On the path to the Sand Road Senior Center in Cheboygan, a multitude of blue-and-white yard signs encourage visitors to “Vote YES on senior millage renewal.”

The Sand Road Senior Center is owned and operated by the Cheboygan County Council on Aging, a government entity. The yard signs are advocating for a government millage, on government property.

“It looks terrible,” Eric Doster, a Lansing-based election lawyer, told Michigan Capitol Confidential.

In August, the voters of Cheboygan County will be asked to approve a renewal of its Senior Citizens Service Millage, which expired in December. The Cheboygan News reports that the half-mill tax levy brings in about $814,000 annually.

According to the news outlet, “All funds generated from this millage are divided up between the Cheboygan County Council on Aging and the Wawatam Area Senior Citizens Organization to provide services such as meals, transportation, home care services and other needs to the senior citizen population throughout the county.”

Millages are fine. They raise money for important community projects.

The problem is the yard signs. Who produced them? Who posted them? And who has allowed them to remain posted on public property?

The signs are inappropriate — they use government property to advertise a millage benefiting the very agency that sits on the property. But are they illegal?

That depends, Doster said. Do the signs provide monetary value? That, too, depends. Did a government agency produce the signs? Did its employees place them, on the clock?

If that did not happen, and the agency merely allowed the signs to be placed, the argument is weakened, Doster said.

If, however, signs opposing the millage were disallowed on the same space, that would be a problem, Doster said. In 2013, he literally wrote the book on Michigan campaign finance law.

“If I was a resident, I'd still file a complaint,” Doster said. “Let the Bureau of Elections squirm on that.”

Tracy Wimmer, a spokesman for the Secretary of State’s Bureau of Elections, said the bureau could not speak on a matter that could potentially be subject to a public complaint. No such complaint has been filed, Wimmer said.

Wimmer explained that when a complaint is received of an alleged Michigan Campaign Finance Act violation, the bureau reviews it. If warranted, it opens an investigation. Both the complainant and the accused would be allowed to offer more information.

Wimmer said that if investigation determines a violation has occurred, the bureau of elections and Secretary of State “have a statutory obligation” to try to settle the matter with a “conciliatory agreement.”

If an agreement can’t be reached on an alleged violation, the Secretary of State might refer the matter criminally, Wimmer said.

Leadership at the Cheboygan County Council on Aging did not respond to requests for comment.

Long Lake Township is impeding environmentally-friendly property development on local lakes in order to prevent one couple from building a retirement home, according to the couple’s lawyer.

Bob and Carrie Barnes bought two pieces of property on Long Lake in Grand Traverse County to build their retirement home. The project includes a plan to improve the environment and protect the habitat. The couple intend to replace a seawall with native plants that form a habitat for lake-dwelling creatures. They also plan to restore wetlands and create a bioswale to keep contaminants and sediment from reaching the lake.

They were prevented from doing so, however, after the township delayed all development and formed a shoreline committee to address the plan. The committee’s recommendations will affect property owners on all lakes throughout the township, according to Joseph E. Quandt, the attorney for Bob and Carrie Barnes.

The Barnes bought the property, which includes 255 feet of waterfront, with plans to build a home, boathouse, basin, and an entrance channel from the boathouse to the lake.

The township planning commission’s response to their plans was to put a moratorium on creating any man-made or artificial body of water for six months.

The township then formed a shoreline committee to implement new ordinances that will prevent the improvements. Recommendations will prevent boathouses, dredging channels on personal property, and other restrictions.

The Barneses were directly mentioned twice as the impetus for the township ordinance and zoning changes, according to Quandt. In a letter to Ron Lemcool, the Long Lake Township supervisor, Quandt wrote that targeted enforcement violates due process of law.

The couple commissioned an environmental assessment from Cardno, an infrastructure and environmental services company, in response to claims the development plan would harm the environment. The township responded that the boathouse was out of character with the lake and its history, determining that it should not be allowed even with environmental improvements.

Quandt also said the township denied the couple’s request to have a representative attend and speak at committee meetings when they could not attend.

Tina Allen, committee facilitator for the township, denied in an email to Michigan Capitol Confidential that Lemcool had said Quandt “was not allowed to speak at the meetings on behalf of the Barnes Family.” She referred questions about the specific decision on the Barnes property to township staff and officials.

Lemcool did not respond to an email request for comment on Quandt’s claims, the decision to form the shoreline committee, and the township’s reasons for denying the couple’s plans.