards of fill on the property were infinitesimal in the scope of the watershed. Neither of these submittals, however, contained the hydrologic and hydraulic calculations that FEMA is insisting upon. I direct your attention to the second paragraph of the attached September 1, 2016 e-mail letter from Ms. Mollie Rosario, Floodplain Management Specialist at FEMA Region V Headquarters in Chicago. Furthermore, FEMA insists that the certification that there will be no rise in the Base Flood Elevation be submitted by the participating community, Chocolay Township, and not by MDEQ or the property owner.

A more recent e-mail letter from Ms. Rosario to Supervisor Walker dated October 6, 2016, finds the Township out of compliance with the terms of the National Flood Insurance Program and indicates that a Corrective Action Plan will be required to bring the property and Township enforcement actions into program compliance. The consequence for failing to meet the standards within prescribed time limits is expulsion of the Township from the Flood Insurance Program. As was pointed out when the Township renewed its program participation earlier this year by adopting new maps and a joint resolution with Marquette County, if the program is not available to Township residents, they will find it extremely difficult to secure mortgages, re-financing, and even home insurance policies if FEMA maps indicate that their property is within a floodplain. Ms. Rosario has referred the matter to the Director of the Mitigation Division. The Township has been awaiting an official notice of non-compliance from this individual since October 6. None has been received to date, but I have solicited a proposal to perform the requested hydrologic and hydraulic analysis from North Country Engineering. That firm has successfully obtained a similar permit from FEMA by submitting an analysis for a property in a neighboring jurisdiction.

I have also attached many of the documents mentioned in my memorandum to give the Board some sense of the complexity of this issue and the efforts exerted so far to resolve it. I believe Ms. Varty will be in attendance at the Board meeting to provide further background, if necessary.

FISCAL EFFECTS: North Country Engineering believes they can complete the required analysis using existing survey and database information. Completing the calculations with this data will entail a fee of $2,150. If this proves unacceptable to FEMA and additional cross sections of the river and adjacent wetland are required, the costs could be considerably higher. However, and satellite mapping of the area is expected to be available early next year, which could also negate the need for field surveys to map the wetland topography. The Township could elect to pay the quoted above as a cost to maintain participation in the National Flood Insurance Program or it could assess the cost against the Varty's.

RECOMMENDATION: In the interest of protecting the Township's right to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program for the benefit of its residents, it is the recommended that the Township retain the services of North Country Engineering to perform a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the effect fill on the property at 208 Timber Lane will have on the base flood elevation of the Chocolay River. It is further recommended that the cost of these engineering services be assessed against the owners of 208 Timber Lane and that Township staff continue to work with the owners to obtain a FEMA Letter of Map Revision and validation of the permits already issued by Chocolay Township, Marquette County Building Codes Department, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

SUGGESTED MOTION:

----- moved, seconded to retain the services of North Country Engineering to perform a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the effect fill on the property at 208 Timber Lane will have on the base flood elevation of the Chocolay River at a cost not to exceed $2,150 and to recover the cost of these services from the owners of 208 Timber Lane.

ALTERNATIVES: According to Ms. Rosario's letter of October 6, alternatives available to the Township also include requiring the fill to be removed from the regulatory floodway, a convincing alternative engineering analysis supporting a no rise in base flood elevation finding, obtaining the analysis from the MDEQ, submitting a request for a Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-F), or suffering enforcement action which would likely include expulsion from the Flood Insurance Program. FEMA rejected Mr. Savolainen's analysis submitted previously; the MDEQ permit states that it is the community's responsibility to ensure that the FEMA requirements are met; and the LOMR-F request form was filed last year by Mr. Van Neste and MDEQ Floodplain Manager Sheila Meier on behalf of the Varty's and was also rejected by FEMA. I do not believe withdrawing or being expelled from the insurance program is a viable option, so that leaves requiring the Varty's to restore the floodplain portion of their land to the original contours and finding an alternate spot on the property to place the home. The Township might also consider paying for all or a portion of the engineering analysis from the Professional Services Account of the Board budget.


To: Chocolay Township Board From: Dale Throenle, Planning Director / Zoning Administrator Date: January 4, 2017 Subject: Replacement of Animal Control Ordinance #41 with a New Ordinance #62

BACKGROUND: In May, 2016, discussions began with the Planning Commission to look at Ordinance # 41, Animal Control. The purpose was to fix outdated language related to dogs and to address resident requests concerning the ability to raise chickens within the Township in non-agricultural districts.

In reviewing the ordinance, staff discovered several sections that were outdated in relation to County and State regulations (such as licensing requirements). Additionally, definitions were outdated or did not include provisions such as the ability to have a service dog in the Township. Staff also researched several bordering municipality zoning ordinances in relation to the raising of chickens within those municipalities.

The ordinance was addressed over several meetings, with the intent of discussing changes in two parts. Part one addressed the changes necessary to bring the ordinance in line with the County and State requirements, and part two addressed the request for raising chickens.

A public hearing on the ordinance was held at the October, 2016 meeting. Commissioners addressed those comments, and asked for further information on the public’s comments for the November meeting. The additional requested information was presented to the Planning Commission at the November meeting. Small adjustments were made to the ordinance, and the amended ordinance was passed with the intent of sending the proposed ordinance to the Board for consideration.

On December 5, the proposed ordinance and seven additional documents were sent to the Township Attorney for his comments. The attorney reviewed the documents, and in a meeting with the Planning Director, addressed his concerns and provided suggested changes.

The proposed amendment that is attached for your review has incorporated his suggested changes.

FISCAL EFFECTS: The costs of updating the ordinance consists of administrative time and the price of advertising proposed and adopted language. Advertising in the Mining Journal is estimated to cost $100 for each publication.

XV.A.1

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board review the process of the development of Ordinance # 62 and review the proposed ordinance changes. It is recommended that the Board determine if the revisions are appropriate for Chocolay Township, and if necessary, change language as necessary before the second reading of the ordinance at the February 2017 meeting. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: ______________ moved, supported by ______________, that after review of proposed Ordinance #62 and recommendations of the Township Planning Commission, the Board schedule a second reading on the proposed language [as written / as revised] of Ordinance #62 at its February 2017 meeting. ALTERNATIVES: The Board may wish to schedule a public hearing prior to the second reading.

1

ORDINANCE 62 ANIMAL CONTROL

SECTION 1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this Ordinance is to secure and maintain the public health, safety and welfare of

the residents and property owners of the Charter Township of Chocolay by providing for the control,

conduct and care of animals within Chocolay Township.

SECTION 2 TITLE

This Ordinance is to be known and cited as the "Charter Township of Chocolay Animal Control

Ordinance".

SECTION 3 DEFINITIONS

For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following terms shall be used:

Word or Phrase Definition

Adequate care Means the provision of sufficient food, water, shelter, sanitary conditions, exercise, and veterinary medical attention in order to maintain an animal in a state of good health

Animal Means, but not limited to, birds; fish; reptiles; amphibians; poultry; ornamental and/or game birds; arachnids and insects; and all non-human mammals, male, female, and offspring thereof or sexually altered including dogs, cats, livestock, and poultry

Animal bite Means a penetration of the skin caused by an animal

Animal Control Officer Means a person or persons whose duty it is to enforce this Ordinance and the State Statutes pertaining to animal control and welfare within the boundaries of the Charter Township of Chocolay

Business day Means days when the Township offices are open, not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays

Calendar day Means all days on a calendar, including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays

County Means the County of Marquette

Dispose Means to donate, sell, reclaim or to destroy an animal in a humane manner

Dog Means male, female, offspring or sexually altered animal of the domesticated canine family

Enclosure Means a structure or fencing used to immediately restrict one or more animals to a limited amount of space

Holiday Means a day of the year Township offices are officially closed as approved annually by the Township Board

Impound facility Means a designated location for the purpose of holding and caring for impounded or confined animals

XV.A.2

2


Kennel Means an establishment where dogs are kept for pay for purposes of breeding, board or sale; or

A premise where four or more dogs are kept

Law Enforcement Officer Means any person employed or elected by the people of the state, or by any municipality, county, or township, whose duty it is to preserve peace or to make arrests or to enforce the law

Livestock Means animals used for human food and fiber or animals used for service to human beings

Includes, but is not limited to, cattle, swine, sheep, llamas, goats, bison, horses and rabbits

Livestock does not include dogs or cats.

Non-agricultural area Means any area zoned by the Charter Township of Chocolay other than the Agriculture / Forestry (AF) district as established in the Township Zoning Ordinance

Owner Means, but is not limited to, any person or persons owning premises, occupying or in the possession of any property, having proprietorship of an animal, right of property of an animal, or an authorized agent

Any person who keeps, harbors, has care of, custody of or control of an animal for a period of five or more calendar days

Any person that allows any animal to remain on his or her premises for a period of five or more calendar days

Poultry Means domesticated fowl (such as chickens, turkeys, ducks or geese) raised for meat or eggs

Reasonable control Means an animal that is leashed or kept in such a position as to be obedient to the commands or restraint of the owner or person having custody or control of the animal

Repeat offense Means a second, or any subsequent, municipal civil infraction violation of the same requirement or provision of this Animal Control Ordinance committed by a person within any twenty-four month period, and for which the person admits responsibility or is determined to be responsible

Run at large Means an animal that is free of its enclosure and is unrestrained and is not under reasonable control

Exception: A hunting dog which has been released from restraint for hunting purposes shall be deemed to be under reasonable control of its owner or handler while engaged in or returning from hunting, and, if the hunting dog becomes temporarily lost from a pack or wanders from actual control or sight of its owner or handler it shall not be deemed to be a violation.

Service dog Means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability

State Means the State of Michigan

Suspected rabid animal Means any animal that bites or scratches, causing penetration of the skin or

An animal that exhibits apparent symptoms of rabies

Township Means the of the Charter Township of Chocolay

3


Vicious animal Means any animal in the process of threatening person or property, or any animal that in the experience of a Law Enforcement Agency repeatedly threatens or destroys persons or property

SECTION 4 ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER

The qualifications, duties, and authority for the Animal Control Officer are:

(A) Qualifications

The Animal Control Officer shall:

1. Be employed by the Township and shall serve within the Police Department.

2. Be paid a salary as established by appropriate resolution of the Township Board In lieu of all fees

and other remuneration under the Statutes of the State.

(B) Duties


1. Promptly investigate any incident involving any animal reported or seen running at large.

2. Based on the Officer's investigation, the animal may be seized, transported and impounded at

the impound facility in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance or the Statutes of the

State.

3. Issue citations to any person in violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or the Statutes of

the State.

4. Promptly investigate all reported animal bites and, if there is human exposure, search out and

attempt to discover the animal involved, the owner of the animal, and proceed as described in

Section 8 of this Ordinance.

5. Investigate complaints of any animal alleged to be dangerous to persons or property, and if such

complaint is justifiable, impound the animal or take other appropriate action.

6. Investigate complaints of cruelty to animals and seize, transport and impound such animal,

pursuant to Chapter IX of the Michigan Penal Code, as amended, codified at MCL 750.49 –

750.70.

7. Shall make a determination that an animal is a potentially dangerous animal if the officer

determines that the animal’s behavior was not the result of the victim abusing or tormenting

the animal, was not the result of accidental or instinctive behavior while playing, did not involve

a significant injury, or other similar mitigating or extenuating circumstances.

(C) Authority


1. Be authorized and empowered to enter upon any property where animals are being kept, and, if

there is probable cause to believe that this Ordinance is being violated, for the purpose of

making inquiries about any animals on the property.

2. Determine if the owner of such animals has complied with the appropriate provisions of this

Ordinance; if not, the owner shall be notified of the provisions of this Ordinance and allowed ten

business days to comply.

3. Be deputized to enforce this Ordinance and the Statutes of the State pertaining to animals, and

to make complaint to the District Court or other appropriate Court in regard to any violations.

4

SECTION 5 LICENSES FOR DOGS

(A) All dogs four months old or over in the Township must be properly licensed and have proof of a

current rabies vaccination, unless the dog is properly licensed under procedures established by the

State and the County of Marquette. Current dog licenses issued by other jurisdictions within the

State prior to residence in the Township shall be honored and valid for the remainder of the

calendar year in which they were issued.

(B) Any dog not confined in an enclosure, or not immediately engaged in hunting, must wear a collar at

all times with a current license and rabies tag attached.

(C) No dog shall be exempt from a rabies vaccination, unless a registered and practicing veterinarian of

the State certifies in writing that such vaccination would be detrimental to the health of the dog.

(D) No license or license tag issued for one dog shall be transferable to another dog. Whenever

ownership or possession of any dog is permanently transferred from one person to another within

the same County, the license of such dog may likewise transfer, upon written notice given by the

last registered owner to the County Treasurer who shall note such transfer upon the Treasurer

records. This Ordinance does not require procurement of a new license or the transfer of a license

already secured where the possession of a dog is temporarily transferred for the purpose of

boarding, hunting, trial or show.

SECTION 6 KENNELS

(A) Any person or persons who want to own, keep or operate a kennel in the Township shall apply to

the County Treasurer or County-authorized agent for a kennel license.

(B) Any owner who is required to obtain a County kennel license shall post a valid copy on the premises.

SECTION 7 ENCLOSURES

(A) All animal enclosures shall be structurally sound and maintained in good repair to protect the

animals from injury, to shield them from the sun and adverse weather conditions, to contain them

and to keep predators out.

(B) All enclosures shall be constructed and maintained so as to enable the animals to remain dry and

clean.

(C) All enclosures shall be constructed and maintained so as to provide sufficient space to allow each

animal to turn about freely and to easily stand, sit and lie in a comfortable, normal position.

(D) The floors of an enclosure shall be constructed so as to protect the animal’s feet and legs from

injury.

(E) Each enclosure shall be provided with a solid resting surface or surfaces which, in the aggregate,

shall be of adequate size to comfortably hold all occupants of the enclosure at the same time.

(F) If a house with a chain is used as an enclosure for an animal kept outdoors, the chain used shall be

placed or attached so that it cannot become entangled with the chains of other animals or with

objects. The chain shall be the type commonly used for the size of animal involved and shall be

attached to the animal by means of a well fitted collar. The chain shall be at least three times the

length of the animal as measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail and shall allow the

animal convenient access to the animal house.

5

SECTION 8 ANIMAL BITES AND PROCEDURES

(A) Any animal kept as a pet that bites or scratches a person or other animal, penetrating the skin, shall

be securely confined by the owner away from other animals inside an appropriate building or

enclosure for a period of ten calendar days. The owner shall immediately report any unusual

behavior or appearance change during the ten calendar day period to the Animal Control Officer. In

the event the Animal Control Officer has reason to believe the owner will not comply with this

section, the Animal Control Officer shall take custody of the animal and confine it at the impound

facility for ten business days at the expense of the owner.

(B) Any animal running loose after biting or scratching a person or other animal causing penetration of

the skin, and whose owner cannot be determined, shall be confined for ten business days at the

impound facility.

(C) Any wild animal that shall bite or scratch a person causing penetration of the skin shall be

immediately destroyed according to State-defined suspected rabid animal procedures.

(D) Any animal, domestic or wild, which has bitten or scratched a person or other animal causing

penetration of the skin that cannot be apprehended may, at the discretion of the Animal Control

Officer, be immediately destroyed according to State-defined suspected rabid animal procedures.

(E) Any animal, as previously described in any of the above sections, that should die or become ill

during the time of confinement will be suspected as rabid and treated according to State-defined

suspected rabid animal procedures.

SECTION 9 IMPOUND FACILITY

(A) Any animal observed to be in immediate danger by a Law Enforcement Officer or Animal Control

Officer may be removed from the situation by the quickest and most reasonable means available

and placed in the impound facility.

(B) Any animal found running at large may be seized by a Law Enforcement Officer and if the owner of

the animal cannot be located, impounded in accordance with the Statutes of the State.

(C) Upon impoundment of an animal, the Law Enforcement Officer or Animal Control Officer shall make

every reasonable effort to promptly notify the owner of the animal and inform the owner of the

location and how custody can be regained in accordance with the regulations of the Township and

the impound facility.

(D) Any animal not redeemed within the impound period shall be disposed of in accordance with the

provisions of the impoundment facility.

(E) Impound fees shall be posted at the impound facility and the fees must be paid upon redeeming the

animal.

(F) Impound fees will be set annually by the Township Board and posted in the Township’s Adopted Fee

Schedule.

(G) Any owner who willfully fails to redeem the impounded animal after notification of impoundment

shall be cited for cruelty by neglect of said animal under the Cruelty Statutes of the State.

6

SECTION 10 SEIZING OF ANIMALS

(A) It shall be lawful for any person to seize an animal running at large upon his or her property in

violation of this Ordinance or the Statutes of the State and to turn the animal over to a Law

Enforcement Officer.

(B) In no event shall the provisions of this Ordinance exonerate a person from compliance with the

criminal laws of this State, including the safe discharge of firearms.

SECTION 11 LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY IN NON-AGRICULTURAL AREAS

(A) No livestock or poultry, except chickens, shall be owned, kept, possessed, harbored or kept charge

of within the boundaries of any nonagricultural area within Chocolay Township.

(B) The keeping of chickens in non-agriculture districts shall be subject to the following requirements:

1. A chicken license is required prior to chickens being permitted on the premises.

2. Chicken owner(s) may not keep more than six chicken hens on the premises at any one time.

Hens are for personal use only and not for any business or commercial use.

3. No selling of chickens or eggs is permitted.

4. Roosters are prohibited.

5. Chickens shall not be kept in any location on the property other than in the backyard.

Exception: Waterfront residential can be either in the front yard or backyard if screened from

public view.

6. Chickens shall be maintained in a fully enclosed structure or a fenced enclosure and shall be

kept in the enclosed structure or fenced enclosure at all times. Fenced enclosures and structures

are subject to all fence and structure provisions and restrictions in the Township Zoning

Ordinance.

7. Chicken structures, or the portions of other structures used to house or provide shelter for small

animals, shall not exceed two hundred square feet of ground floor area nor exceed ten feet in

height.

8. An enclosed structure shall follow all zoning setback requirements for the zoning district.

9. An enclosed structure or fenced enclosure shall not be located closer than twenty feet (20) or

designated setbacks for the property’s zoning district, whichever is greater, from any boundary

of the property it is located upon.

10. All structures and enclosures for the keeping of chickens shall be constructed and maintained so

as to prevent rats, mice, or other rodents or vermin from living underneath or within the walls

of the structure or enclosure.

11. All feed and other items associated with the keeping of chickens likely to attract rats, mice, or

other rodents or vermin shall be secured and protected in sealed containers.

12. Chickens and all containment areas shall be maintained in a clean, sanitary manner with

removal of manure on as regular a basis as necessary to prevent the detection of odor beyond

the owner’s boundaries.

13. All chickens shall be kept in compliance with the criteria set forth in the Michigan Department of

Agriculture Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices for the Care of Farm

Animals, regardless of technical applicability to non-commercial operations.

7

SECTION 12 VIOLATIONS

(A) It shall be unlawful for any person or owner to allow any animal of any age, licensed or unlicensed,

wearing or not wearing a collar to:

1. Run at large, except working farm dogs and hunting dogs while actively engaged in the activity

for which they are trained and under the direction of the owner. An animal need not be

physically restrained, but must be under reasonable control of the responsible person.

2. Be within the confines of any public park that prohibits animals. A service dog accompanied by

its owner shall be exempt.

3. Destroy or deface property, real or personal.

4. Soil or pollute with body waste the property of persons other than the owner.

5. Attack or bite a person.

6. Show vicious habits or harass passers-by, when such person(s) are lawfully in a public place.

7. Cause serious annoyance by loud and / or frequent noise.

(B) It shall be unlawful for any person to:

1. Remove a collar or tag from any animal without the permission of the owner.

2. Decoy or entice any animal out of an enclosure or off the property of the owner.

3. Seize, harass or tease any animal while held or led by any person or while on the property of the

owner.

SECTION 13 ENFORCEMENT

(A) This Ordinance shall be enforced by the Township Animal Control Officer, by the Township Police

Department, or by a person or persons as the Township Board may designate.

(B) In the event of any violation of any provision of this Ordinance or the laws of the State, an Animal

Control Officer or Law Enforcement Officer may take such measures as may be necessary to initiate

and pursue enforcement action against such violator as a civil infraction.

(C) The Court, upon a finding of guilty, shall assess the penalties in accordance with the penalty

provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 14 PENALTIES

(A) Any person violating any provision of this Ordinance shall be deemed responsible for a civil

infraction, and upon an admission of responsibility or a finding of responsibility, shall be subject to

payment of a civil fine of not less than $50.00 or more than $300.00, plus costs and other sanctions,

including but not limited to injunctive relief, for each infraction.

(B) Repeat offenses shall be subject to increased fines in accordance with this section.

(C) The increased fine for a repeat offense under this section shall be as follows:

1. The fine for any offense which is a first repeat offense shall be no less than $75.00 or more than

$300.00, plus costs and other sanctions; and,

2. The fine for any offense which is a second repeat offense or any subsequent repeat offense shall

be no less than $100.00 or more than $300.00, plus costs and sanctions.

8

SECTION 15 PRESERVATION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS

(A) Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to prevent the owner of an animal from recovery in an

action at law from any Law Enforcement Officer or any other person, except as herein provided.

(B) Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed as limiting the Common Law liability of the owner of an

animal for damages committed by said animal.

SECTION 16 VALIDITY

Should any action, clause or provision of this Ordinance be declared to be invalid, the same shall

not affect the validity of this Ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof, other than the part so declared

invalid.

SECTION 17 REPEAL

Ordinance 41 and all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this

Ordinance are hereby repealed.

SECTION 18 EFFECTIVE DATE

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty calendar days from ________________.

XV.A.3

PURPOSE

ORDINANCE #41

ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE

Deeming it advisable in the interest of protecting the public's health, safety, welfare and convenience, we the people do proceed with this Ordinance, pertaining to the control, conduct and care of animals within Chocolay Township.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

SECTION 41.01 DEFINITIONS

SECTION 41.02 ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER

A. qualifications

B. duties

C. authority

SECTION 41.03 DOGS, LICENSING

SECTION 41.04 KENNELS

SECTION 41.05 ENCLOSURES

SECTION 41.06 ANIMAL BITES AND PROCEDURES

SECTION 41.07 IMPOUNDMENT AND IMPOUND FACILITIES

SECTION 41.08 KILLING AND/OR SEIZING OF ANIMALS

SECTION 41.09 PROHIBITION

SECTION 41.10 VIOLATIONS

SECTION 41.11 PENALTIES

SECTION 41.12 PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 41.13 SEVERABILITY

SECTION 41.14 EFFECTIVE DATE AND ADOPTION



(a) ANIMAL: unless otherwise stated the word "ANIMAL" shall include but not be limited to: birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, arachnids and insects; poultry, ornamental and/or game.birds, possessed and/or being reared pursuant to Act 191 of the Public Acts of 1929, as amended, being Sections 317.71-317.85 of the Compiled Laws of 1948 (MSA Sections 13.1271-13.1285). All mammals, male, female, any offspring thereof or sexually altered including dogs and cats; livestock, including but not limited to: horses, sheep, cattle, mules, goats, swine, rabbits or other fur-bearing animals being raised in captivity.

(b) PERSON: any human being, State, County or local employee, corporation, co-partnership and/or association.

(c) OWNER: shall include but not be limited to any person or persons owning premises, occupying or in the possession of any property, having proprietorship of an animal, right of property of an animal, or an authorized agent. Any person or persons who keeps, harbors, has care, custody or control of an animal. Any person or persons that allows any animal to remain on or about premises occupied by him/her for a period of five or more days.

(d) LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: any person or persons whose sworn duty it is to preserve the peace and to enforce the law.

(e) ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER: any person or persons whose duty it is to enforce this Ordinance and the State Statutes pertaining to animal control and welfare, within the boundaries of the Charter Township of Chocolay.

(f) IMPOUND FACILITY: a designated structure for the purpose of holding and caring for impounded ·or confined animals.

(g) DAY: shall mean working cays including ~aturday. not include Sundays or Holidays.

It:shall

(h) DOG: as used in this Orinance shall include male, female, offspring or sexually altered.

(i) LEADER DOG: a dog specifically trained as a Leader, Guide or Sight Dog for a person legally blind.

(j) KENNEL: an establishment wherein dogs are kept for remuneration, by breeding, board or sale. A premise whereat four (4) or more dogs are kept shall be considered a KENNEL and owners must comply with Section 41.04 of this Ordinance and with applicable State Statutes.

(k) ENCLOSURE: a structure used to immediately restrict one or more animals to a limited amount of space.

(1) ANIMAL BITES: a penetration of the skin caused by an animal.

117

(m) SUSPECTED RABID ANIMAL: any animal that bites or scratches, c aus ing penetration of the skin.

(n) VICIOUS ANIMAL: any animal in the process of threatening person or property, or any animal that in the experience of a Law Enforcement Agency repeatedly threatens or destroys person or property.

(0) DISPOSE: to donate, sell, reclaim or to destroy in a humane manner.

(p) NON-AGRI CULTURAL AREA: any area zoned by the Charter Township of Chocolay for other than agricultural purposes.

(q) TOWNSHIP BOARD: unless otherwise specifie d, the term TOWNSHIP BOARD shall mean of the Charter Township o f Chocolay.


A. QUALIFICATIONS

1. An Animal Control Officer may be employed by the Township Board and shall serve within the De partment of Law Enforcement.

118

2. An Animal Control Officer shall meet the requirements of the H.ichigan Department of Agriculture and of the Personnel Policy of the Township.

3. In lieu of all fees and other re~uneration under the Statutes of the State, an Animal Control Officer shall be paid a salary as established by appropriate resolution of the Township Board.

B. DUTIES:

An Animal Control Officer shall:

1. promptly investigate any incident involving any animal running at large. Based on the Officer's investigation, the animal may be seized, transported and impounded at the impound facility in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance or the Statutes of the State.

2. issue appearance tickets to any person in violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or the Statutes of the State.

3. dispose of all impounded animals which are not claimed and released within the Statutory holding period.

4. promptly investigate all animal._bites and if there is human exposure, search out and attempt to discover the animal involved, the owner of the same, and proceed as described in Section 41.06 of this Ordinance.

5. locate all unlicensed dogs, list such dogs and begin necessary proceedings as provided in this Ordinance and the Statutes of the State.

6. inspect kennels for the purpose of licensing and may suspend a license if he/she has reason to believe conditions exist which are unsanitary or inhumane to the animals. If such conditions are not corrected within a reasonable period of time, the Animal Control Officer shall have the authority to revoke said license.

7. investigate complaints o f any animal alleged to be dangerous to persons or property, and if such complaint is justifiable, the animal may be impounded and appro-priate action taken. ·

8. investigate complaints of cruelty to animals and has the right to seize , take up and impound such a n i mal, pursuant to Public Act 70 o f 1877 as amended.

C. AUTHORITY

1. An Animal Control Officer shall be authorized and e mpowered to e nter upon any property where animals are b eing kept, and there is probable cause to be lie v e that this Ordinance is being violated , f or the purpose of making inquiries about any animals thereon. The Animal Control Officer shall determine i f the owner of said animals has complied with the appropriate provisions of this Ordi nance ; if not, the owner shall b e noti f i e d of the provisions of this Ordinance and a llowed fifteen (1 5 ) days t o comply.

2. An Animal Control Officer shall b e deputized to enforce this Ordinance and the Statutes of the State pertaining to animals, and to make complaint to the District Court or o t he r appropriate Court in regard to a ny violation t hereo f .

SECTION 41.03 DOGS, LICENSING

A. On or before June 1 of each year, every owner of any dog six months or over shall purchase a current license for every dog owned or kept by him/her from the Treasurer or authorized agent in the Township where the owner resides. Proof of vaccination against rabies, with a vaccine licensed by U.S.D.A. and signed by an accredited veterinarian, shall be required in order to purchase the license. License forms shall state the breed, sex, age, color and markings of the dog. For any dog attaining the age of six months after June 1, the owner shall have seven (7) days in which to obtain a license without penalty.

B. It shall be unlawful for any person to own any dog six months old or over, unless the dog is licensed as hereinafter provided:

1. The license fee for all dogs shall be established by the Marquette County Board of Commissioners and posted at all locations that shall have the authority to sell such licenses.

2. For dogs reaching the age of six months after June 1, and before July 10, the license fee shall not be doubled.

3. For any person becoming the owner of a dog six months old or over after July 10, the license fee shall be one-half (~) the amount fixed as the annual fee for such dog.

4. Fees for Leader Dogs are hereby waived.

5. Current dog licenses issued by other Counties within the State of Michigan, prior to residence in Chocolay Township, shall be honored and valid for the remainder o f the calendar year in which they were issued. Owners of said dog(s) are required to notify the licensing agent for Chocolay Township of the dog or dogs.

6. Any dog not confined in an enclosure, or not immediately engaged in hunting, must at all times wear a collar with a license tag approved by the Director of the Mi chigan Departme nt of Agriculture attached.

7. All dog licenses expire on December 31 of the year purchased.

C. It shall be unlawful:

1. for any person exc e pt the owner to remove any collar an/or license tag from any dog.

2. f or any owner to allow any dog to run at large except working farm dogs or hunting dogs while actively e ngage d in the activity fo r which they are trained and under the direction o f the owner.

D. No dog shall be exempt from a rabies vaccination, unless a registered and practicing veterinarian of the State of Michigan certifies in writing that such vaccination would be detrimental to the health o f the dog.

E. No license or lice n se tag issued f or o ne dog shall b e transferable to another dog. Whenever ownership or possession of any dog is permanently transferred from one

119

I 120

person to another within the same County, the license of such dog may likewise transfer, upon written notice given by the last registered owner to the County Treasurer who shall note such transfer upon his/her records. This Ordinance does not require procurement of a new license or the transfer of a license already secured where the possession of a dog is temporarily transferred for the purpose of boarding, hunting, trial or show.

F. If the dog license tag is lost, it may be replaced by the County Treasurer upon request of the owner of the dog and upon surrendering the owner's copy of such license and a sworn statement of the fact regarding the loss of such tag. The cost of said replacement tag shall be determined by resolution of the Marquette County Board of Commissioners.

SECTION 41.04 KENNELS

A. Any person(s) who wishes to own, keep or operate a kennel shall, in lieu of individual licenses required under this Ordinance and under the Laws of the State of Michigan, apply to the County Treasurer or authorized agent thereof, for a k e nnel license.

B. Any person(s) who at any one time owns four (4) or more dogs at a single location within the boundaries of any non-agricultural area within Chocolay Township, shall on or before June 1 of every year apply for a kennel license as r e quired under Act 339 of Public Acts of 1919, as amende d. Failure to do so is punishable as set forth in the Pe nalty provision o f this Ordinance. Fees f or a kennel license shall be established by resolution of the Marquette County Board of Commissioners.

SECTION 41.05 ENCLOSURES

A. All e nclosure s shall be structurally s ound and mainta i ned in good repair to prote ct the a nimals from injur y, to contain them and to keep predators out.

B. All enclosures shall be constructed and mai ntained s o as to e nable the animals to r e main dry and cle an.

C. All e nclos ure s shal l be c o n s tructed a nd maintained s o as to provide sufficie nt space to allow e ach animal to turn about freely and to easily stand, sit and lie in a comfortable, normal position.

D. The floor s of a n e nclosure shal l b e constructed s o as to protect t h e ani ma l s ' f eet and l egs from i n j ury.

E. Each enclosure shall b e p r ovided with a solid r e s ting surf ace or surfaces which, in the aggr egate, shall be of adequate s ize to c omfortably hold a l l occupa nts of the e nclosure a t the same time .

F . I f a h ouse wi th a chain is u sed as an e nclosur e for an a n ima l kept outdoors , t h e c h ain u sed s hall b e s o placed o r attache d that it cannot become e ntangled with the cha ins of other an i mals or with obje cts. Such chain s hall be the type commonly used f o r the s i ze of animal involv e d and s hall b e a ttache d t o the a n i mal by me ans o f a we l l fitted collar . Such chain s hall be at least three ( 3 ) t i mes t h e length o f t h e animal as measure d f rom the tip of i ts nose to the base of its tail and shall a llow the anima l covenie nt acces s to the animal house.

SECTION 41.0 6 ANIMAL BITES AND PROCEDURES:

A. Any animal kept as a pet that bites a person or other animal, penetrating the skin, shall be securely confined by the owner inside an appropriate building or enclosure

121

for a period of ten (10) days. In the event tfie Law Enforcement Officer has reason to believe the stipulation of this section will not be complied with, the Officer shall take custody of the animal and confine it at the impound facility for the required ten days at the expense of the owner or agent.

B. Any animal running loose after biting a person or other animal causing penetration of the skin, and whose owner cannot be determined, shall be confined for ten(lO) days at the impound facility.

C. Any wild animal that shall bite or scratch a person, causing penetration of the skin, shall be immediately destroyed and procedures for suspected rabid animal followed.

D. Any animal, domestic or wild, which has bitten a person or other animal causing penetration of the skin, that cannot be apprehended, may at the discretion of the Officer be immediately destroyed and the procedures for suspected rabid animal will be immediately followed.

E. Any animal as previously described in any of the above sections, that should die or become ill during the time of confinement, will be suspected as rabid and procedures for such will be immediately followed.

SECTION 41.07 IMPOUND FACILITY

A. Any animal found running at large may be seized by a Law Enforcement Officer and if the owner of the animal cannot be located, impounded in accordance with the Statutes of the State.

B. Upon impoundment of an animal, the Law Enforcement Officer shall make every reasonable effort to promptly notify the owner of said animal and inform such owner of the location and how custody can be regained in accordance with the regulations of the Township and/or Agent.

C. Any animal not redeemed within the impound period shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.

D. Any owner after notification of impoundment, who willfully fails to redeem the impounded animal, shall be cited for cruelty by neglect of said animal under the Cruelty Statutes of the State.

E. Impound fees shall be posted at the impound facility and the fees must be paid upon redeeming the animal.

F. Impound fees will be set by the Township Board.


A. Any animal that enters an enclosure which is owned or leased by a person raising livestock or poultry, unaccompanied by the owner, shall be in violation of this Ordinance. The Owner or leasee of such enclosure or his/her agent may apprehend or kill such animal while it is in the enclosure, without liability for killing such animal.

B. It shall be lawful for any person to seize an animal running at large upon his/her property in violation of this Ordinance or the Statutes of the State of Michigan and to turn said animal over to a Law Enforcement Officer.

122

C. In no event shall the provisions of this Article exonerate a person from compliance with the criminal laws of this State, including the safe discharge of firearms.

SECTION 41.09 PROHIBITION OF LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY IN NON-AGRICULTURAL AREAS

No livestock or poultry shall be owned, kept, possessed, harbored or kept charge of within the boundaries of any nonagricultural area within Chocolay Township.

SECTION 41.10 VIOLATIONS AND PROCEDURE THEREOF

A. It shall be unlawful for any person or owner to allow any animal of any age, licensed or unlicensed, wearing or not wearing a collar to:

1. run at large. An animal need not be physically restrained, but under reasonable control of a responsible person.

2. be within the confines of any public park when such park prohibits animals. A Leader Dog accompanied by its owner shall be exempt.

3. destroy or deface property, real or personal.

4. soil or pollute with body waste the property of persons other than the owner.

5. attack or bite a person.

6. show vicious habits or molest passers-by, when such person(s) are lawfully in a public place.

7. cause serious annoyance by loud and/or frequent noise.

B. It shall be unlawful for any person to:

1. remove a collar or tag from any animal without the permission of the owner,

2. decoy or entice any animal out of an enclosure or off the property of the owner.

3. seize, molest or tease any animal while held or led by any person or while of the property of the owner.

C. In the event of any violation(s) of any provision(s) of this Ordinance or the Laws of the State, an Animal Control Officer or Law Enforcement Officer may:

1.

2.

issue citation(s) or summon(es) to the owner or person in violation, summoning him/her to appear before a District or charge(s) of violation(s) of this Ordinance or the Statutes of the State.

sign a comolaint before said Court for the violation(s) of the pro~isions of this Ordinance or Statutes of the State and proceed to obtain the issuance of a warrant and make arrest of the person to whom the violation(s) is charged and bring him/her before the Court to answer the charges.

D. The Court, upon a finding of guilty, assesses the penalties in accordance with the penalty provisions of this Ordinance.

-

123

SECTION 41.11 PENALTIES

Any person violating any provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the Countv Jail for not more than thirty (30) days or by a fine of not mor·e than one hundred dollars ($100.00) or both.

SECTION 41.12 PRESERVATION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS

A. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to prevent the owner of an animal from recovery in an action at law from any Law Enforcement Officer or any other person, except as herein provided.

B. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed as limiting the Common Law liability of the owner of an animal for damages committed by said animal.

SECTION 41.13 SEVERABILITY

The several sections of this ordinance shall be deemed severable, and should any section, clause or provision thereof be declared unconstitutional or contrary to the laws of the State of Michigan, and therefore voided by any Court of competent jurisdiction, the same shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any part thereof other than the part or section so declared to be unconstitutional or invalid.


A. This ordinance shall be.come effective sixty (60) days following its final passage by the Chocolay Township Board.

DATED: Decembe r 6, 1982

ATT~STED: J d~

Ivan F~nde Supervisor

~&.AL Helen St. Aubin Clerk

Adopted at a Regular Board Meeting o f the Charter Township of Chocolay Board on December 6, 1982.

MOTION: by Helen St. Aubin, supported by Jack Granfield, that BE IT RESOLVED, the Charter Township of Chocolay, ADOPT the following Ordinance as read: ORDINANCE NUMBER 41.

AYES: Ivan Fende, Helen St. Aubin, John Greenberg, Jack .Granfield, Carol Margrif.

NAYES: Joe Wietek

ABSENT: Kate Bloom

Motion carried.

Publ i shed in "Mining Journal"

1. November 10, 1982 2. December 16, 1982

THIS ORDINANCE BECOMES EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 4, 1983.

, 126

CONSIDERED IMPOUNDING FEES: Memo received from Clerk H. St. Aubin. MOTION by H. St. Aubin, supported by C. Margrif that the township board set impounding fees to comply with ORDINANCE 41 SECTION 41. 07F to be:

Payment of any impounding fee of $20.00 for the first impoundment, $30.00 for the second impoundment of the same dog, $40.00 for the third impoundment of the same dog and all subsequent impoundments. Motion carried.

Hill moved, Wickstrom second that the Board adopt the amendment to the Animal Control Ordjnance.

AMENDMENT TO CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHOCOLAY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE

The board of thP Charter Township of Chocolay, Marquette County, Michig-3.n,

ORDAINS: That the Animal Control Orrtinanee of the Charter Township of Chocolay, designated as Ordinance Number 41, as adopted December 6, 1982, shall be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows:

REPEALER St~ction 41.10 C ., Section 41.10 D., and Section 41.11 of the Charter Township of Chocolay An:i.mal Control Ordinance as adopted December 6, 1982, and any other Ordinance, Resolution, Order, or parts thereof in conflict with the provisions of this Amendment are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby repealed. Th is repeal shall be effective as of the effective date of the follm.;ing Amendments.

AMENDMENT 1. Section 41.10 C. of the Animal Control Ordinance of the

Charter Township of Chocolay, as adopted December 6, 1982, shall be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows:

"C. In the event of any violation of any prov is ion of this Ordinance or the laws of the State, an Animal Control Officer or Law Enforcement Officer may take such measures as may be necessary to initiate and pursue enforcement act.ion against such violator as a civil infraction"

2. Sectioll 41 .1 1 of the A.nirnal Control Ordinance of the Charter Township of Chocolay as adopted December 6 , 1982, shall be, and the sarne hereby is, amended to read as follows:

SECTION 41.11 PENALTIES Any person violating any provision of this Ordinance shal l be deemed responsible for a civil infraction, and upon an admission of responsibility or a finding of responsibility therefore, shall be subject to payment of a civil fine of not less that $35.00 or more than $300.00 , plus costs and other sanctions , for each infraction.

A. Repeat offenses shall be subject to increased fines in accorclance with this sect ion. As used in this sect j on "repeat offense" means a second (or any subsequent) municipal civil infrHctinn violation of the same requirement or provision of this A.nimal Control Ordinance committed by a person within any twenty-four (24) month period, and for which the person admits responsibility or is determined to be responsible.

B. 1'he increased fine for a repeat offense under this section shall be as follows:

AYES: 6

1. The fine for any offense which is a first repeat offense shall be no less than $50 . 00, plus costs and other sanctions; and,

2 . The fine for any off e nse which is a second repeat offense or any subs e quent r e peat off e nse shall be no less that $75 . 00, plUfj costs and sanctions." NAYS : 0 MOTION CARRIED.

181

182

I cert.if} that this is thP official trUE) and accurate copy of an ctmendment to Ordinance No. 41 - An Ordinance for Anima1 Control in the Township of Cllocolay, Marquette County, Michigan. This amendment to OrcU nancP No. 41 was adopted by the ChartE-r Township Board on March 6, 1995.

Dated: March 6, 1995

, E. Hill, l.'.MC Charter Township of Chocolay

Dates of publication .in the "Mhd ng Journal". 1. February 23, 1995 2. April 5, 1995

ORDINANCE CROSS REFERENCE – ORDINANCE 41 TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE 62

Ordinance 41 Proposed Ordinance 62 Comments

PURPOSE Section 1 Purpose Text revision

TABLE OF CONTENTS Removed

Section 2 Title New text

SECTION 41.01 DEFINITIONS Section 3 Definitions

Adequate care New definition

Animal Animal Text revision

Animal Bites Animal bite

Animal Control Officer Animal Control Officer

Business day New definition

Calendar day New definition

County New definition

Day Removed

Dispose Dispose

Dog Dog

Enclosure Enclosure Additional phrase for fencing

Holiday New definition

Impound Facility Impound facility Text revision

Kennel Kennel Text revision

Law Enforcement Officer Law Enforcement Officer Text revision

Leader Dog Service dog New definition

Livestock New definition

Non-Agricultural Area Non-agricultural area Text revision

Owner Owner Text revision

Person Removed

Poultry New definition

Reasonable control New definition

Repeat offense New definition

Run at large New definition

State New definition

Suspected Rabid Animal Suspected rabid animal Text revision

Township Board Township Text revision

XV.A.4

Ordinance Cross Reference – Ordinance 41 to Proposed Ordinance 62

2

Vicious Animal Vicious animal


Section 4 Animal Control Officer Additional text

41.02.A. QUALIFICATIONS 4 (A) Qualifications Additional text

41.02 A.1 4 (A) 1 Revised text

41.02 A 2 Removed

41.02 A 3 4 (A) 2 Revised text

41.02.B. DUTIES 4 (B) Duties Revised text

41.02.B.1 4 (B) 1 / 4 (B) 2 Revised text split between 4 (B) 1 and 4 (B) 2

41.02.B.2 4 (B) 3 Revised text

41.02.B.3 Removed


41.02.B.5 Removed

41.02.B.6 Removed



4 (B) 7 New text

41.02.C. AUTHORITY 4 (C) Authority Additional text

41.02.C.1 4 (C) 1 / 4 (C) 2 Revised text split between 4 (C) 1 and 4 (C) 2

41.02.C.2 4 (C) 3 Revised text

SECTION 41.03 DOGS, LICENSING Section 5 Licenses for Dogs

41.03.A 5 (A) Revised text

41.03.B 5 (A) Revised text

41.03.B.1 Removed

41.03.B.2 Removed

41.03.B.3 Removed

41.03.B.4 Removed

41.03.B.5 5 (A) Revised text

41.03.B.6 5 (B) Revised text

41.03.B.7 Removed

41.03.C 12 (B)

41.03.C.1 12 (B) 1 Revised text

41.03.C.2 12 (A) 1 Revised text

41.03.D 5 (C)

41.03.E 5 (D) Revised text

41.03.F Removed

SECTION 41.04 KENNELS Section 6 Kennels


3


41.04 B 6 (B) Revised text

SECTION 41.05 ENCLOSURES Section 7 Enclosures

41.05.A 7 (A) Revised with additional text

41.05.B 7 (B)

41.05.C 7 (C)

41.05.D 7 (D)

41.05.E 7 (E)

41.05.F 7 (F)

SECTION 41.06 ANIMAL BITES AND PROCEDURES

Section 8 Animal Bites and Procedures


41.06.B 8 (B) Revised text

41.06.C 8 (C) Revised text

41.06.D 8 (D) Revised text

41.06.E 8 (E) Revised text

SECTION 41.07 IMPOUND FACILITY Section 9 Impound Facility

9 (A) New text

41.07.A 9 (B)

41.07 B 9 (C) Revised text

41.07 C 9 (D) Revised text

41.07 D 9 (G) Revised text

41.07 E 9 (E)

41.07 F 9 (F) Revised text

Required addition to the Adopted Fee Schedule


Section 10 Seizing of Animals Revised text

41.08.A Removed

41.08.B 10 (A)

41.08.C 10 (B)

SECTION 41.09 PROHIBITION OF LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY IN NON-ACRICULTURAL AREAS

Section 11 Livestock Or Poultry In Non-Agricultural Areas

Revised text

41.09 11 (A) Revised text

11 (B) New text

11 (B) 1 New text

New permit requirement

11 (B) 2 New text

11 (B) 3 New text


4

11 (B) 4 New text

11 (B) 5 New text

11 (B) 6 New text

11 (B) 7 New text

11 (B) 8 New text

11 (B) 9 New text

11 (B) 10 New text

11 (B) 11 New text

11 (B) 12 New text

11 (B) 13 New text

SECTION 41.10 VIOLATIONS AND PROCEDURE THEREOF

Section 12 Violations

41.10.A 12 (A)

41.10.A.1 12 (A) 1 Revised text

41.10.A.2 12 (A) 2 Revised text

41.10.A.3 12 (A) 3

41.10.A.4 12 (A) 4

41.10.A.5 12 (A) 5

41.10.A.6 12 (A) 6

41.10.A.7 12 (A) 7

41.10.B 12 (B)

41.10.B.1 12 (B) 1

41.10.B.2 12 (B) 2


41.10.C See Amendment 1 below

41.10.C.1 Repealed – see Amendment 1 below

41.10.C.2 Repealed – see Amendment 1 below

Section 13 Enforcement New

13 (A) New text

41.10.D 13 (C)

SECTION 41.11 PENALTIES See SECTION 41.11 PENALTIES below

41.11.A See 41.11.A below

41.11.B See 41.11.B below

41.11.B.1 See 41.11.B.1 below

41.11.B.2 14 (A) 2 b See 41.11.B.2 below

SECTION 41.12 PRESERVATION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS

Section 15 Preservation of Certain Rights


5

41.12.A 15 (A)

41.12.B 15 (B)

SECTION 41.13 SEVERABILITY Section 16 Validity

41.13 paragraph 16 paragraph Revised text

Section 17 Repeal New section

17 paragraph New text


18 Effective Date

41.14.A 18 paragraph Revised text

AMENDMENT TO CHARTER TOWNHIP OF CHOCOLAY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE

Amendment 1 of Ordinance 41 13 (B)

41.10.C.1 Removed per 1995 Ordinance 41 amendment

41.10.C.2 Removed per 1995 Ordinance 41 amendment

Amendment 2 of Ordinance 41

SECTION 41.11 PENALTIES Section 14 Penalties

41.11 paragraph 14 (A) Revised text

41.11.A 14 (B) Revised text

41.11.B 14 (C)

41.11.B.1 14 (C) 1 Revised text

41.11.B.2 14 (C) 2 Revised text

To: Planning Commission

From: Dale Throenle, Planning Director / Zoning Administrator

Date: May 12, 2016

Subject: Ordinance 41 Animal Control Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Beginning on January 26, staff has received five calls from different residents in Chocolay Township

regarding the keeping of chickens at a residence. Those calls have prompted a look into the possibility of allowing chickens in districts outside of the AF district in the Township.

Staff has reviewed our current ordinance in reference to the question of chickens in an R-1 district. The

language in the ordinance is:



(a) ANIMAL: . unless otherwise stated the word "ANIMAL" shall include but not be limited to:

birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, arachnids and insects; poultry, ornamental and/or game . birds,

possessed and/or being reared pursuant to Act 191 of the Public Acts of 1929, as amended,being Sections 317.71-317.85 of the Compiled Laws of 1948 (MSA Sections 13.1271-13.1285). All

mammals, male, female, any offspring thereof or sexually altered including dogs and cats;livestock, including but not limited to: horses, sheep, cattle, mules, goats, swine, rabbits or other

fur-bearing animals being raised in captivity.

SECTION 41.09 PROHIBITION OF LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY IN NON-AGRICULTURAL AREAS

No livestock or poultry shall be owned, kept, possessed, harbored or kept charge of within the boundaries of any nonagricultural area within Chocolay Township.

Staff has found several different locations throughout the state where chickens are permitted in an R-1 type setting (two examples are attached). In those cases where chickens are permitted, three items are

evident in those locations: 1) the number allowed is limited; 2) no roosters / males are permitted; and 3)

the chickens must be contained and not free range.

Additionally, while reviewing the ordinance, staff has found several items that could be addressed as part

of this ordinance review process: service dogs (not included), animals under “reasonable control” (better definition), spelling error (see definition of Dog), holidays (not specified as to Township or other), and

impoundment fees (set amount with no adjustment language).

RECOMMONDATION

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission look at the question of chickens in districts outside of

the AF district. Several items can be considered with this question: 1) number permitted, 2) permit requirements; 3) containment (fencing / hen houses) of the chickens.

This discussion fits under two of the Priority 2 items listed as part of the Planning Commission priorities for 2016 – Consider need to amend the Animal Control ordinance for consistency with agricultural regulations and Consider need to amend the Nuisance Control Ordinance in relation to permitted agricultural activities.


Planning and Zoning Department 5010 US 41South

Marquette, MI 49855

Phone: 906-249-1448 Fax: 906-249-1313

XV.A.5

Planning Commission Minutes Extraction for Proposed Animal Control Ordinance # 62

Monday, May 16, 2016

VII. NEW BUSINESS

A. Ordinance 41 Animal Control – Chicken / Poultry

Throenle indicated that since becoming the Planning Director / Zoning Administrator he hasreceived five different calls from residents asking about having chickens on their property.Ordinance 41 has a section that relates specifically to poultry. Throenle then researched differentareas of the state, and has included two examples from other communities – both are larger andurban – but he felt the language may be appropriate for Chocolay Township. Throenle indicatedthat when he received the calls, he had indicated to the residents they should present some typeof public comment, either at a Planning Commission meeting, or by some type of handwritten(email or letter). Nothing has been received at this time. In regards to one of the calls, the raisingof chickens was for a health alternative for her husband – she wanted to have eggs for personaluse without having to go into Marquette and pay the higher prices.

Sikkema asked if Throenle had checked with Marquette Township or Negaunee Townshipon what they allow. Throenle indicated he had not – at this point he is looking for directionon how the Planning Commission would like him to proceed. Sikkema indicated that theremay be different things to look at – the City does not have an agricultural district whereresidents would be able to raise chickens, but Chocolay does – so it may be a question of“where” you can raise chickens, versus “if” you can raise chickens. One of the examples thatThroenle had provided was the City of Ferndale – Sikkema indicated that they probably did nothave an agricultural district. Throenle stated that they have a unique situation where they havecombined with two other jurisdictions and have formed a large district.

Meister asked what areas of the Township the calls came from – Throenle indicated therewere three from the village of Harvey and one on M-28. Mahaney wondered that if you wereR-1, but had 10-12 acres, if there could be some type of allowance. Throenle indicated that theordinance states that anywhere in R-1 is restricted, and only allowed in the AF district.

Ventura asked if Throenle had reviewed the results of the survey that Woodward had done a couple of years ago. Ventura indicated that he remembered the response as being either in favor, or not really having an opinion, even in small lot areas, with certain parameters as to number of birds or size of animals. Ventura indicated that the City had come up with a “policy” basically saying that if the neighbors don’t complain, you could have up to eight chickens. Meister indicated that a couple of barking dogs would be worse than a few chickens.

Mahaney asked if there had been any formal complaints. Throenle indicated that there had been one – it was not so much about the chickens, as it was about the goat that was with the chickens. Throenle indicated he would be looking at chickens only be on a fenced property, and preferably have the chickens contained in a coop. Throenle indicated that one resident had sent a link to a local home supply store that provides chicken coops with up to four coops. Smith wondered if there was a fence, would they actually need to have a coop. Throenle indicated there needs to be a balance – need to keep in mind the potential calls that could come in.

Ventura stated that Ordinance 41 also states that dogs need to be contained.

Throenle indicated that there are other things in Ordinance 41 that need to be looked at, such as “service dogs”. The Ordinance only allows “leader dogs”. Ventura asked about definition of service dogs versus leader dogs. Throenle indicated leader dogs are specifically for the blind, whereas service dogs can be for a multitude of other conditions.

Throenle also indicated that the Planning Commission would need to look at other animals that may fit into the same category as chickens.

XV.A.6


2

Meister stated that he feels chickens are okay, but does not feel that it should be opened up to a huge variety of farm animals. Bohjanen stated that he was surprised that the Ordinance only specified chickens, and did not include other fowl that would be equally as benign as chickens.

Sikkema stated that the Planning Commission needs to be careful on where they are allowing animals – if all districts are open to having animals, where does someone go if they prefer not to be next to chickens?

Smith wondered if there would be any smell associated with chickens – Meister indicated that he has raised chickens before and the smell wasn’t that bad – you just need to clean up.

Sikkema asked the Commissioners how they would like Throenle to proceed. Ventura indicated he would like a draft ordinance of some type. Bohjanen indicated he would like personal poultry raising as a conditional use on properties. Sikkema indicated that a conditional use would get pricey. Smith wondered about the Right to Farm Act – this only pertains to commercial lots. Throenle indicated based on previous court cases, the Right to Farm Act would not apply. Smith wondered about the Right to Farm Act case in Gwinn – Throenle indicated they had won the case and are living on a waterfront property raising animals.

Sikkema again asked for direction for Throenle. Smith would like to have more information, especially from Negaunee and Marquette Townships as to what they have done. Mahaney would like to have more review of surrounding townships. Meister would like to look at other communities to see what has been done. Bohjanen agreed with this, but also pointed out that if there is going to be a change in the Ordinance to keep in mind there will need to be a public hearing.

Mahaney asked what Throenle is telling residents now – Throenle indicated that he refers to Section 41.09, telling them that unless they reside in the AF district, it is not allowed at this time. Throenle also informs them that this will be coming under review with the Planning Commission, and that they should be providing public comment.

For the next meeting, Throenle will research other communities in the township to find out how they are handling chickens.

Monday, June 20, 2016

IV. PUBLIC COMMENT

Mark Maki, 370 Karen Road – would like to comment on a couple of items –on Page 2, 4th paragraph of the minutes, there was discussion regarding the “chicken issue” which stated, “…Ventura indicated that the City had come up with a “policy” basically saying that if the neighbors don’t complain, you could have up to eight chickens. …” Ventura indicated that this is not an official policy – if the City does not get an official complaint, they do not pursue it.

VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

A. Ordinance 41 Animal Control – Chicken / Poultry

Throenle indicated that he had done some background research concerning chicken ordinances in the surrounding communities – City of Marquette has an ordinance on the books prohibiting chickens and have no future plans of changing this. Negaunee Township covers chickens under their Animal Control Ordinance, and chickens are not permitted on property less than one acre. Throenle also looked at Forsyth Township, who had gone through a legal case a couple years ago concerning the Right to Farm Act, and there is no livestock or poultry in non-agricultural areas. Sands Township considers chickens as pets, and they are allowed in the Township. West Branch Township refers to chickens under “Light Agricultural Activities” and under that is permitted in those districts.


3

In reference to Chocolay Township, Throenle reviewed the Master Plan and survey associated with the Plan. The surveys tended to show there was no middle ground – residents were either strongly for chickens or strongly against. Throenle also reviewed the current Ordinance and found several other items that should be addressed if the Planning Commission is planning on changing the ordinance – service dogs are not included in the current ordinance, animals under “reasonable control” needs a better definition, spelling error, holidays need to be specified, and fees need to be adjusted within our fee schedule.

Throenle then offered suggestions to the Planning Commission – property size, confinement issues, maximum number of chicken / poultry based on acreage, impoundment if violation occurs, separate definitions concerning animal and poultry.

Throenle went over his recommendation on what the Planning Commission should be looking at when considering the question of poultry in districts other than AF – minimum acreage required, number permitted per determined acreage, is permit required, containment required, definition of poultry as opposed to animal, and enforcement / impoundment fees and requirements.

Mahaney stated that the suggestion on maximum number, acreage and distance are important. Mahaney researched other areas in the State of Michigan and was surprised at how many allowed chickens on one acre of land.

Sikkema stated there is not a prohibition on owning chickens in the Township, just that there are restrictions in certain areas. Sikkema stated the first discussion before the Planning Commission is to determine if the Planning Commission wants to modify the ordinance to allow for chickens in districts other than AF. He feels there is no sense in moving forward until this has been determined.

Bohjanen indicated that by looking at the survey, there seems to be more support for having rules that would enable the raising of chickens than against it. He feels a permit should be required, along with a site plan from the owner and an approval document from the neighbors. Bohjanen feels that it is worth looking at this, and that it should be presented to the Township Board to see if they are in favor of moving forward with this.

Milton questioned if it would become a Zoning Board of Appeals problem for a variance. Milton feels that the Ordinance needs to have some work done on it anyway, and would be in favor of expanding the districts where chickens are allowed.

Ventura feels that this is something that needs to be looked at. After re-reading the comments of the survey conducted a couple of years ago, most people that responded are in favor of this with constraints. He feels setback rules need to be looked at more than total acreage. There also needs to be some type of confinement mode and a limit on number, which may vary with size. Ventura is in favor of moving forward. Smith, Meister, and Mahaney were also in favor of moving forward and taking a look at this ordinance.

Sikkema indicated that there will need to be general guidelines that are given to Throenle as he starts putting this together. Bohjanen had recommended that something be put together that he could present to the Township Board for their input before anything is started on the re-write. The Planning Commission agreed that this was a good idea.

Some suggestions on things to be included were setbacks and distances, non- commercial use, personal consumption, limited number of chickens either by a flat number or a formula based on acreage and animal units, and permitting (Throenle felt this would become an enforcement issue – permitting pros and cons were discussed, and it was determined this will be left out at this point), containment, and enforcing / impoundment requirements and fees.

Bohjanen indicated that so far chickens had been discussed – has anybody asked about goats. This brought up a discussion on other types of animals that should be addressed in the rewrite of the ordinance. It was decided to allow for goats, rabbits, sheep, miniature ponies, and potbelly pigs. Bohjanen suggested these types of animals should be grouped into small animals.

Throenle will get this information put together, and Bohjanen will present to the Township Board.


4

IX. PUBLIC COMMENT

Mark Maki, 370 Karen Road – commented on the agricultural zone of the zoning ordinance – what about factory farms, such as chicken and hog farms. Most communities provide language where these are only allowed on certain lot sizes. The way the ordinance is written now these would be allowed. Also commented on the survey – this was done when there was a lot of focus on agriculture and many of the surveys that were on the agricultural groups in Marquette submitted responses to them. He is not sure that the results are reliable as far as Chocolay Township residents are concerned.

Deborah Mulcahey, 633 Lakewood Lane – commented on the 2013 survey as far as the data was concerned – there were as many in favor as not in favor of chickens, ducks, sheep, etc. Mulcahey questioned the zones this would pertain to. Sikkema indicated that they were looking at all districts other than the AF district. Mulcahey wanted the Planning Commission to be aware that the people who indicated that they lived in the WFR district were opposed to the ability of people to have chickens. She asked that the Planning Commission keep this in mind when looking at this issue.

Monday, August 15, 2016

VII. NEW BUSINESS

A. Ordinance 62 Animal Control

Throenle started the discussion with a recap of things that had been discussed at prior meetings, and items that needed to be addressed. Those items include: Service dogs; definition of “reasonable control”; spelling error in definition of “dog”; Holidays need to be specified; and impoundment fees. Throenle also indicated that other changes are needed to correspond to updated State and Marquette County regulations, such as licensing.

Throenle has decided to tackle the ordinance in two phases – the first is to take the ordinance “as is” and clean up the language and the second phase would be to address the poultry issue. Throenle indicated he would like the Planning Commission to address the first phase at this time. Throenle has included in the packet the current ordinance (VII.A.2), the suggested changes (VII.A.3), and a cross- reference sheet (VII.A.4) for differences between Ordinance 41 (old ordinance) and Ordinance 62 (suggested new ordinance).

Sikkema questioned why the ordinance number had changed. Throenle indicated that because of the amount of language change and the amount of deletions and additions of sections, it was decided it was easier to give it a new number. Sikkema then suggested going page by page and making the corrections, deletions, and additions that the Planning Commission suggests.

As part of the process, updates were incorporated during the discussion, and the proposed Ordinance 62 is attached.

Throenle will forward the proposed ordinance to the Police Department for review of the new language and how it affects enforceability.

Monday, September 19, 2016

IV. PUBLIC COMMENT

Deborah Mulcahey, 633 Lakewood Lane – The next issue was the survey that had been done with the postcards – this required the resident deciding what district they were in. The results of the survey were flawed, and Mulcahey would ask that the Planning Commission note that the WFR district did not support poultry. The issue with this was due to private wells and septic systems, and there is always the on-going issue of enforcement. Mulcahey is confused on the animal control in relation to dogs. The Ordinance indicated that Animal Control would be checking for kennels. Would there be a separate person doing animal control? In Section 12 Violations, Mulcahey questioned the statement “…need not be physically restrained, but must be


5

under reasonable control…” What is the definition of reasonable control? Also, there were exceptions to hunting dogs - need to keep in mind that hunting dogs are not always perfect. The definition of “Owner” states a time period of 5 days – not quite sure what this means. Mulcahey was bothered by Section 4(B)7, which states that the officer would “Have discretion to refrain from making a determination that an animal is a potentially dangerous animal …” She feels that basically all animals are dangerous. In Section 4(C)2 it states that if there is non-compliance, the owner shall be notified of the provision of this Ordinance and allowed ten business days to comply. She feels that the Planning Commission should look at this closely. In Section 11, Poultry, as far as personal use goes, is not commercial. This would seem to mean no selling, but what about bartering or giving away.


A. Ordinance 62 - Animal Control

Throenle presented the revised document that was discussed at last month’s meeting. The first discussion will address the language changes and changes that are recommended by the Police Department, and then the issue of poultry will be addressed. The document being reviewed is VIII.A.1.7 of the packet.

Definitions:

Throenle questioned the inclusion of rabbits in livestock, as they do not fall into the same category as cattle or horses. Sikkema indicated that he feels that raising rabbits would fall under the category of livestock, not pets. It was decided that rabbits will stay in the category of livestock.

Throenle questioned if “five or more calendar days” is an accurate measurement.

Sikkema felt that this may be referring to visiting animals (pet sitting, guests with

animals). This would refer to the owner of the property, not the owner of the dogs. The

wording will stay as is.

Section 4(A)2:

Removed “Meet the requirements of the Michigan Department of Agriculture for animal

control.” and renumbered the remaining points.

Police comment reflected there was no special training required.

Livestock Means animals used for human food and fiber or animals used for

service to human beings

Includes, but is not limited to, cattle, swine, sheep, llamas, goats, bison,

horses and rabbits

Owner Means, but not be limited to, any person or persons owning premises,

occupying or in the possession of any property, having proprietorship of

an animal, right of property of an animal, or an authorized agent;

Any person who keeps, harbors, has care of, custody of or control of an

animal for a period of five or more calendar days;

Any person that allows any animal to remain on his or her premises for a

period of five or more calendar days.


6

Section 4(B)5:

Removed “Inspect kennels for licensing and may suspend or revoke a license if the

Animal Control Officer has reason to believe conditions exist which are unsanitary or

inhumane to the animals.” and renumbered the remaining points.

Police comment was that the Health Department does the inspecting and licensing.

Section 4(B)7:

Added “Have discretion to refrain from making a Shall make a determination that an

animal is a potentially dangerous animal if the officer determines that the animal’s

behavior was not the result of the victim abusing or tormenting the animal, was

directed toward a trespasser or person committing or attempting to commit a crime,

involved was not the result of accidental or instinctive behavior while playing, did not

involve a significant injury, or other similar mitigating or extenuating circumstances.”

Ventura indicated that there were some difficulties with this whole paragraph – the Police officer

is coming on the scene after the fact and would not have witnessed the incident. He doesn’t

feel there should be discretion in an ordinance. Sikkema asked if this was written internally –

Throenle indicated that he found this in several other ordinances that he was researching.

Discussion ensued with the pros and cons of the word “discretion”. Ventura suggested there be

a change of wording.

Section 6(B):

Any person Any owner who at any one time owns or harbors four or more dogs at a single

location within the boundaries of a non-agricultural area within the Township shall apply for a

County kennel license on or before June 1 of every year have a valid County kennel

license posted on the premises.

Throenle indicated that this was a rewording of the original. After discussion, wording was

changed as reflected above.

Section 8(A):

Any animal kept as a pet that bites or scratches a person or other animal, penetrating the

skin, shall be securely confined by the owner away from other animals inside an

appropriate building or enclosure for a period of ten calendar days. The owner shall

immediately report any unusual behavior or appearance change during the

tencalendar day period to the Animal Control Officer. In the event the Animal Control

Officer has reason to believe the owner will not comply with this section, the Animal

Control Officer shall take custody of the animal and confine it at the impound facility for ten

business days at the expense of the owner.

Bolded wording added as comment by Police department. Changed to add the phrase “or

scratches”.

Section 9(G):

Any owner who willfully fails to redeem the impounded animal after notification of

impoundment shall be cited for cruelty by neglect of said animal under the Cruelty

Statues of the State.

Throenle indicated he had changed the language to make it a little easier to read. No other


7

changes were made.

Section 10(B):

The Animal Control Officer may, at his or her discretion, shoot a dog running at large

if it is determined the dog is chasing or harassing deer.

After discussion, the Planning Commission decided to delete this.

Section 12(B)3:

Seize, harass or tease any animal while held or led by any person or while of on the

property of the owner.

Ventura indicated there was a typographical error on this – changed “of” to “on”.

Section 14(B & C):

None of the language has changed – only the numbering.

Section 11 Livestock or Poultry in Non-Agricultural Areas

A. No livestock or poultry, except chickens, shall be owned, kept, possessed, harbored or

kept charge of within the boundaries of a non-agricultural area within Chocolay

Township.

B. The keeping of chickens poultry (such as chickens, turkeys, ducks, or geese) in non-

agriculture districts shall be subject to the following requirements:

1. A poultry chicken permit is required prior to poultry chickens being permitted on the

premises.

2. Poultry Chicken owner(s) may not keep more than three six poultry chicken hens

on the premises at any one time. Hens are for personal use only and not for any

business or commercial use.

3. Poultry use is restricted to personal use; No selling of poultry chickens or eggs is

permitted.

4. Roosters are prohibited.

5.Slaughtering of any poultry on the premises is prohibited.

6. Poultry Chickens shall not be kept in any location on the property other than in the

backyard. (Exception: Waterfront residential can be either in the front yard or

backyard if screened from public view.)

7. Poultry hens Chickens shall be maintained in a fully enclosed structure or a fenced

enclosure and shall be kept in the enclosed structure or fenced enclosure at all times.

Fenced enclosures and structures are subject to all fence and structure provisions and

restrictions in the Township Zoning Ordinance.

8. Poultry Chicken structures, or the portions of other structures used to house or

provide shelter for small animals, shall not exceed two hundred square feet of ground

floor area nor exceed twelve ten feet in height. Maximum ground floor areas for

poultry set forth above may be increased by fifty percent for each acre in addition to

the minimum lot size for the zoning district.

9. No An enclosed structure shall be located within any setback area follow all

zoning setback requirements for the zoning district.

10. An enclosed structure or fenced enclosure shall not be located closer than thirty feet

to any occupied residence on an adjacent property.

11. All structures and enclosures for the keeping of poultry chickens shall be


8

constructed and maintained so as to prevent rats, mice, or other rodents or vermin

from living underneath or within the walls of the structure or enclosure.

12. All feed and other items associated with the keeping of chickens likely to attract rats,

mice, or other rodents or vermin shall be secured and protected in sealed containers.

13. All poultry chickens shall be kept in compliance with the Michigan Department of

Agriculture Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices for the Care of

Farm Animals.

Throenle indicated that he had looked at several different models to come up

with Section 11. Ventura questioned (B)5 on the slaughtering of chickens. He

indicated that most people who are raising small amounts of chickens are doing so

for the eggs and the meat. The Planning Commission decided to remove (B)5 from

the proposed language. After discussion, it was decided to change the wording of

“poultry” to “chicken”. There was also discussion on the number of chickens that

should be allowed – changed from three to six. There was also some discussion on

how location of chickens should be done on Lakewood Lane – front or back, it

would need to be obscured from public view.

Bohjanen moved, and Ventura seconded that the draft of Ordinance 62, as amended, be

submitted for Public Hearing for the next meeting, and publish the necessary notices.

Vote: Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 MOTION CARRIED

Monday, October 17, 2016

V. PUBLIC HEARINGS

Public hearings were deferred to agenda items VII.A and VII.B, respectively.

VII. NEW BUSINESS

A. Ordinance 62 – Animal Control

Throenle introduced the ordinance to the Commission for consideration, and requested that

the public hearing be opened for ordinance consideration.

Public Hearing

Deborah Mulcahey, 633 Lakewood Lane – stated she provided written comment along with her

husband. Both are opposed to allowing chickens everywhere throughout the Township. She

indicated 60 percent of the properties in the Township now allow for chickens. She indicated

that if this passed, there would be nowhere in the Township that residents could live chicken-

free. She stated that a majority of the residents in the Lakewood Lane area and the waterfront

district said no to chickens in the 2013 community survey. She requested a review of this

information to point out that some areas of the Township are opposed to having chickens in

their districts.

Laurie Krzymowski, 741 Lakewood Lane – stated she is anti-chicken in residential areas. She

expressed that she was, at one time, diagnosed with a spot on her lungs from residue found in

the chicken coop that she played in as a child, even though the coop was cleaned and painted

after the chickens were removed.

She also referred to a Center of Disease Control (CDC) report that was recently released that

indicated an increase in salmonella in relation to chickens. She expressed that we should limit

our exposure for the quality of water, quality of health, and not increase the amount of


9

salmonella in the community. She stated the information she referred to could be found on

cdc.gov.

Commission Discussion

Bohjanen opened the discussion with a look at section 6.B on page four of the proposed

ordinance. He asked that if you are in the AF district are you not required to have a kennel

license. Sikkema replied that the license is still required, and Throenle confirmed.

Discussion followed concerning the verbiage of 6.B, and the item was modified to read: “Any

owner who at any one time owns or harbors four or more dogs at a single location within the

Township shall have a valid County kennel license posted on the premises.”

Bohjanen addressed Section 8.A and Section 10.A as duplicated sections. Sikkema responded

that they were in each section for a good reason; he asked Bohjanen which section would be

most appropriate for the text to be retained. Discussion continued, with Ventura suggesting

that sections 8, 9, and 10 be combined into one section. Sikkema responded that each section

had a different function, with a suggestion to remove section 10.A and renumber 10.B to 10.A,

and renumber 10.C to 10.B. Commissioners agreed.

Bohjanen requested a grammatical change in section 11.B.9. He requested that the phrase

“closer than thirty feet to any residence” be changed to read “closer than thirty feet from any

residence.” Commissioners agreed.

Ventura asked Throenle if the penalties in Section 14 should be in the Township schedule of

fees or if it should be in the ordinance. Throenle indicated it could be in either place. The

difference would be the fee schedule would be part of the annual budget, where the ordinance

language would have to be changed via public hearing, Planning Commission approval, and

Township board approval. Throenle indicated the reason for the fee range in the ordinance is

to provide a range for civil court consideration. He was unsure as to if the fee schedule could

contain a range. No change in the document was requested.

Smith raised a question concerning puppies. If more than four pups were at a residence, would

a kennel license be required? Throenle responded that he would interpret the ordinance to

require the license if the pup was kept longer than four months. Discussion continued to

determine if a change should be made to address the issue.

Ventura asked for a clarification on the licensing of dogs. Discussion followed as to what was

considered a properly licensed dog. Throenle indicated the reason for item 5.B was to allow for

new residents in the County to bring in their dogs without concern for relicensing until the

calendar year expired.

Meister suggested changing item 5.B to read “current dog licenses issued by other

jurisdictions”. Commissioners agreed.

Ventura suggested making the sentence part of 5.A. Commissioners agreed, and

requested the renumbering 5.C to 5.B, 5.D to 5.C, and 5.E to 5.D.

Bohjanen mentioned that the Commission hears limited opinions during public comment. He

stated that he did not know the statistics concerning chickens, especially since the only

comments presented were from those that did not want chickens. He addressed the

salmonella comments presented during the public hearing, and indicated he would want to

defer the decision on the ordinance until he had time to read the latest CDC information.

Ventura stated that salmonella is also prevalent in the wild bird population, especially finches

at bird feeders.


10

Sikkema requested additional comments from the Commissioners; there were none. Bohjanen

made a suggestion to defer the motion until he had time to review the CDC information.

Sikkema asked if the item could be tabled. Throenle stated if the ordinance was tabled, then a

new public hearing would not be necessary as it would be an extension of the process.

Discussion followed concerning the next direction for the ordinance.

Throenle asked if sending a link to the CDC information via email would be sufficient. Sikkema

indicated that it would.

Bohjanen moved, and Ventura seconded the ordinance be tabled until the next meeting to

allow time to review the latest CDC information.


Throenle asked for a motion to clarify which ordinance language would be brought before the

Commission at the next meeting.

Meister moved, and Ventura seconded the ordinance language that will be presented at the

next meeting will contain the changes already suggested.


Monday, November 21, 2016



Throenle introduced the ordinance by referring to the Public Comment that was received and is

“XI.D Correspondence – Place” in the Commissioner’s packets. The public comment was

asking the Commission for consideration of initiating a leash law in Chocolay Township.

Throenle indicated that the changes discussed at the last meeting have been incorporated into

the ordinance under VIII.A, and the document is currently up to date with those changes.

Throenle also pointed out that there were a couple errors in last month’s discussion – the first

being the discussion on Section 8 (A) and Section 10 (A) duplication, and the fact that a

paragraph was inadvertently deleted from the document (see page VIII.A.3), which reads:

“Section 10 Killing and / or Seizing of Animals

(A) Any animal that enters an enclosure which is owned or leased by a person raising livestock or poultry that is unaccompanied by the owner shall be in violation of this Ordinance. The Owner or lease of such enclosure or his or her agent may apprehend or kill such animal while it is in the enclosure without liability for killing such animal.”

Throenle indicated that if this paragraph was put back into the document, there would be a

need to have another Public Hearing.

The second item is in reference to licensing of dogs and retaining of their license when they

come from another state. After researching this, Throenle discovered any animal brought in

from another state must be licensed within 30 days in the state of Michigan. The only license

that would be valid in Chocolay Township would only be licenses issued in the State of

Michigan.

The third item up for discussion was the request for information from Center for Disease

Control (CDC) on the issue of chickens. Throenle indicated that the primary direction from the

CDC on that issue is hygiene and the washing of hands after handling of chickens.


11

The fourth item is clarification of the survey data from 2013. It has been mentioned several

times in public comment that the residents in the waterfront district did not want chickens, but

the survey data shows that this statement is in error and that 57% of the residents in WFR are

in agreement that chickens should be allowed. The only two districts that do not wish to have

chickens are the “Corridor Cluster Mixed Use” and the “Village Residential”. Throenle feels that

the Village Residential can be addressed by the setback requirements.


Sikkema opened discussion on the item regarding the deletion of the paragraph on killing and /

or seizing of animals.

Meister questioned if this would already be covered by the State of Michigan under state

statute. Throenle indicated that he had not researched this, so he was not sure.

Sikkema indicated that if the animal is in the act of hunting, it would not be considered an

“uncontrolled” dog. This seems to be in conflict with this paragraph.

Mahaney indicated if a person had chickens, and a domesticated animal crosses over into

their property, they are probably not going to call the Township, but instead will react to what is

happening.

Sikkema indicated that this would also be true with a dog crossing over into a herd of cattle –

even if the dog is not harassing the cattle.

Bohjanen wondered how this interacts with or contradicts the Firearms Ordinance.

Ventura questioned whether the presence of a dog in a livestock enclosure warrants violence

against the dog. If the dog is about to kill or attack in some way, then it would be considered

self-defense or defense of your property. But if the dog is just present, it does not constitute a

danger. Ventura feels the wording is pretty wide open for interpretation.

Smith asked if originally this language was written into the ordinance twice. Throenle indicated

that it was originally in Section 10 (A), and 8 (A) had been copied to Section 10 (A) in error.

The language being discussed would be reinserted into Section 10 (A) if approved.

Meister wondered if the Township even had the authority to include this in the ordinance, and

does not feel that this should be in the ordinance.

Ventura also pointed out that the obeying of the ordinance is placed on the animal, not the

owner.

The consensus of the Planning Commission was to leave Section 10 (A) out. Throenle referred

the Commission to Section 5 (A) of the Ordinance, which states:

“(A) … Current dog licenses issued by other jurisdictions prior to residence in the Township shall be honored and valid for the remainder of the calendar year in which they were issued.”

Throenle requested it be changed to:

“(A) … Current dog licenses issued by other jurisdictions within the State of Michigan prior to residence …”

The Planning Commission agreed with this change.

Throenle directed the Planning Commission to the correspondence from Irene Place

concerning leash laws.

Bohjanen stated this could be handled by the posting of signs stating “Dogs must be on leash”.


12

Mahaney indicated that there is a problem with dogs on the bike path. Ventura stated he feels

most of the owners are responsible. Mahaney felt that if the dog is on a leash, there is less of a

chance of an incident happening.

Throenle wondered about the enforcement of leash laws.

Sikkema stated it would probably be based on complaints. Consensus of the Planning

Commission was to leave a leash law out of the ordinance.

The Planning Commission then moved on to discuss the information regarding the CDC view

on chickens and salmonella.

Ventura stated that by looking at what the CDC furnished, salmonella is a “direct contact”

disease, and you would have to have contact with the animals. This would not be an airborne

disease. He doesn’t feel that chickens in the backyard would increase the likelihood of

contacting salmonella.

Meister stated that people could be educated when filling out the application to have chickens.

Bohjanen stated that even though the article was dated October of 2016, there was no new

information concerning salmonella. He also stated that salmonella from chickens is not a

problem in domestic well water. When a well is properly placed, having chickens on your land

would not contaminate the well.

Sikkema stated that livestock and other forms of poultry would be restricted to the AF district,

and chickens would be allowed in all districts.

Mahaney moved, and Ventura seconded, that after holding a public hearing and considering public input, the Planning Commission recommends that the Township Board approve the draft version of Ordinance #62 Animal Control as changed for the following reasons:

1) To align the Township regulations with those of Marquette County and the State of Michigan;

2) To permit and regulate chickens in the non-agricultural zoning districts within the Township;

3) To make editing changes to the ordinance text; and

4) To repeal Ordinance #41 and replace it with Ordinance #62.

Vote: Ayes: 5 Nays: 1 (Sikkema) MOTION CARRIED

Animals and Health

Check out two CDC websites with helpful resources.

Gastrointestinal (Enteric) Diseases from Animals (http://www.cdc.gov/zoonotic/gi/index.html): Information about zoonotic outbreaks, prevention

Keeping Backyard Poultry

ALERT: Outbreaks Linked to Backyard Poultry

Eight Multistate Outbreaks of Human Salmonella Infections Linked to Live Poultry in Backyard Flocks (http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/live-

poultry-05-16/index.html)

Live poultry, such as chickens, ducks, geese, and turkeys, often carry harmful

germs such as Salmonella. After you touch a bird, or anything in the area where

they live and roam, wash your hands so you don't get sick!

More people are choosing to keep live poultry, such as chickens or ducks, as part

of a greener, healthier lifestyle. Owning backyard chickens and other poultry can

be a great experience. However, it’s important to consider the risk of illness,

especially for children, from handling live poultry or anything in the area where

they live and roam.

Can live poultry make you sick from Salmonella?

It's common for chickens, ducks, and other poultry to carry Salmonella, a type of

germ that naturally lives in the intestines of poultry and many other animals.

Even organically fed poultry can have Salmonella. While it usually doesn't make the birds sick, Salmonella can cause serious illness when it is passed to

people. Each year, outbreaks of Salmonella (http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/live-poultry-05-16/index.html) in people result from contact with live

poultry and their environment.

XV.A.7

http://www.cdc.gov/zoonotic/gi/index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/

http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/live-poultry-05-16/index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/live-poultry-05-16/index.html

Gastrointestinal (Enteric) Diseases from Animals (http://www.cdc.gov/zoonotic/gi/index.html): Information about zoonotic outbreaks, prevention

messages, and helpful resources

Healthy Pets Healthy People: (http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets) Information on health benefits of pets and disease risks

View these and additional posters.

(http://www.cdc.gov/zoonotic/gi/education.html)

How do people get Salmonella infections from live poultry?

Live poultry may have Salmonella germs in their droppings and on their bodies (feathers, feet, and beaks) even when they appear healthy and clean.

The germs can get on cages, coops, feed and water dishes, hay, plants, and soil in the area where the birds live and roam. And germs also can get on the

hands, shoes, and clothes of people who handle the birds or work or play where they live and roam.

People become infected with Salmonella when they put their hands or other things that have been in contact with live poultry in or around their

mouth. Young children are more likely to get sick because their immune systems are still developing and they are more likely to put their fingers or

other items into their mouths. Some people who have contact with items in the area where poultry live can become ill without actually touching one of

the birds. Germs on your hands can spread easily to other people or surfaces, which is why it's important to wash hands immediately after touching

poultry or anything in the area where they live and roam.

How do I reduce the chance of Salmonella infection?

Always wash your hands with soap and water right after touching live poultry or anything in the area where they live and roam.

Adults should supervise hand washing for young children.

Use hand sanitizer if soap and water are not readily available.

Do not let live poultry inside the house, in bathrooms, or especially in areas where food or drink is prepared, served, or stored.

Don't let children younger than 5 years, adults older than 65, and people with weakened immune systems handle or touch chicks, ducklings, or

http://www.cdc.gov/zoonotic/gi/index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets

http://www.cdc.gov/zoonotic/gi/education.html

other live poultry.

If you collect eggs from the hens, thoroughly cook them.

Don't eat or drink in the area where the birds live or roam.

Avoid kissing your birds or snuggling them, then touching your mouth.

Stay outdoors when cleaning any equipment or materials used to raise or care for live poultry, such as cages or feed or water containers.

Buy birds from hatcheries that participate in the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Poultry Improvement Plan (USDA-NPIP) U.S. voluntary

Salmonella Monitoring Program [279 KB] (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-07-09/pdf/2014-16037.pdf) . This program is intended to

reduce the incidence of Salmonella in baby poultry in the hatchery.

What are the signs, symptoms, and treatment for Salmonella infection?

Salmonella can make peo ple sick with

Diarrhea

Vomiting

Fever

Abdominal cramps

Sometimes, people can become so sick from a Salmonella infection that they have to go to the hospital. Children younger than 5 years, older adults,

and people with weakened immune systems, including pregnant women, are more likely to have a serious illness. When severe infection occurs,

Salmonella may spread from the intestines to the bloodstream and then to other body sites, and can cause death unless the person is treated

promptly with antibiotics.

CDC's Salmonella website (http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella) has more information about Salmonella infection. If you suspect you or your child has

Salmonella infection, please contact your health care provider immediately.

What are the rules for owning live poultry?

Rules and regulations vary by city, county, and state, so check with your local government to know the rules for where you live.

More Information

Risk of Human Salmonella Infections from Live Baby Poultry (http://www.cdc.gov/features/salmonellababybirds/)

Live Animal and Live Bird Markets: Stay Healthy and Safe from Germs (http://www.cdc.gov/features/liveanimalbird/)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-07-09/pdf/2014-16037.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella

http://www.cdc.gov/features/salmonellababybirds/

http://www.cdc.gov/features/liveanimalbird/

View Large Version [824 KB] (http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/resources/15_261877-

b_dont_play_chicken_with_your_health_508compliant.pdf)

Disease Detectives at Work—Detecting Salmonella Infections from Backyard Flocks (http://www.cdc.gov/about/24-

7/protectingpeople/salmonella/index.html)

United States Department of Agriculture's Biosecurity for Birds (keeping your birds healthy)

(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/birdbiosecurity)

Avian Influenza A Virus Infections in Humans (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/avian-in-humans.htm)

Posters and Infographics:

Have a backyard flock? Don't wing it. [662 KB] (http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/resources/backyard-flock-8x11.pdf)

After you touch ducklings or chicks, wash your hands so you don’t get sick! [721 KB]

(http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/resources/salmonella-baby-poultry.pdf)

How Infected Backyard Poultry Could Spread Bird Flu to People [555 KB] (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/pdf/avianflu/avian-flu-transmission.pdf)

Podcasts:

Kidtastics Podcast: Why Parents Should Think Twice Before Giving Baby Birds to Young Children for Easter

(http://www2c.cdc.gov/podcasts/player.asp?f=11117)

Formatted Article:

Peep, chirp, quack! What you should know about Salmonella if you keep live poultry [468 KB]

(http://www.cdc.gov/media/matte/2011/07_salmonellapoultry.pdf)

http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/resources/15_261877-b_dont_play_chicken_with_your_health_508compliant.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/about/24-7/protectingpeople/salmonella/index.html

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/birdbiosecurity

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/avian-in-humans.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/resources/backyard-flock-8x11.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/resources/salmonella-baby-poultry.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/pdf/avianflu/avian-flu-transmission.pdf

http://www2c.cdc.gov/podcasts/player.asp?f=11117

http://www.cdc.gov/media/matte/2011/07_salmonellapoultry.pdf

(//www.cdc.gov/Other/plugins/#pdf)

Professional Resources

Compendium of Measures to Prevent Disease Associated with Animals in Public Settings, 2011 [1.33 MB]

(http://nasphv.org/Documents/AnimalContactCompendium2013.pdf)

Appendix C: Hand-Washing Recommendations to Reduce Disease Transmission from Animals in Public Settings

(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5605a4.htm)

United States Department of Agriculture's National Poultry Improvement Plan (http://www.poultryimprovement.org/default.cfm)

File Formats Help:

How do I view different file formats (PDF, DOC, PPT, MPEG) on this site? (//www.cdc.gov/Other/plugins/)

Page last reviewed: July 22, 2016

Page last updated: July 22, 2016

Content source: National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (/ncezid), Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases

(http://www.cdc.gov/ncezid/dfwed/)

Page maintained by: Office of the Associate Director for Communication, Digital Media Branch, Division of Public Affairs

http://www.cdc.gov/Other/plugins/#pdf

http://nasphv.org/Documents/AnimalContactCompendium2013.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5605a4.htm

http://www.poultryimprovement.org/default.cfm

http://www.cdc.gov/Other/plugins/

http://www.cdc.gov/ncezid

http://www.cdc.gov/ncezid/dfwed/

DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2016

TO: CHOCOLAY TOWNSHIP BOARD

FROM: GREG ZYBURT, POLICE CHIEF

RE: GENERAL FUND BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 5 –OVERTIME REIMBURSEMENT

BACKGROUND: The police department participates in various grants throughout the year that result in overtime pay. Funding comes from the Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP). OHSP reimbursement is made on a monthly basis.

FISCAL EFFECTS: The Police Department has received checks from OHSP for full reimbursement for officers’ overtime for Safety Belt Enforcements, Impaired Enforcement and Underage Drinking Enforcement in the amount of $4,172.75 ($1,407.36 + $1,277.77 + $1,487.62).

RECOMMENDATION: Resolution Amending General Fund Budget FY 2016 – Amendment No. – Reimbursement for Safety Belt Overtime.

___________________ moved, _________________ seconded, that Whereas a budget was adopted by the Chocolay Township Board to govern the expenditures of anticipated general fund receipts within the township on November 4, 2015 for the next fiscal year, and Whereas as a result of unanticipated changes in revenues and/or needed expenditures, it is necessary to maintain a balanced budget between revenues and expenditures, Now Therefore, Be It Hereby Resolved, that the aforesaid budget be hereby modified as follows:

EXPENDITURE PREVIOUS CHANGE AMENDED Police Salary 101.305.702 $281,526.00 +$4,172.75 $285,698.75

REVENUE PREVIOUS CHANGE AMENDED Miscellaneous 101.698 $29,164.28 +$4,172.75 $ 33,337.03

ALTERNATIVE: The department co-operates with other area law enforcement agencies in these grants and Chocolay would not be a part of the team.

GZ/js

XV.B


To: Chocolay Township Board From: Mary Sanders, Deputy Clerk Date: January 4, 2017 Subject: General Fund Budget Amendment #6 – Salary Contingency to Police

Salary

BACKGROUND: Section 12.2 of the Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual allows for the payment of all “accrued but unused vacation hours” and “half of up to 720 hours of unused sick hours or 360 total”. We have a salary contingency line item set up in the Other General Government Account in the General Fund in the event of a retirement pay out.

Chief Zyburt retired as of December 31, 2016 and the pay out of the unused vacation, personal, compensatory and sick time will be appropriated to the 2016 budget.

FISCAL EFFECTS: The fiscal effects of this budget amendment will be to increase the Police Department Salary account to cover the pay out of vacation, personal, compensatory and sick hours paid to Chief Zyburt upon retirement. Chief Zyburt had a total of 426 hours of vacation and personal, 66 hours of comp time and 360 hours of sick time to be paid out. The total amount in the salary contingency will be needed to cover the pay out with an overage of $1,173.16 to be paid out of the regular police salary account.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board pass the suggested motion to reimburse the Police Department Salary account to keep it from going over budget.

SUGGESTED MOTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING GENERAL FUND FY 2016 - BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 6 SALARY CONTINCENCY TO POLICE SALARY ACCOUNT.

Moved, second that Whereas, a budget was adopted by the Chocolay Township Board to govern the expenditures of anticipated general fund receipts within the township On November 4, 2015, for the next fiscal year, and, Whereas, as a result of unanticipated changes in revenues and/or needed expenditures, it is necessary to modify the aforesaid budget between revenues and expenditures, Now Therefore, Be It Hereby Resolved, that the aforesaid budget be hereby modified as follows:

XV.C

EXPENDITURE PREVIOUS CHANGE AMENDED

101.305.702 $285,698.75 +$26,000.00 $311,698.75 Police Department Salary 101.285.952 $28,600.00 -$ 26,000.00 $ 2,600.00 Other General Government Salary Contingency ALTERNATIVES: The Board could utilize funds from other areas of the budget; but the salary contingency is set up to specifically handle retirement pay outs. Roll call vote required.



To: Chocolay Township Board From: Steve Lawry, Manager Date: December 27, 2016 Subject: 2016 Capital Improvement Fund Budget Amendment #11 to Reflect

Receipt of KBIC 2% Gaming Funds

BACKGROUND: The Township recently received a check from the second distribution for 2016 of 2% gaming monies from the Ojibwa II Casino in Chocolay Township. Although the Township has been a regular recipient of KBIC generosity for several years, the timing of receipts and amounts received vary considerably and this revenue is not considered in formulating the annual budget. A budget amendment is therefore necessary to account for the revenue at this time.

FISCAL EFFECTS: In May of 2016, the Township received $45,000, of which $5,000 was designated for Lakestate Industries Building Futures Capital Campaign per an agreement with the Township and the request of the Tribal Council. The most recent check totals $60,000 and is accompanied by a letter conveying the Tribal Council’s wish that $10,000 be allocated to the Cedar Tree Institute Zaagkii Project. The Township Board agreed in March 2016 to serve as a pass through agency for funding the KBIC might wish to make available for the Zaagkii Project, an effort to restore white cedar and other native plants of cultural significance on public lands. (Please see attached documents.) The Township also requested $85,000 to help fund its next police patrol vehicle and fire truck, improvements to its firefighting water supply, and an evaluation of its sewer system to determine the feasibility of serving the casino project. Since that request was submitted, plans for the casino expansion have been received which offer access to a firefighting water supply in an elevated storage tank and on-site wastewater treatment. It is therefore recommended that the funds received be allocated to the purchase of new emergency equipment.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board amend the 2016 budget to account for these funds and allocate them within the Capital Improvement Fund as follows:

FIRE DEPARTMENT: Sinking Fund for Replacement of 1998 Pumper $30,000.00

POLICE DEPARTMENT: Replacement of Police Patrol Vehicle & In-car Equipment $20,000.00

XV.D.1

CEDAR TREE INSTITUTE: Zaagkii Native Plantings Project $10,000.00 TOTAL ALLOCATION $60,000.00 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 November 4th, 2015 for fiscal year 2016, 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 KBIC 2% Gaming Money 401.000.582 $ 40,000.00 +$ 60,000.00 $100,000.00

EXPENDITURE Police Vehicles 401.305.981 $ 58,643.27 +$ 20,000.00 $ 78,643.27 Fire Dept. Vehicles 401.340.981 $ 67,507.61 +$ 30,000.00 $ 97,507.61 Recreation & Properties Land Improvements 401.756.972 $ 35,703.55 +$ 10,000.00 $ 45,703.55 With the $10,000 in Land Improvements to be paid to the Cedar Tree Institute for implementation of the Zaagkii Project on public lands within Chocolay Township. A roll call vote is required. ALTERNATIVES: The Board may choose to change the allocation of funds received or to process the payment to the Cedar Tree Institute through some other part of the budget.

1

March 2, 2016

A Regular meeting of the Chocolay Township Board was held on Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at the Chocolay Township Hall, 5010 U S 41 South, Marquette, MI. Supervisor Walker called the Township Board meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

TOWNSHIP BOARD. PRESENT: Gary Walker, John Greenberg, Max Engle, Judy White, Mark Maki, David Lynch. ABSENT: Richard Bohjanen.

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

MINUTES –FEBRUARY 3, 2016 REGULAR MEETING. Greenberg moved White seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 3, 2016 as presented. MOTION CARRIED.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS. Lynch moved Engle seconded to approve the agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED.

PUBLIC COMMENT. Carol Fulsher, 916 High Street, Marquette – Introduced herself and informed the Board that she, Don Britton and Jim Thomas are here to represent the Iron Ore Heritage Trail Authority. They are available to answer any questions the Board may have on the Iron Ore Heritage Trail Authority millage renewal request.

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE. White moved Lynch seconded that bills totaling $43,995.02 including checks numbered 20847-20865 and bills totaling $13,845.56 including checks numbered 20866-20887 are approved for payment. MOTION CARRIED.

PAYROLL. White moved Maki seconded that the payroll for February 11, 2016 for $32,941.60 including checks numbered 22884-22902 and 10280-10285 and ACH payments for Federal tax, State tax and MERS and February 25, 2016 for $36,662.59 including checks numbered 22903-22936 and 10286-10291 and ACH payments for Federal tax, State tax and MERS for payment.

XV.D.2

2

MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL REPORT- JANUARY 2016. Engle moved Lynch seconded to approve the January 2016 financial report. MOTION CARRIED. TREASURER’S REPORT/FUND WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSIT REPORT. Treasurer Greenberg reported that there was no investment activity in February. Engle moved White seconded to accept the Treasurer’s report and the Fund Withdrawal and Deposit report. MOTION CARRIED. DESIGNATION OF TOWNSHIP DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE TO THE SUPERIOR TRADE ZONE NEXT MICHIGAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Engle moved Lynch seconded to designate John Greenberg as Chocolay Township delegate to the Superior Trade Zone. MOTION CARRIED. Maki moved Greenberg seconded to designate Judy White as Chocolay Township alternate to the Superior Trade Zone. MOTION CARRIED. SUPERVISOR’S REPORT.

On February 29th, our Treasurer John Greenberg presented a letter indicating his retirement from the Board effective April 5, 2016. Supervisor Walker thanked Treasurer Greenberg for his long tenure on the Board.

The Board will publish a notice that we have an opening for Township Treasurer position and plan on interviewing candidates at the April 6th Board meeting. Treasurer Greenberg informed the Board that Ben Zyburt has expressed an interest in the position and with his banking experience he would be a great candidate. Clerk Engle would like to have a photo taken of the Board with John Greenberg in it. We will not have a full Board in April, so we will do the photo at the May meeting. He asked if John Greenberg was available.

Supervisor Walker said that it is good to be back at the Board meeting. ANNUAL REVIEW OF BOARD POLICIES. White moved Engle seconded to make no changes to the Board Policies as presented. MOTION CARRIED.

3

DEFICIT ELIMINATION PLAN FOR FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION LOAN.

Greenberg moved Lynch seconded that; WHEREAS, the Charter Township of Chocolay Fire Millage Fund has a $(581,189.00) deficit fund balance on December 31, 2015; and WHEREAS, Act 275 of the Public Acts of 1980 requires that a Deficit Elimination Plan be formulated by the local unit of government and filed with the Michigan Department of Treasury: NOW THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the Charter Township of Chocolay Fire Millage Fund Deficit Elimination Plan: 2016 2017

Fund Balance - Restricted $8,811 $29,097

Fund Balance - Unrestricted $(590,000) $(290,000)

Fund Balance – Total $(581,189) $(260,903)

Revenue – Property Tax $323,825 $323,825

Expenditure – Interest $(2,950) $(1,450)

Net Income $320,875 $322,375

Fund Balance – Restricted $29,686 $61,472

Fund Balance – Unrestricted $(290,000) -

Fund Balance – Total $(260,314) $61,472

Payments on Advances–General Fund $150,000.00 $145,000

Payments on Advances-Wastewater Fund $150,000.00 $145,000

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Charter Township of Chocolay Supervisor, Gary Walker submits the Deficit Elimination Plan to the Michigan Department of Treasury for certification. MOTION CARRIED. PERFORMANCE RESOLUTION FOR WORK PERFORMED IN MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY. White moved Lynch seconded to have the Township Supervisor execute the performance resolution for governmental agencies for purposes of issuing to a municipality an “Individual Permit for Use of State Highway Right of Way” or an “Annual Application and Permit for Miscellaneous Operations Within State Highway Right of Way” and authorizing Manager Steve Lawry and DPW Foreman Brad Johnson to apply to the Michigan Department of Transportation for the necessary permit work within State Highway Right of Way on behalf of Chocolay Township. MOTION CARRIED.

4

IRON ORE HERITAGE RECREATION AUTHORITY RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT. Engle moved Greenberg seconded to accept the Iron Ore Heritage Trail Resolution for millage renewal as presented. MOTION CARRIED. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FROM CEDAR TREE INSTITUTE FOR SUPPORT OF JOINT PROJECT USING KBIC 2% FUNDS. Lynch moved Greenberg seconded to provide a letter to the Keweenaw Bay Tribal Council in support of implementation funding for the Zaagkii Project in Chocolay Township and to authorize the Township to serve as a fiduciary agent of the Cedar Tree Institute for any 2% gaming funds awarded by KBIC to Cedar Tree Institute’s Zaagkii Project. MOTION CARRIED. AWARD OF BID FOR PICKUP TRUCK PURCHASE. Maki moved Lynch seconded that the Chocolay Township Board award the 2016 sewer truck bid to Public Service Garage for option two, in the amount of $27,924.90. This price includes all options and the trade in of the 2006 sewer truck. The Board also authorizes up to $200.00 additional for Leutz Sign to make and install the Township decal for the doors of the truck. This is to be purchased from the Wastewater Account 571.571.970 ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, White, Lynch, Greenberg, Engle, Walker. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Bohjanen. MOTION CARRIED. 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND BUDGET AMENDMENT #1 TO ASSIGN REVENUE FROM THE SALE OF USED POLICE VEHICLES. White moved Lynch seconded that Whereas, a budget was adopted by the Chocolay Township Board to govern the anticipated Capital Improvement Fund receipts within the Township on November 4th, 2015 for fiscal year 2016, and Whereas, as a result of receipt of unanticipated revenue from the sale of surplus equipment 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 401.698.000 $ 0.00 +$1,600.97 $1,600.97

EXPENDITURE Police - Vehicles

5

401.305.981 $ 45,542.30 +$1,600.97 $47,143.27 ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, White, Lynch, Greenberg, Engle, Walker. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Bohjanen. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR THE FIRE STATION WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS. Maki moved Engle seconded to authorize the Fire Department to purchase and have installed a water softener system from Norway Springs Inc. In the amount of $4,046.00 using Capital Improvement Fund account 401.340.976. ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, White, Lynch, Greenberg, Engle, Walker. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Bohjanen. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PASSPORT GRANT FOR TENNIS COURT REHABILITATION AT SILVER CREEK RECREATION AREA. Engle moved Greenberg seconded to authorize up to $11,500 from Capital Improvement 401.756.972 to be spent as a match amount for a DNR Recreation Passport Grant application should the application be successful. ROLL CALL. AYES: Maki, White, Lynch, Greenberg, Engle, Walker. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Bohjanen. MOTION CARRIED. Joanne Parks thanked the Board for supporting the passport grant for tennis courts. There are two other grants; Community Foundation and the Michigan Fitness Foundation that need to be approved by April. Clerk Engle asked if the other grant require matching funds. Manager Lawry believes the two mentioned grants have no monetary request and that is why Dale Throenle did not bring them before the Board. PUBLIC COMMENT. Trustee Maki commented that in the past the Board set the salaries for Board positions before the election filing deadline. That would allow all interested parties knowledge of the salary for the position that they will run for. The Board agreed that this should be done at the April 6, Board meeting.

6

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS.

A. Minutes – Township Planning Commission, January 18th, 2016.

B. Minutes – Marquette Area Wastewater Treatment Authority, Regular Meeting of January 21st, 2016.

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

January 20th, 2016 and February 17th, 2016, (Draft).

D. Minutes – US 41 Corridor Advisory Group, Regular Meeting of January 12th, 2016. E. Correspondence from Sands Township Re: Attorney Opinion on Marquette County

Solid Waste Authority Actions. Supervisor Walker adjourned the meeting at 6: 05 p.m. ________________________ _________________________ Max Engle, Clerk Gary Walker, Supervisor



To: Chocolay Township Board From: Steve Lawry, Manager Date: February 24, 2016 Subject: Cedar Tree Institute Zaagkii Project

BACKGROUND: The Cedar Tree Institute, a local non-profit organization working to promote proper stewardship of the natural environment has been partnering with Native American tribes of the Upper Peninsula to re-establish white cedar and other native plants across the UP. In particular, it has been working with the Indian tribes and others to plant species that were and are very important to native culture. Officials of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community identified Chocolay Township as a prime location to pilot some of the plantings that the Institute would like to establish while providing opportunities for the local Ojibway population to participate in the project. They suggested Institute Director Jon Magnuson approach the Township and the Keweenaw Bay Tribal Council to propose the use of 2% gaming money to finance some of the proposed planting projects. In addition to enhancing sites of cultural significance the plantings would be used to protect and restore public lands threatened or damaged by erosion and strengthen plant populations exposed to invasive species. Specific sites might include the proposed new nature preserve on the Chocolay River Bayou, portions of the Beaver Grove Recreation Area, or Township-owned property near Lake Kawbawgam. Specific sites would be identified by professional botanists working with the Institute and KBIC’s Natural Resources Department, in cooperation with the Township.

FISCAL EFFECTS: According to the gaming pact signed with the State of Michigan, a 2% share of gaming profits from Indian casinos must be shared with local units of government. Non-profits and other organizations are not eligible to receive the funds directly, but often work with local jurisdictions who serve as their fiduciary agents. In this case the Cedar Tree Institute (CTI) is asking Chocolay to receive funds approved by KBIC on its behalf, and then to disperse the funds to the Institute to allow it to implement its planting and educational program. CTI is proposing a partnership with the Township to provide long term enhancement of public properties, including Township-owned properties, while at the same time providing educational and involvement opportunities for youth and tribal members to grow in environmental stewardship.

Attached is a copy of the Zaagkii Project proposal prepared by the Cedar Tree Institute for submission to the Tribal Council. The proposal requests $30,000 to meet its 2016 goals. Since CTI has an established working relationship with

XV.D.3

KBIC and was directed by tribal officials to explore a partnership with Chocolay Township, it is likely that this project will receive some funding in the next allocation of 2% funds. It is uncertain whether funds committed to this project will have any effect on the amount awarded Chocolay Township for other capital purchase requests, but developing a stronger ongoing relationship with KBIC through joint projects such as this may lead to additional funding opportunities in the future. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board agree to serve as a fiduciary agent for any funds awarded by the KBIC to the CTI Zaagkii Project and to endorse the project with a letter of support addressed to the Tribal Council. SUGGESTED MOTION: ______________moved _____________seconded to provide a letter to the Keweenaw Bay Tribal Council in support of implementation funding for the Zaagkii Project in Chocolay Township and to authorize the Township to serve as a fiduciary agent of the Cedar Tree Institute for any 2% gaming funds awarded by KBIC to CTI’s Zaagkii Project. ALTERNATIVES: The Board may choose to decline this opportunity or to request the funds directly as a part of its own application for 2% gaming funds.

XV.D.4

CTI BOARD

Jon Magnuson

CTI Executive Director

Steve Mattson

Regional Manager, PCS

Wells Fargo Bank Michigan

Jim Elder

Attorney, Elder Agency

Marquette, Michigan

ADVISORY COUNCIL

Larry Skendzel

Physician, Medical Director

Lake Superior Hospice

Ken Kelley

Professor Emeritus, Social Work

Northern Michigan University

Gareth Zellmer

John Rosenberg

Lutheran Pastor (ELCA)

Vancouver, Washington

Rick Pietila

Musician, Technician

Mike Grossman

Family Physician

Medical Director, UPHHH

THE CEDAR TREE INSTITUTE

403 E. Michigan St.

Marquette, MI 49855

February 24, 2016

Chocolay Township Board of Trustees 5010 US 41 South Marquette, Michigan 49855

Dear Friends,

Telephone: (906) 228-5494

[email protected]

cedartreeinstitute.org

The Cedar Tree Institute, a nonprofit organization working in the areas of mental health, religion, and environment, has been invited by leaders of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community to submit this proposal to Chocolay Township for a native plants and pollinator protection project that will benefit restoration and protection of botanical life on Township public lands.

KBIC has requested that the Township endorse this project as part of the tribe's 2% funding for projects and programs in 2016. The township would serve as the fiduciary agent for project funds.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to working closely with the Township Board in identifying and enhancing the natural resources for which the Township Board serves so responsibly as

stewards and caretakers.

Initiating and providing collaborative services in the areas of mental health, religion and the environment

TO: The Chocolay Township Board RE: KBIC 2% Tribal Request

2016: The Cedar Tree Institute

The Zaagkii (Wings and Seeds) Project A Native Plants and Pollinator

Protection Initiative

REQUEST $30,000

Since 2010, The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community has served as a leader among Michigan's Upper Peninsula tribes in protecting and restoring threatened plant life

in the Great Lakes Basin. This initiative's benchmarks include the first Native plants greenhouse (established in partnership with KBIC's Natural Resources Department) east of the Mississippi on an American Indian Reservation. Chocolay Township lies within

the boundaries of KBIC's ceded Treaty Lands and also is currently a leader in seeking to improve and protect the Township's natural resources.

The purpose of the Zaagkii Project is to lift up the role of American Indian tribes and involve area youth to assist them in becoming custodians of threatened plant life and

native seeds (i.e. blueberries, sweet grass, wild leeks, cranberries, ginseng, cranberries), This initative also intends to help establish small tribal-based economies such as maple syrup making, heritage seed production and community gardens. In 2016, the project plans to begin work with Chocolay Township in effo1is to enhance and protect public

lands under its jurisdiction.

The Wings and Seeds Initiative over the last five years has coordinated 12 botanical workshops on the Peninsula's five Indian reservations and trained tribal staff in plant

technology and seed preservation. KBIC tribal staff provided key leadership for each of those events. In addition, over 30 tribal representatives have traveled for training to

conferences and botanical gardens across North America. As a result, KBIC is nationally known as a leader in this work. The tribe continues to be recipients of numerous awards and recognition by the United States Forest Service and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and

Wildlife Commission.

Our proposal for 2016 includes the following goals:

(1) Work with Chocolay Township staff to plant native plants and 200 + cedar trees on Township public lands (using teams of youth from the U.P. Children's Museum and the Juvenile Court Community Service Program) and also provide support from KBIC staff to establish an interpretative trail on the Chocolay Bayou Preserve.

(2) Sponsor and design an intertribal workshop for botanical training with regional tribal staff using consultation services by Native American enthnobotanist Scott Herron (Ferris State University) and retired US Forest Service botanist Jan Shultz.

(3) Assist in supporting KBIC's work to establish a Native Plant Policy (similar to the Seneca Nation) and provide consultation, with botanists Scott Herron and Jan Schultz, for KBIC's Forest Management Plan. This effort will encourage pollinator habitat, cultural use and sustainability while discouraging the spread of . . . mvas1ve species.

(4) Provide internships (for Ferris State University and NMU students) to support Zaagkii Project efforts for greenhouse protocols, plant restoration initiatives, and related Chocolay Township priorities.

Since initiation of this Project in 2009, The Cedar Tree Institute, a nonprofit organization has provided the logistical and strategic oversight for the Zaagkii Project and served as its

key partner with KBIC's Natural Resources Department and the United States Forest Service, Jan Schultz, Chief Botanist for the Eastern Region of the USFS, has served in a

key role, along with Scott Herron, Ferris State University, as technical advisors.

BUDGET NARRATIVE

Materials and Supplies (Chocolay Township Site) Native plant seedlings, milkweed, Northern white cedar tree seedlings ($1500) + lunches for youth

volunteers/ U.P. Children's Museum (($6 x 40 = $240) + supplies (buckets, shovels, and gloves ($260) TOTAL: $2000

One Intertribal Botanical Training (Zaakgii Workshop) 30 Participants

TOT AL: $4500 (Includes 2 botanist consultant fees)

Internships, Scholarships, for Native American Students 4-6 youth

TOT AL: $6500

Consultant Fees: Botanists (2) $4000 x 2 (includes travel, lodging, meals)

TOTAL 8,000

Project Oversight, Administration, Coordination Two CTI staff: ($6,000 + $4,000 includes Planning, Meetings, Travel)

TOT AL $10,000

PROJECTS OF KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY AND THE CEDAR TREE INSTITUTE

IN COORDINATION WITH KBIC'S NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT (2004-2015)

2004 - 2015 coordinated the Earth keeper Covenant pledging support for Native American tribes with 250 faith communities in Northern Michigan

2008-2010: Planting of 2100 lbs. of wild rice seed with KBIC and at-risk youth volunteers

2009: Building of24 butterfly shelters with KBIC youth to protect pollinators

2010: Establishment of KB I C's Native plants greenhouse

2014 - Learning/Service Youth Trip to explore Lake Superior fisheries and marine life

2013+2015: Youth Learning/Service trips (Maamaadizi I & 11) to Isle Royale

2014: Planting of2 I ,OOO native grass seedlings with Earthkeeper volunteers and KBIC staff

20I0-2015: With support of KBIC, coordinated the drafting and signing of five tribal resolutions in the Upper Peninsula supporting the goals and vision of the Zaagkii Project

REF: websites: wingsandseeds.org cedartreeinstitute.org

December 19, 2016

To: Chocolay Township Board

From: Judy White, Personnel Committee Chairman

Re: Hiring of new full-time police officer

Police Chief Greg Zyburt requested that part-time officer Jeff Czarny be offered full-time

employment and that his starting pay be adjusted as Step 2 of Pay Grade 3. This would be a

difference of an annual salary increase from $42,602 to $44,600 plus addition of benefits. Scott

Jennings explained that Mr. Czarny has been with the department for 3+ years and that his

work has been exemplary. The committee voted unanimously to recommend to the Board that

Mr. Czarny be offered the full-time position with starting salary of $44,600 effective January 1,

2017.

XV.E

December 19, 2016


From: Judy White, Personnel Committee Chairman

Re: Policies and Procedure

It has come to the attention of the Personnel Committee that there are several separate

policies and procedures. There seems to be a need to incorporate the Personnel, Board Policy

& Procedures, and Township Policy & Procedures into one document. The Personnel

Committee at their December 19, 2016 meeting discussed this need and therefore is requesting

the Board approve such action.

If so approved, the committee would like to establish an Ad Hoc committee consisting of the

personnel committee and department heads; i.e.: Township Treasurer, Township Clerk,

Manager, Public Works, and Assessor to review each policy and/or procedure relating to each

and recommending any changes.

XV.F


To: Chocolay Township Board From: Max Engle, Clerk Date: January 9, 2017 Subject: Request to expend from capital improvement fund

BACKGROUND:

We would like to replace the Board of Trustees packet and the Planning

Commission packet with tablets.

Doing so will reduce the time in producing the packets by 3-5 hours for each

commission. Also, the cost of printing will be reduced considerably, due to the

fact that only 1 packet will be needed for the public.

The cost of the tablet and supplies will be approximately $300 each. We are

recommending the purchase of 14 so that we will have 1 spare. This comes to

$4,200, which is already in the budget for 2017.

RECOMMENDATION:

__________ moved, _______seconded that the Planning / Zoning Director spend

up to $4,200 from the Technology Budget 101.258.957 for the purchase of

Tablets and supplies.

ALTERNATIVES:

Is to leave things the same, print, and manually put the packets together.

XV.G


To: Chocolay Township Board From: Max Engle, Clerk Date: January 9, 2017 Subject: Request to expend from capital improvement fund

BACKGROUND:

We are looking at moving the Election equipment and supplies to a larger closet

off the meeting room to give us more space. To do this we will need to get some

shelving at the cost of about $500.

We are also looking at replacing the 2 laptop computers that are used for the

EPollbook on election days. We have had some problems with one of them

already, so I am concerned that we could have a problem during an election.

They are old enough that they have reached their life span. Therefore, I feel they

should be replaced and the old ones can be used as backup in case something

should go wrong. The estimated cost for the 2 Laptops is $1,400.

RECOMMENDATION:

_______ moved, _______ seconded that the Clerk expend up to $1,900 from the

Elections Capital Improvement Fund 401.190.977 for the shelving and 2 Laptop

computers.

ALTERNATIVES:

Is to leave equipment and supplies in the smaller closet, and take our chances

with a computer failure during an Election.

XV.H


From: Dale Throenle, Planning Director / Zoning Administrator

Date: December 21, 2016

Subject: Township Manager Evaluation

I was asked to prepare the Township Manager evaluation for 2016 based on input from the Board member survey submittals. Attached are the summaries of the submitted evaluations along with related

comments.

The Evaluation Summary attachment contains the overall summary of Board member scores for each

entry on the evaluation. The scoring was based on a value table of 5 to 1, where the values were set

with the following criteria:

Score Rating

5 Excellent (almost always exceeds the performance standard) 4 Above average (generally exceeds the performance standard)

3 Average (generally meets the performance standard)

2 Below average (usually does not meet the performance standard) 1 Poor (rarely meets the performance standard)

Six Board members and former Supervisor Gary Walker submitted responses, and those responses were summarized using Microsoft Excel. Please note that Trustee Don Rhein chose not to participate in the

evaluation process because he was just appointed to the Board in December of 2016.

The calculation of the amounts listed in the Average by Characteristic column for each line item on the summary was determined by taking the average for each statement within the category across the

submitted scores from all that responded. The average score for the category was calculated by using the average of the statements within the category. The Overall Evaluation Average Score at the bottom of

the evaluation was calculated as the average of the ten category average scores.

The Evaluation Comments attachment contains the comments that were written in reply to the four

statements at the end of the manager evaluation. Respondent names are not included with the

comments, and comments were randomly entered under each of the corresponding statements as written on the submitted evaluations.


Planning and Zoning Department 5010 US 41South

Marquette, MI 49855

Phone: 906-249-1448 Fax: 906-249-1313

XV.I.1

Evaluation Year: 2016 Chocolay TownshipTownship Manager

Annual Performance Evaluation

Performance Category ScoringAverage by

Charateristic1. Individual characteristics

Diligent and thorough in the discharge of duties, “self-starter” 4.20

Exercises good judgment 4.00

Displays enthusiasm, cooperation, and will to adapt 4.20

Mental and physical stamina appropriate for the position 4.20

Exhibits composure, appearance and attitude appropriate for executive position 4.00

1. Individual characteristics average score 4.12

2. Professional skills and status

Maintains knowledge of current developments affecting the practice of local government management4.00

Demonstrates a capacity for innovation and creativity 3.60

Anticipates and analyzes problems to develop effective approaches for solving them 4.00

Willing to try new ideas proposed by the Township Board members and/or staff 4.20

Sets a professional example by handling affairs of the public office in a fair and impartial manner4.00

2. Professional skills and status average score 3.96

3. Policy execution

Implements Township Board actions in accordance with the intent of the board 4.40

Supports the actions of the Township Board after a decision has been reached, both inside and outside

the organization 4.20

Understands, supports, and enforces Chocolay Township’s laws, policies, and ordinances4.40

Reviews ordinance and policy procedures periodically to suggest improvements to their effectiveness3.40

Offers workable alternatives to the Township Board for changes in law or policy when an existing policy

or ordinance is no longer practical 3.80

3. Policy execution average score 4.04

1 Evaluation Summary

XV.I.2




Charateristic4. Relations with elected members of the governing body

Carries out directives of the Township Board as a whole as opposed to those of any one member or

minority group 4.20

Sets meeting agendas that reflect the guidance of the Township Board and avoids unnecessary

involvement in administrative actions 4.20

Disseminates complete and accurate information equally to all members in a timely manner4.40

Assists by facilitating decision making without usurping authority 4.00

Responds well to requests, advice, and constructive criticism 4.20

4. Relations with elected members of the governing body average score 4.20

5. Communication with Township Board and public

Provides regular information and reports to the Township Board concerning matters of importance to

Chocolay Township 4.00

Responds in a timely manner to requests from the Township Board for special reports4.00

Takes the initiative to provide information, advice, and recommendations to the Township Board on

matters that are non-routine and not administrative in nature 4.00

Reports produced by the manager are accurate, comprehensive, concise and written to their intended

audience 4.40

Produces and handles reports in a way to convey the message that affairs of Chocolay Township are open

to public scrutiny 4.20

5. Communication with Township Board and public average score 4.12

6. Fiscal management

Prepares a balanced budget to provide services at a level directed by the Township Board4.20

Makes the best possible use of available funds, conscious of the need to operate Chocolay Township

efficiently and effectively 4.60

Prepares a budget and budgetary recommendations in an intelligent and accessible format4.40

Ensures actions and decisions reflect an appropriate level of responsibility for financial planning and

accountability 3.80

Appropriately monitors and manages fiscal activities of the organization 3.80

6. Fiscal management average score 4.16





Charateristic7. Supervision

Encourages department heads to make decisions within their jurisdictions with minimal Township

Manager involvement, yet maintains general control of operations by providing the right amount of

communication to the staff 3.60

Instills confidence and promotes initiative in subordinates through supportive rather than restrictive

controls for their programs while still monitoring operations at the department level4.00

Develops and maintains a friendly and informal relationship with the staff and work force in general, yet

maintains the professional dignity of the Township Manager’s office4.20

Sustains or improves staff performance by evaluating the performance of staff members at least annually,

setting goals and objectives for them, periodically assessing their progress, and providing appropriate

feedback 2.80

Encourages teamwork, innovation, and effective problem-solving among the staff members3.60

7. Supervision average score 3.64

8. Staffing / employee relations

Recruits and retains competent personnel for staff positions 3.80

Applies an appropriate level of supervision to improve any areas of substandard performance3.80

Stays accurately informed and appropriately concerned about employee relations 4.20

Professionally manages the compensation and benefits plan 4.00

Promotes training and development opportunities for employees at all levels of the organization3.60

8. Staffing / employee relations average score 3.88

9. Citizen relations

Responsive to requests from citizens 4.20

Demonstrates a dedication to service to the community and its citizens 4.20

Maintains a nonpartisan approach in dealing with the news media 4.20

Meets with and listens to members of the community to discuss their concerns and strives to understand

their interests 4.40

Gives an appropriate effort to maintain citizen satisfaction with Township services 4.20

9. Citizen relations average score 4.24





Charateristic10. Community

Shares responsibility for addressing the difficult issues facing the Township 4.20

Avoids unnecessary controversy 4.40

Cooperates with neighboring communities and the county 4.00

Helps the Township Board address future needs and develop adequate plans to address long term trends4.20

Cooperates with other regional, state and federal government agencies 4.20

10. Community average score 4.20

Overall evaluation average score 4.06

Note: Trustee Don Rhein chose not to participate in the evaluation process because he was

just appointed to the Board in December of 2016.




His work ethic is remarkable

Chocolay Twp is extremely fortunate to have him

He has set the bar high, any replacement will be hard pressed to compare

His vast knowledge of law's, budget's, etc.

Section Notes

What performance area(s) would you identify as in most need of improvement?

Monitor staff's teamwork yet not expect staff to work outside their job description

9.1 sometimes too available

Narrative Evaluation

What would you identify as the Manager's strength(s), expressed in terms of the principle results achieved during the rating period?

Extremely knowlegable regarding Township matters

Very well informed

Is an excellent advisor to the Board

His direction is without peerContinue road rating system looking for resolution to long term issues involving sewage system & equipment

2.4 if any

Good attitude

His knowledge of the mechanics of local government is extensive.

Experienced, well informed, and motivated in the management of this governmental unit

In short Mr. Lawry is a rare find.

Allows incompetence to maintain without doing research to evaluate performance

What constructive suggestions or assistance can you offer the Manager to enhance performance?

Very littleManaging other offices -- supervision and evaluation

Grant funding for twsp infrastructure issues

N/AContinue to work with state & federal agencies to acquire assistance with Township infrastructure & expansion

Speak more loudlyWhat is the management operation relative to managing staff

What other comments do you have for the Manager; e.g., priorities, expecations, goals or objectives for the new rating period?

We are fortunate to have a manager of his caliber for our township

Keep conducting business as isDoes an excellent job as manager of the TownshipI realize the position is only 24 hrs/wk therefore, cannot expect more from Mr. Lawry than is already being handled by him

Keep working hard to enhance services to our residents

Evaluation Comments

XV.I.3


To: Chocolay Township Board From: Steve Lawry, Manager Date: December 28, 2016 Subject: Establishing Manager’s Salary for 2017

As a part of the annual budget adoption process the Board reviews and adopts adjustments to the salaries and wages of staff members, specifically through the adoption of an amended Appendix L to the Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual. Since the Township Manager position is not covered by Appendix L, no action is typically taken to adjust the salary for this position until after the Board completes an annual evaluation. Any adjustment proposed would then require approval of a separate motion of the Board. Compensation is currently set at $44,978, or $36.04 per hour based upon a work schedule of 24 hours per week. Although Fire Department personnel received no increase in compensation for 2017, the wage rates for most other Township positions were increased by 1%. A similar increase in the annual salary for the Manager position would cost an additional $450.

XV.I.4

Page 1 of 8

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHOCOLAY

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Monday, November 21, 2016

I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY: Andy Sikkema at 7:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Members Present: Andy Sikkema (Chair), Andy Smith (Vice Chair), Eric Meister

(Secretary), Richard Bohjanen (Board), Bruce Ventura, Tom Mahaney, Kendell Milton

(arrived at 7:05 PM)

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Dale Throenle (Planning Director/Zoning Administrator), Suzanne Sundell

(Administrative Assistant)

II. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS / APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Motion by Ventura, and seconded by Mahaney, to approve the agenda as written.

At this time, Bohjanen indicated that he has now taken on his role as Township

Supervisor, and his term as Board appointee for the Planning Commission had ended,

so he would be abstaining from voting.


III. MINUTES

October 17, 2016

Motion by Ventura, and seconded by Meister, to approve the minutes as corrected.

(Page 2 of 10, V. Public Hearings, “differed” should be “deferred”.) Ventura commented

that the minutes were very well written.


IV. PUBLIC COMMENT

None

V. PUBLIC HEARINGS

None

VI. PRESENTATIONS

None

VII. NEW BUSINESS

A. Proposed 2017 Meeting Dates

Sikkema indicated that he had received one phone call on this item, and the request

was to not make the meetings too early, in order to allow for the public to attend.

There was discussion among the Planning Commission on meeting time. Throenle

also stated that if the Township Board would decide to change their meeting date, it

may become necessary to choose a different day.

XVII.A

Page 2 of 8

Mahaney moved, and Smith seconded the dates for the 2017 Planning Commission

meetings be approved as written. The starting time for the 2017 meetings will be

7:00 PM EST.




Throenle introduced the ordinance by referring to the Public Comment that was

received and is “XI.D Correspondence – Place” in the Commissioner’s packets. The

public comment was asking the Commission for consideration of initiating a leash

law in Chocolay Township. Throenle indicated that the changes discussed at the last

meeting have been incorporated into the ordinance under VIII.A, and the document

is currently up to date with those changes. Throenle also pointed out that there were

a couple errors in last month’s discussion – the first being the discussion on Section

8 (A) and Section 10 (A) duplication, and the fact that a paragraph was inadvertently

deleted from the document (see page VIII.A.3), which reads:

“Section 10 Killing and / or Seizing of Animals

(A) Any animal that enters an enclosure which is owned or leased by a person

raising livestock or poultry that is unaccompanied by the owner shall be in

violation of this Ordinance. The Owner or lease of such enclosure or his or her

agent may apprehend or kill such animal while it is in the enclosure without

liability for killing such animal.”

Throenle indicated that if this paragraph was put back into the document, there

would be a need to have another Public Hearing.

The second item is in reference to licensing of dogs and retaining of their license

when they come from another state. After researching this, Throenle discovered any

animal brought in from another state must be licensed within 30 days in the state of

Michigan. The only license that would be valid in Chocolay Township would only be

licenses issued in the State of Michigan.

The third item up for discussion was the request for information from Center for

Disease Control (CDC) on the issue of chickens. Throenle indicated that the primary

direction from the CDC on that issue is hygiene and the washing of hands after

handling of chickens.

The fourth item is clarification of the survey data from 2013. It has been mentioned

several times in public comment that the residents in the waterfront district did not

want chickens, but the survey data shows that this statement is in error and that 57%

of the residents in WFR are in agreement that chickens should be allowed. The only

two districts that do not wish to have chickens are the “Corridor Cluster Mixed Use”

and the “Village Residential”. Throenle feels that the Village Residential can be

addressed by the setback requirements.

Page 3 of 8


Sikkema opened discussion on the item regarding the deletion of the paragraph on

killing and / or seizing of animals.

Meister questioned if this would already be covered by the State of Michigan under

state statute. Throenle indicated that he had not researched this, so he was not

sure.

Sikkema indicated that if the animal is in the act of hunting, it would not be

considered an “uncontrolled” dog. This seems to be in conflict with this paragraph.

Mahaney indicated if a person had chickens, and a domesticated animal crosses

over into their property, they are probably not going to call the Township, but instead

will react to what is happening.

Sikkema indicated that this would also be true with a dog crossing over into a herd of

cattle – even if the dog is not harassing the cattle.

Bohjanen wondered how this interacts with or contradicts the Firearms Ordinance.

Ventura questioned whether the presence of a dog in a livestock enclosure warrants

violence against the dog. If the dog is about to kill or attack in some way, then it

would be considered self-defense or defense of your property. But if the dog is just

present, it does not constitute a danger. Ventura feels the wording is pretty wide

open for interpretation.

Smith asked if originally this language was written into the ordinance twice. Throenle

indicated that it was originally in Section 10 (A), and 8 (A) had been copied to

Section 10 (A) in error. The language being discussed would be reinserted into

Section 10 (A) if approved.

Meister wondered if the Township even had the authority to include this in the

ordinance, and does not feel that this should be in the ordinance.

Ventura also pointed out that the obeying of the ordinance is placed on the animal,

not the owner.

The consensus of the Planning Commission was to leave Section 10 (A) out.

Throenle referred the Commission to Section 5 (A) of the Ordinance, which states:

“(A) … Current dog licenses issued by other jurisdictions prior to residence in the

Township shall be honored and valid for the remainder of the calendar year in which

they were issued.”

Throenle requested it be changed to:

“(A) … Current dog licenses issued by other jurisdictions within the State of

Michigan prior to residence …”

The Planning Commission agreed with this change.

Page 4 of 8

Throenle directed the Planning Commission to the correspondence from Irene Place

concerning leash laws.

Bohjanen stated this could be handled by the posting of signs stating “Dogs must be

on leash”.

Mahaney indicated that there is a problem with dogs on the bike path. Ventura

stated he feels most of the owners are responsible. Mahaney felt that if the dog is on

a leash, there is less of a chance of an incident happening.

Throenle wondered about the enforcement of leash laws.

Sikkema stated it would probably be based on complaints. Consensus of the

Planning Commission was to leave a leash law out of the ordinance.

The Planning Commission then moved on to discuss the information regarding the

CDC view on chickens and salmonella.

Ventura stated that by looking at what the CDC furnished, salmonella is a “direct

contact” disease, and you would have to have contact with the animals. This would

not be an airborne disease. He doesn’t feel that chickens in the backyard would

increase the likelihood of contacting salmonella.

Meister stated that people could be educated when filling out the application to have

chickens.

Bohjanen stated that even though the article was dated October of 2016, there was

no new information concerning salmonella. He also stated that salmonella from

chickens is not a problem in domestic well water. When a well is properly placed,

having chickens on your land would not contaminate the well.

Sikkema stated that livestock and other forms of poultry would be restricted to the AF

district, and chickens would be allowed in all districts.

Mahaney moved, and Ventura seconded, that after holding a public hearing and

considering public input, the Planning Commission recommends that the Township

Board approve the draft version of Ordinance #62 Animal Control as changed for the

following reasons:

1) To align the Township regulations with those of Marquette County and the

State of Michigan;

2) To permit and regulate chickens in the non-agricultural zoning districts within

the Township;

3) To make editing changes to the ordinance text; and

4) To repeal Ordinance #41 and replace it with Ordinance #62.

Vote: Ayes: 5 Nays: 1 (Sikkema) MOTION CARRIED

B. US 41 and M 28 Business Corridor Overlay District

Throenle introduced this for review to make sure all documents are ready to forward

Page 5 of 8

to the Township Board for direction. The review will consist of going through the

changes that have been made to the matrix and discussion on Home Occupations –

differences between Tier 1 and Tier 2. Throenle has also included a new overlay

map which includes 171 parcels that were identified as part of the overlay district.


Discussion began with Item 243 in the matrix, which involves home occupation.

Sikkema started the discussion – Mixed Use Development, Accessory Use. The

question would be if the Township should allow accessory use for Home Occupation.

Tier 1 would refer to home occupations that you would not be able to tell there was a

business there, such as telephone answering and solicitation, home crafts, computer

programming and desktop publishing, typing or secretarial service, fine arts and

writing, consulting service, mail order business, or home office. He felt that this

should be a Permitted use. The commissioners agreed.

Home Occupation – Tier 2 would include carpentry and cabinet maker, catering or

food preparation, dressmaking, sewing, or tailoring, pet grooming service, barber or

beauty service, nail or personal care salon, electronic or equipment repair, or

assembly operations. These would be Conditional Use Home Occupations in the

Residential districts.

Meister stated that if you are in the Mixed Use Corridor, you are already in the

Commercial district, so there should be no need to have additional restrictions or

restrictions greater than anywhere else.

Sikkema stated that some of the properties in the Mixed Use are zoned as R1 and

R2, which would make Mixed Use harder to accept, but that doesn’t mean you can’t

change to boundaries of the overlay zone. In looking at the map, Sikkema thought

that West Fairbanks should not be included as it is currently all residential. Smith

also questioned West Main, since they are currently residential.

Throenle indicated that in reference to West Main, there is only one non-residential

parcel there, and that would be the Bayou. In reference to West Fairbanks, all the

parcels are R2.

Sikkema asked the Commissioners if Tier 1 – Home Occupations should be set to

permitted in the matrix if the West Fairbanks properties were removed. All agreed

that it should.

Bohjanen questioned why the Bayou was not included. Throenle indicated that the

300 foot boundary established as the base criteria for the corridor did not include the

Bayou, as it was outside the 300 foot boundary.

Meister questioned the overlay district - the last time the Planning Commission talked

it was not decided if it should be an overlay or not. He was wondering why they are

not including all commercial in this, such as Beaver Grove. Throenle indicated that

the original discussion concentrated on the US 41 area in Harvey. Meister recalled

Page 6 of 8

the discussion about Beaver Grove being that they did not want to expand the

commercial area there, but that they would allow the new uses. Sikkema indicated

that the Planning Commission was going to be looking at other commercial areas,

once the corridor area was done.

Smith asked Meister if he was suggesting that anything commercial fall under the

Mixed Use. Meister suggested that instead of an overlay, that the commercial district

be changed to allow for the new uses, such as residential above or behind the

business. This would include expanding the commercial district.

Mahaney wanted to clarify that they would just be changing the ordinance regarding

commercial. Meister indicated that instead of doing an overlay just for Harvey, to

make changes regarding commercial in other areas.

Throenle indicated they were looking at the corridor first to get everything cleaned

up, and then to expand out to other areas of the Township.

Sikkema stated that one of the original goals was to revitalize the village of Harvey,

and encourage people to develop here.

Throenle would like to have the Township Board give the Planning Commission

direction. Smith asked if this had not already gone before the Board. Throenle

indicated that they had not given a direction on how to proceed with this. Sikkema

stated that what the Planning Commission is trying to do with this overlay district

used to be the norm. For some reason, communities moved away from this. Now it

seems we are moving back in the other direction. Milton indicated that with the

Building Code there is a fire separation between residential and commercial, so

those types of building details may control how residential areas can expand.

Sikkema stated that when the discussion starts in Beaver Grove, the residents

should be asked if they feel they live in a residential area or a commercial area, since

most of Beaver Grove is residential. Bohjanen indicated that the residential in

Beaver Grove is spotty.

Throenle feels there needs to be more detail before it goes to the Board, so he would

like to let the Planning Commission have one more shot going street by street within

the proposed corridor. He stated that there are three possibilities on how to

approach this – overlay district, form-based code, or underlay district.

Sikkema requested the discussion return to the Tier 2 – Home Occupation decision.

The Planning Commission decided that Home Occupation – Tier 2 would be a

Permitted Use in the Mixed Use Development.

Ventura would like a definition of overlay versus rezoning, as rezoning would create

lots of problems.

Sikkema felt that by spring, there should be a public meeting to bring the public in to

let them know what is planned.

Mahaney asked if this fits into the Master Plan. Throenle stated that it does.

Page 7 of 8

IX. PUBLIC COMMENT

None

X. COMMISSIONER’S COMMENTS

Mahaney – none

Meister - none

Smith – would like to get a copy of the complaints that are being received.

Bohjanen – is in the process of appointing new members to the Planning Commission.

He would be happy to take any input. There are six applications he is looking at.

Milton – none

Ventura – has submitted his letter of resignation, effective December 31, 2016. He has

spent 11 years as a Planning Commissioner, but feels it is time to move on. He stated

he has enjoyed working with the group.

Sikkema – thanked Ventura for his words of wisdom and expertise that he has brought

to the Planning Commission.

DIRECTOR’S COMMENTS

Throenle indicated he has two things the Planning Commission will be looking at. The

sign ordinance will be on the agenda soon, as he cannot legally enforce the signs based

on content. They will also need to address structures which have writing on them.

Throenle presented what is being proposed at the Silver Creek Recreation Area.

Throenle presented the concept drawing to the Commissioners. The intent would be for

the Marquette Little League to add four smaller fields where the soccer field is currently

located. A grant is in progress for the tennis courts, and we should hear from the DNR

within the next couple of months. The project would also include new playground

equipment, expanded parking, and a pavilion. The cell tower money will be going into a

special recreation fund and some of that may be channeled into this project.

Throenle also indicated that there is consideration for a Soccer Complex. There are

some state owned parcels in Beaver Grove that are being looked at. Superiorland

Soccer Association has approached the Township about developing a 23-acre complex

there.

Throenle will also be including the “Township Insights” along with the “Planning News” in

the Commissioner’s packets.

A quote had been requested from Pride Printing on pricing for the printing and mailing of

some type of brochure or postcards. Pricing was given to the Planning Commission for

their information.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND CORRESPONDENCE

A. Minutes – 10/04/16 Marquette City Planning Commission

Page 8 of 8

B. Minutes – 10/18/16 Marquette City Planning Commission

C. Minutes – 11/02/16 Township Board minutes draft

D. Correspondence - Place

XI. ADJOURNMENT

Sikkema adjourned the meeting at 8:45 pm.

Submitted by:

Planning Commission Secretary

Eric Meister

XVII.B

the Superior location

MINUTES

Cha!'ter I ownsblp DI CIIDcolay

OOl~US•t $():JIJ-1 • IL<OO'Jl:lTI:, ~;C:c,llAHlli55 PH<HI00!!:~11,s, flJlll)6)!,91Jll

MARQUETTE AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES

November 17, 2016

Meeting Called to Order at 1:30 p.m. Roll Call Note of Agenda Changes:

MEMBERS PRESENT: Misa Cady, Kirk Page, Casey Rose, Gary Simpson, Steve Lawry

Brad Johnson, Brett Schwenke MEMBERS ABSENT:

OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:

! < )~..,.~:", !'')

·,, :;,;~.: .. \ ,. fu·,,.·.-

Curt Goodman/Mark O'NeilJ, Pam Greenleaf

' .. '·. . .. ?> .. :.'.' .. ' .. '.· .. ·· .... '~'.'.7"..·'.·, .. :.·.·.".•.'.'.·.··.·· ' --~ j</}~ _.,;· ·". .~~ ' "''! 1. Prior Meeting<:finutes:; :gctober t,~f jjff /·< '· /,::·:.:)

Motion to approve the Octo~er 20, 2016.fmeeting minutes by G. Simpson, second by S. Lawry. Approved~(t, ,.,·(J}',«',:;;,,. v'\.

'''" \ ·: .. :: :,.\:?: .. ~>;;>;J;.,~\. ·.,.,; .;:~:, "\ < .'· '·:~ ,, 2. Financial Reporting:"October 2016 · ::, '•,,.,,

The MAWTF Financial Repoits.for October 2016 were presented by Gary Simpson. A ;· .. ,~,., ·T

summary of the reports is identifi~d,below: .,.

1. Balance Sheet: The fiscal year is 8.3% complete. 2. Revenue Sheet: "Other Revenue" at 12. l %. 3. Expense Sheet: Early on in the fiscal year, all looks good. 4. Administrative Sheet: The insurance line item was somehow

overlooked and no funds were budgeted. G. Simpson stated it shouldn't be an issue.

S. Capital Outlay: No expenses. 6. Bottom Line: It truces two to three months before a prior fiscal year is

completely closed out, therefore some dollars currently reported may be rolled back to the prior fiscal year.

3. Operations Report: October 2016 - Permit compliance:

• The plant was in full compliance.

Page I of 3

the Superior location lOlOUS•l OOUll-1 • IW!O'JrnE,l/':CH:(IAN•ilW

PHO!iE(,l)!J:,s.111& • f~1{'l(.'o11491ltl

• Asset Management NPDES C. Goodman stated there will be a formal conference call with the city's consultant Donahue and Associates the second week of December. He also stated staff will be taldng over data collection and that it is ongoing. He stated two asset management software vendors of interest are being looked at by Donahue and Associates and that the software package must be user friendly. He also stated that the asset data entry will be done by supervisors.

Land Applications/Solids Disposal: Fall liquid application has started at Cleveland Natural Resources. M;, O'Neill stated that both biosoJid tanks are nearly empty and that there)s'ijc;>iontractor activity at this time.

# -~ ".J:r1"'°

Plant Notes: :;::s">·. ..· .,, • Temporary hypochlorite feediy~.temJ{~till in operation. • Old bulk tank was removed with ho.Obvious sign of the leak .

. J' 't' • New tank was installed and hydrC>":, tested. The first bulk shipment

scheduled for November 17. \ ·;;,,, • Access hatches were cut in both bi~solid,,, storage tanks above the T

valves. Both valves were cleaned and are nO~;operational. • Flow meters for the plant and townships are scheduled for calibration on

November 17, 2016. The reports will be placed on the next agenda. • The new plow truck was ordered.

· Industrial Waste Acceptance Activity: 31.~ 15 gallons received with a majority coming from LS&I. Received a groundwater discharge request for the new development at Founders Landing. Waiting for the MAHL application to be returned.

· Safety Control: All MSDS sheets are available on the laboratory's computer.

· Grease trap inspection Program: Inspection are ongoing. No activity. - Maintenance Management:

• Preventative work order: Starting to catch up. - Corrective maintenance

a. A new gravity belt drive gear has been ordered. b. Waste activated sludge valve has malfunctioned. c. Filtrate well pump discharge line needs to be replaced. d. The waste sludge valve went down and didn't close due to a blown

fuse. It is unknown why the fuse blew, but an alarm is being installed and staff is keeping a close an eye on it.

Page 2 of 3

.,

the Superior location

4. Old Business: None

5. New Business: None.

6. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 2: 18 p.m.

Reviewed by: Curt Goodman Liaison - Marquette Area Wastewater Treatment Facility Advisory Board

Prepared by: Mark O'Neill - City of Marquette

Page 3 of 3

5010 US 11$0:Jlli • IW\!liJi111f, ~;Cf, !l,\N 4l!Sl i'HCNt (!t,i):4.Hl<I • t;J iS)6) l<t !JIJ

Regular Meeting Minutes November 30, 2016

Draft Presented December 8, 2016

Page 1 of 2

MARQUETTE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

Board Meeting Minutes

Special Meeting with Municipalities

November 30, 2016

DATE: Wednesday, November 30, 2016

PLACE: Negaunee Township Hall

42 E. M-35

Negaunee, MI 49866

MEMBERS PRESENT: Carr W. Baldwin; Randall Yelle; Dennis Honch; Jorma Lankinen; Amy Manning;

Deborah Pellow; Brett Schwenke

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

EX OFFICIO: Brad Austin

OTHERS: Jim Nankervis, Ishpeming Township; Bob Dellangelo, Michigamme Township;

Diana Englund, Turin Township; Robert Therrian, Wells Township; Bryan

Johnson, Ely Township; Bill Nordeen, MCSWMA Attorney; William Carlson,

Negaunee Township; Gerry Corkin, Marquette County; John Markes, Marquette

Township; Jennifer LePage, City of Marquette; Scott Erbisch, Marquette County;

Max Engle, Chocolay Township; Tom Stankus, Republic Township; Lyn Durant,

Marquette Township; Joe Boogren, Forsyth Township Supervisor; Marilyn Keto,

Skandia Township; Anna Erickson, Skandia Township; Bonnie Hoff, Ishpeming

City, Scott Mills, Richmond Township; Tina Koski, Champion Township; Tom

Prophet, Humboldt Township; Lori Kulju, Tilden Township; Jackie Solomon,

Humboldt Township Administrator

1. Call to Order: R. Yelle called meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

2. Approval of Agenda: The agenda approved as presented.

3. Business:

a. Requested information meeting with municipalities - Randy Yelle stated the rules for

this meeting. He explained that this is only an informational meeting and a decision will

not be made at this meeting. Randy Yelle opened the discussion having the

representative of Sands Township start. Attorney Koch presented the issues as seen by

Sands Township requesting the board rescind the previous motion under section 6.5 of

the Intergovernmental Agreement. Sands Township Supervisor Darlene Walch and

Trustee David Kallio spoke on the issue. Darlene Walch said Marquette County needs to

be put back into the Intergovernmental Agreement. Ishpeming Township Supervisor,

XVII.C

Regular Meeting Minutes November 30, 2016

Draft Presented December 8, 2016

Page 2 of 2

Jim Nankervis, asked why the Authority changed the bylaws. Chocolay Township Clerk,

Max Engle, stated he felt it was wrong to change the Intergovernmental Agreement

without approval. Marquette Township Trustee, John Markes, stated Marquette

Township agrees with Sands Township. Don Gladwell stated the City of Negaunee

agrees with Sands Township. Forsyth Township Supervisor, Joe Boogren does not

understand the issue of Marquette County being part of the Intergovernmental

Agreement. Jen LePage commented that the City of Marquette supplies 52% of money

to the landfill. The City of Marquette supports the Authority board and will not

participate in any legal action. Marquette County Chairman, Gerry Corkin, commented

that the county was only there in the beginning to assist the City of Marquette and

Sands Township to having the landfill operation in Sands Township. The only

responsibility Marquette County had was County Road NP and the bridge. They did not

have any other obligations and never intended being a part of Intergovernmental

Agreement. Attorney Koch and Attorney Nordeen expressed concerns on both sides of

the issue. Attorney Koch requested that the municipalities, at their next board meeting,

answer this specific question. Shall the County of Marquette remain as a constituent

municipality (member) of the Marquette County Solid Waste Management Authority

Intergovernmental Agreement? Business item 3a. was closed.

4. Public Comment: None

5. Adjournment: Prior to adjournment Randy Yelle stated, did the Authority violate the

Intergovernmental Agreement by removing Marquette County under section 6.5? R. Yelle

adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m.

US-41 Corridor Advisory Group 100 South Westwood Drive, Ishpeming, MI 49849

Phone (906) 485-4270 Fax (906) 485-4878

Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) • Michigan State Police • Marquette County Road Commission

• Marquette County Planning Commission • Ely Township • Ishpeming Township • City of Ishpeming • City of

Negaunee • Negaunee Township • Marquette Township • City of Marquette • Chocolay Township • Lake Superior

Community Partnership • Central Upper Peninsula Planning and Development (CUPPAD)

Meeting Minutes

October 11, 2016

Attendance: Betsy Neznanski – MDOT, Steve Lawry – Chocolay Township, Jeff LaChapelle –

MDOT, Joel Kauppila –MDOT, Randy Girard– Marquette Township, Stacey Rasanen –

Michigan State Police, Dave Lemire- Marquette County Sheriff, Mike Laurila – City of

Marquette Police, Don Mangnuson –Ely Township, Nick Leach – Negaunee Township, Aaron

Johnson – MDOT.

1. Review Minutes from September Meeting

2. Agency Update

a. Marquette County Sheriff Department

i. Ishpeming Township is looking at contracting with the Sheriff Department

for part time patrols.

b. City of Marquette Police

i. Fraco truck traffic should be winding down for the season soon.

c. Negaunee Township

i. Smith Construction completed their last blast of the season for the new

quarry behind Shunks. The quarry is quite a bit off of the highway so the

work hasn’t impacted the corridor.

d. Marquette Township

i. Their corridor study is back from Parsons Brinkerhoff – the study looked

at lighting, aesthetics, and pedestrian access. The Township will share the

results of the study with the corridor group.

ii. The road projects will be finished up for the season by October 15th

.

iii. Meijer’s site work has started, contractor is moving dirt and will be

starting the footings soon. Meijer’s is looking at a May 2017 opening date.

iv. Up The Sky – working with Meijer’s on connecting with the Brickyard

Road access.

e. MDOT

i. Roundabout project is done, traffic handling the new roundabouts well.

ii. US-41 & Lakeshore Drive intersection- the last two fatalities at this

intersection were left turn movement errors. MDOT is looking at adding a

protected left turn phase to the signal. The protected left will create some

delay at the intersection. Overall the group felt this was a good step at

improving safety at this location. This will be planned for 2017.

iii. Joel will be conducting training at the Ishpeming Senior Center on how to

navigate the roundabout.

3. Construction Update

XVII.D

US-41 Corridor Advisory Group 100 South Westwood Drive, Ishpeming, MI 49849

Phone (906) 485-4270 Fax (906) 485-4878

Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) • Michigan State Police • Marquette County Road Commission

• Marquette County Planning Commission • Ely Township • Ishpeming Township • City of Ishpeming • City of

Negaunee • Negaunee Township • Marquette Township • City of Marquette • Chocolay Township • Lake Superior

Community Partnership • Central Upper Peninsula Planning and Development (CUPPAD)

a. 2017 Signal Upgrades

b. Marquette Hospital Roundabouts- currently in plan development stage. MDOT

will share the approved plans as soon as they are completed.

c. 2017 US-41 Negaunee reconstruct. With this project a left turn phase will be

added to the Teal Lake Avenue signal. City of Negaunee is also adding some

watermain work to the project.

d. 2017 M-553 (Glasses Curve) Realignment – utility relocation work has already

started.

e. 2018 Signal Upgrades – a signal will be added to the Grove/M-553 (McClellan

Ave) intersection and pedestrian crossings at US-41/M-553 (McClellan Ave).

Next Meeting – Tuesday, December 13th

- 9:00 am – Marquette Township.

Submitted by,

Betsy Neznanski

MDOT- Ishpeming TSC

XVII.E

12-10-2016

Chocolay Township Board Members and Zoning Dept

I was interested to see the large planned expansion of the Casino. Not quite sure what to make of it. I believe the Chocolay Master plan is to keep the township a 'bedroom community' and the township has a history of being against any type of development. I would like this letter to reach the board members as well as the zoning department. Remember a few years ago a certain doctor wanted to develop a neighborhood just east of Kawbawgam Road. The township made him dig many wells and concluded that the aquifer could not support a new housing development. Ultimately the township shut down his ambitious project. So a hotel and conference center not only don't fit in with the townships master plan of keeping development to a minimum, but there is absolutely no way that the aquifer could support a development of such a large scale. Can you imagine how much water 3 restaurants, a motel and a large casino would require per day, much much more than even 100 homes using 200 gallons per day. Do the math. Refer back to the extensive aquifer studies that were done by the good doctor. It's the same aquifer, less than a block away. As a concerned citizen, I urge you to take a closer look at this project, and raise the same concerns that you raised when a responsible developer wanted to provide something as simple as housing that not only would fit in better with chocolay township, but would have a far smaller impact on our precious water resources, and urge the township to not support a casino expansion.

Sincerely,

A concerned citizen

XVII.F

December 5, 2016

Chocolay Township

5010 U.S. 41 South

Marquette, Ml 49855

U.P.S.E.T. Upper Peninsula Substance Enforcement Team

P.O Box 86 Marquette, MI 49855 (906) 228-1002 Fax (906) 228-0756

Dear Chocolay Township Clerk and Council:

In July of 2014, the Upper Peninsula Substance Enforcement Team 1s ( UPSET) jurisdiction expanded to

also serve the 3 Eastern most counties of the Upper Peninsula: Luce County, Chippewa County, and

Mackinac County; therefore increasing UPSET1s jurisdiction by almost 27% to cover the entire Upper

Peninsula. UPSET's jurisdiction covers all 15 counties of the Upper Peninsula, spanning an area of over

16,000 square miles and serving an average population of over 311,000 people, according to recent /

census estimates. UPSET serves the largest jurisdiction, in terms of square mileage, within Michigan.

UPSET currently operates out of three offices within the Upper Peninsula: one positioned in the

Northern Upper Peninsula, one positioned in the Southern Upper Peninsula, and one positioned in the

Eastern Upper Peninsula. Recently, the Houghton County Sheriff Department and the Houghton City

Police Department have each dedicated an officer to the UPSET team. Due to the large mass of UPSET's

jurisdiction, an office positioned within the Western Upper Peninsula has been recently established

which will result in decreased travel time and costs, as well as increase narcotics enforcement within the

Western most counties of the Upper Peninsula.

UPSET was originally established in 1988 as a multijurisdictional task force. UPSET is comprised of 13

officers assigned from the Michigan State Police: two Lieutenants, four Sergeants, and seven Troopers.

There is also one officer assigned from the Marquette County Sheriff Department, one officer from the

Delta County Sheriff Department, one officer from the Marquette City Police Department, one officer

from the Houghton County Sheriff Department, one officer from the Menominee City Police

Department, one officer from the Escanaba Public Safety Department, one officer from the Houghton

City Police Department, and one Administrative Assistant. Working within the offices, and collaborating

with UPSET, are one Bureau of Indian Affairs Agent, two Drug Enforcement Administration Agents, one

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Agents, two Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Agents,

and two U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Agents. UPSET's Board of Directors is comprised of one

representative from each participating local police agency, two representatives from the Michigan State

Police, and two county prosecutors.

UPSET's investigations, arrests, and arrest counts continue to rise with each passing year. The year 2015

resulted in the initiation of 411 original narcotics related complaints. Subsequently, 267 persons were

arrested, with a total of 462 arrest counts; with heroin, prescription narcotics, and methamphetamine

being the most prevalent.

U.P.S.E.T. Upper Peninsula Substance Enforcement Team

P.O Box 86 Marquette, MI 49855 (906) 228-1002 Fax (906) 228-0756

UPSET has recorded the following data to illustrate the narcotics epidemic within their jurisdiction:

1. The total number of cases Initiated in 2014 was 8% higher than that of the cases

initiated in 2013.

2. The total number of cases initiated rose by almost 10.5% from 2014 to 2015.

3. Heroin seizures have increased by almost 83% from 2014 to 2015.

4. Heroin related cases have increased by 60% from 2014 to 2015.

5. In 2015, heroin related cases accounted for almost 8% of UPSET's total caseload.

6. Methamphetamine labs and dump sites discovered and dismantled increased by 80%

from 2014 to 2015.

7. In 2015, methamphetamine labs and dump sites accounted for 22% of UPSET's total

caseload.

8. Prescription related cases increased by 82% from 2013 to 2015.

9. In 2015, prescription related cases accounted for almost 24% of UPSET's total caseload.

10. In 2015, UPSET seized an estimated value of $853,583.80 worth of narcotics from the

streets of the Upper Peninsula.

UPSET's foremost objective is to bring narcotic awareness, education and enforcement into the

communities of the Upper Peninsula. The Upper Peninsula Substance Enforcement Team (UPSET)

resolves to increase arrests involving prescription narcotics, focus on discovering and dismantling

methamphetamine labs, and halt the growing trend of heroin within the Upper Peninsula. UPSET does

not operate for profit, but operates to continue to provide specialized services throughout the Upper

Peninsula. UPSET is in need of your financial assistance. If we can provide any further information or

presentations, please feel free to contact Team Commander D/Lt. Tim Sholander or Administrative

Assistant Nicole Gregory at (906} 228-1002. UPSET is vital to the public safety of the Upper Peninsula.

We hope that you find it in your budget to support this commendable Team.

Sincerely,

D/Lt. Tim Sholander UPSET Team Commander