*1 CANNONTOWNSHIP HESS 5, 2005, Rapids. Submitted October at Grand Docket No. 248974. 31, 2005, appeal sought. at 9:05 a.m. Leave to Decided March Wheeler, taxpayers Joseph in and Cannon Town- M. Hess William against ship, brought in Circuit Court Cannon an action the Kent Township, seeking prevent Township to Cannon and Grattan disbursing contributing Township funds toward the costs Township litigating a case related to a Grattan incurred housing development Township near its manufactured Grattan Township Township require to Grattan to border with Cannon $90,000 by already reimburse advanced court, Redford, J., granted summary disposition for the James R. ruling Township legitimate townships, had a that Cannon in, with, compelling participate and to assist interest involving Township developer, litigation and the and that Grattan statutory Township the Cannon board had constitutional authority plaintiffs appealed. to act as it did. The Appeals The Court of held: authority expend money Township 1. Cannon has the litigation incurred in the land use fees Grattan 1963, 7, Although townships § 41.2. under Const art 34 and MCL they powers, possess have no inherent broad conferred on Legislature art them the and the Constitution. Const concerning provides provisions § and laws that constitutional liberally townships are to be construed in their favor and that powers granted townships the Constitution and law are to fairly implied prohibited by the include those and not Constitu- grants power tion. MCL 41.181 to enact ordinances health, regulate safety, general public welfare. MCL 41.2(l)(b) authority provides townships with to make contracts necessary corporate of their and convenient for the exercise proposed powers. opposed land use consis- health, safety, tently protect with its of Cannon residents and it had the welfare obligation help to assume a contractual defray litigation. the cost of the land use approval necessary 2. Elector was not for Cannon expenditure. Although MCL 41.8 does indicate that an annual meeting approve expenditures, provides of electors must it also where, here, does not have an annual meeting, board act on the same matters as the meeting. electors could have at an annual
Affirmed. J., dissenting, stated that he find no could constitu- SMOLENSKI, statutory authority Township expend tional or for Cannon neighboring township expenses funds assist a with the incurred legal dispute. Townships may expend only expressly in a funds if impliedly authorized a statute or the Constitution. There is no underlying separate grant and distinct that would allow Township Cannon to enter the contract with Grattan expenses. purposes share the latter’s The for which a may appropriate money 41.110c, and, board are fisted inMCL even construing liberally, fairly these none can be construed fo encom- pass providing township’s legal funds to cover another costs. Summary disposition granted plaintiffs should have been 2.116(I)(2) 7.216(A)(7). under MCR - Municipal - Corporations Townships Powers.
Townships they only possess have no inherent Legislature conferred Michigan Constitution; or the consti- statutory provisions concerning tutional and townships are to be liberally favor, powers granted construed in their by law fairly implied or the Constitution are to include those (Const 34). prohibited by § Constitution art Falk, Allan (by Falk), EC. Allan for the plaintiffs. Mika Meyers Beckett & (by Jones PLC William A. Horn and Ronald Redick), M. for the defendants.
Before: EJ., and SMOLENSKI JJ. NEFF, SCHUETTE, J. Joseph Flaintiffs M. Hess and William SCHUETTE, appeal Wheeler as of right the trial grant- court’s order ing defendants’ motion summary disposition pursu- 2.116(0(10). ant to MCR This case concerns whether Cannon Township may disburse or contribute funds help defray or otherwise share incurred costs op Opinion the Court neighboring
aby —in —Grattan townships oppose. both controversy that land use it because complaint plaintiffs’ trial court dismissed Township had concluded Township had that Cannon 41.2 and to MCL pursuant interest public policy valid compelling, a legitimate, in- was in which Grattan litigation in the trial court. the decision of the affirm volved. We
I. FACTS litigation with was involved (Landon), seeking to developer Holdings, Inc. Landon community property on housing a manufactured build border with Cannon Township on its in Grattan located to intervene Township attempted denied. its was litigation, petition but 11, 2002, Township board the Cannon On November setting forth formal resolutions separate two adopted impacts to the adverse findings respect of fact with its *3 have on both park home would the Landon mobile The first Township. Township Grattan Cannon Cannon resolution, Regarding “Resolution entitled: Land Use Defending Regional in Interest Township’s Communities,” Housing Manufactured Planning for provides; community
WHEREAS, housing devel- a manufactured (the zoning sought denied oper “Developer”) and was Township proposed 690-unit for a approval Grattan housing community to be located on lands manufactured Avenue, Tiffany in Highway M-44 and northeast of immediately adjacent to Cannon Township, but Grattan (the “Subject Property”); border eastern separate WHEREAS, Developer filed three has attempt Township to obtain against in an Grattan lawsuits Hess v Cannon allowing proposed housing a court order its manufactured community developed Subject Property; to be on the
WHEREAS, Township Cannon both and Grattan Town- ship adopted planning provisions future land have use in indicating housing their Master Plans communities vicinity Subject in Prop- should be located erty.
Now, therefore, hereby itbe resolved as follows: Impacts Township 1. Adverse on Cannon and Grattan Township. Township hereby Board finds and declares proposed Developer’s housing that the manufactured com- munity, proposed due to its on the location border between Township Township, Grattan and Cannon would have the following impacts Township adverse on both Cannon Township: Grattan As in report prepared URS,
a. detailed the traffic proposed housing community manufactured would unacceptable cause levels of service at intersections on Township; M-44 in Cannon greatly would increase traffic way through Township all the Cannon on M-44 and on other north-south Township roads that would Drive, greater used travel to and from Northland Rapids proposed Grand and the housing manufactured location; community thereby endanger and would health, safety Township and welfare of Cannon and Grat- tan residents M-44 who use and other north- south roads in primary as the routes of Rapids access into and metropolitan Grand area. proposed b. The housing community manufactured totally Agricultural would be out character with the zoning adjacent Agricultural- Grattan and the zoning Residential in Cannon proposed housing community
c. The manufactured likely spur would develop- a demand for new commercial surrounding ment in the areas of Cannon Township, development and such commercial *4 incompatible Township’s would be with both Cannon designate plans, future land use which Grattan Open Agriculture. Space Residential these areas proposed living in the manufactured hous- d. Children ing community schools attend same attended would Township living in Cannon and Grattan children both overcrowding likely and a Township, lead to which would in quality of these schools. diminishment housing community proposed e. The manufactured have an area where facilities would not be capacity expected so as to adequate or are to be extended growth Township anticipated in Cannon accommodate the Township devel- that would result such Grattan opment. housing community proposed
f. The manufactured area where would be located in a vulnerable watershed development permitted intensive should not be because pollution, flooding in both sedimentation and risks Townships. Cannon Grattan Township Cannon and Grattan 2. Joint Interests of Township hereby finds Township. The Board and declares impacts that, potential because of the adverse on Cannon a Township Township, Townships share Grattan both ensuring Developer’s joint proposed interest permitted by housing community not manufactured is court order otherwise. Purpose. hereby Township The Board finds
3. Public appropriate by or and declares that actions on behalf Township proposed manufac- to ensure that the community housing developed is tured not would serve public purpose. hereby Township Township Purpose. Board
4. appropriate and declares that actions or on behalf finds proposed to ensure that the manufac- community housing developed is tured would serve purposed for the residents both Cannon valid and Grattan Township. Based fore- Assistance to on the 5. hereby findings, approves the going Board *5 Hess v Cannon Opinion of the Court expenditure Township funds, by in approved of amounts time, Township the from purpose Board time to for the of defraying reimbursing expenses the costs and that and/or Township defending Grattan has in incurred the lawsuits by Developer filed the responding otherwise the Developer’s in proposed actions furtherance manu- housing community. factured
The second resolution entitled: was “Resolution Au- thorizing Township of Disbursement General Funds for Purpose Defending the Regional Planning Land Use Housing Manufactured Communities.” This second resolution reaffirmed and recited similar findings of as the fact first resolution and also authorized the $90,660 disbursement of Grattan assist Township in reimbursing and the defraying legal proceed- costs of ings already by incurred Grattan Township’s lawsuit with Landon. Township
Cannon then Grattan ex- Township agreement ecuted an that provides following: the WHEREFORE, in prom- consideration of their mutual ises, hereby agree parties mutually the as follows: Township
1. Cannon will disburse funds to Grattan Township, in approved Township amounts the Cannon time, Board purpose defraying from time to for the reimbursing portions expenses of the costs and and/or Township defending Grattan has will incurred or incur in Developer the lawsuits filed the and in otherwise responding Developer’s to the actions furtherance proposed housing community. manufactured Township
2. Grattan will said use disbursements from Township only purpose Cannon defraying and/or reimbursing legal fees, expenses, pro- costs and other fessional service fees Grattan has incurred or defending will incur in Developer the lawsuits filed responding Developer’s and in otherwise to the actions proposed housing furtherance of the manufactured com- munity. App 582 in Cannon Town-
Plaintiffs, reside taxpayers who they damages suffered brought alleging suit ship, expenditure unlawful Township’s result of Cannon requested Plaintiffs township’s general funds. Cannon dis- trial court declare that was funds Grattan bursement immediately unlawful, order that Grattan $90,660 Township, perma- return fu- enjoin making any nently funds for ture disbursements defraying costs incurred purpose *6 summary a for disposition Defendants filed motion 2.116(0(10). in pursuant to MCR Defendants stated that not did summary disposition only their motion for Township amply make supported the Cannon board its findings support factual determination a would financial assistance Grattan serve an valid it also ensured that public purpose, would be auditing perspective, expenditure accept- the to able auditors.1 2, hearing May A held on 2003. The trial court was the had a concluded that board in, and legitimate compelling participate interest to with, litigation involving Grattan Town- assist The trial court ship Landon. also concluded board had the to act the Cannon pursuant Michigan to the and MCL 41.2. Constitution granted trial court defendants’ motion for sum- The mary disposition. 1 Crandall, J. a certified Defendants attached affidavit of Michael EC., Siegfried Crandall,
public his stated that it was accountant with who opinion expenditures strong that such would serve a valid expenditures approved purpose firm as and that such would be his townships. and Grattan auditors 589
Opinion op Court
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW On a trial appeal, court’s decision on a motion for summary de disposition is reviewed novo. A motion for 2.116(C)(10) summary disposition under MCR tests the sufficiency of factual a complaint. deciding When motion summary disposition subrule, under this affidavits, pleadings, court must consider the deposi- tions, admissions, and other documentary evidence light submitted most nonmoving favorable v party. Ed, See Detroit Bd Corley (2004). 277-278; 681 NW2d This Court de reviews novo interpretation application Eggleston statute. v Appli Bio-Medical Detroit, Inc, cations 32; 468 Mich NW2d (2003). Constitutional issues are also de reviewed novo General, appeal. on Mahaffey Attorney (1997). 325, 334; 564 NW2d
III. ANALYSIS A. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR CANNON TOWNSHIP’S EXPENDITURE The trial did court not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition. provision of money by Cannon Township to Grattan was *7 41.2(l)(b) pursuant lawful to MCL part of its author- to ity enter necessary into contracts when and conve- nient for the corporate exercise Cannon Township’s powers. the the
Determining validity agreement between and Grattan Township and Cannon to help defray decision the cost of a mutually shared land Michigan use issue starts with the 7, 1963, § Constitution. Const art states: App 265 Mich concerning and provisions of this constitution law liberally counties, villages townships, and shall be cities granted counties and favor. Powers construed in their by townships include by this constitution and law shall fairly implied prohibited and not this constitution. those [Emphasis added.]
So, analysis, Michigan requires the Constitution for our powers of Cannon liberally implied we construe the Township, cautionary judicially a reminder not to with by Michigan act the Constitu- approve any prohibited tion. in Howell v Rooto Corp,
As decided
470,
(2003),
have no
475;
townships
Having the implied powers provided reviewed town- ships by Michigan pursuant Constitution to Const 34,§7, any statutory art we must next examine provided by Michigan Legisla- powers Legislature ture. The MCL 41.2 Michigan pursuant specify does indeed certain and duties township. 41.2 provides: MCL
(1) body organized township The inhabitants an are have, corporate addition to other that are conferred, following powers all of the duties: *8 (a) appoint necessary agents To sue and be sued and attorneys purpose. for that
(b) necessary To make contracts and convenient for the corporate powers. exercise of their (2) conferred, In addition other that are the township may investigate any board matter under that is jurisdiction township authority the the in vested township the an supervisor or officer under this act. The or township majority township the board consent of the serving may upon board person members serve a a sub- poena proper that been has authorized a court of jurisdiction county in in township the which the is situated compelling person appear the before the or a board committee of board the to be examined under or to oath produce object inspection a or copying. document for or If person objects a to or comply otherwise fails to the with subpoena upon her, supervisor served him or the or the township by majority township board consent board may members file an court action to the enforce may person notice. The court requiring issue an order the appear produce to be examined or to a document or object inspection copying. for obey or Failure to the order of the punishable by court is contempt. the court as a
(3) By township board, of majority resolution serving may acquire property public members for purposes by purchase, gift, condemnation, lease, construc- tion, or may convey property otherwise or lease that or part property for purposes. needed
(4) act, suit, A proceeding, against or township, corporate capacity, its be in shall the name township. supervisor of each be the shall agent for her township his or transaction business, by defended, brought whom a suit be upon process against whom the shall served.
Here, liberally construed, implied provided townships by 7, 34,§ the Michigan Constitution, art statutory and the “to make Opinion the Court exercise and convenient necessary contracts 41.2(1)(b), MCL validate corporate powers,” their and Grattan between agreement to help determination *9 defray legal incurred Grattan expenses border, controversy on their caused a land use shared units of was a government opposed, use both which defendant funds proper disbursement Cannon valid are the
The essential elements of a contract (2) “(1) contract, to following: parties competent a (3) (4) matter, consideration, legal a proper subject (5) obliga- mutuality agreement, mutuality 418, 422; Leja, tion.” Thomas omitted). (1991) (citations stated, This Court NW2d a that principle “It is fundamental of contract law if made binding to is not without consid- promise pay (citations omitted). Here, in return for a eration.” Id. legal costs, to pledge help pay the benefit of those received Thus, a relationship services. contractual was formed townships. between the two Our is in with the reasoning keeping this case requirement that for the disbursement of Cannon Township funds to Grattan to be a valid there must a statute or expenditure, constitutional expressly impliedly authorizes that provision type Twp, supra Howell at 475. The expenditure. Constitution, Michigan 7, § im- Const art pliedly type expenditure authorizes this and MCL 41.2(l)(b) type expenditure. this expressly authorizes
In essence, plaintiffs argue that in a Ziploc are able to fit snack-size sparse, “Townships are have bag. generally Plaintiffs incorrect. hold, levy to to and collect buy, property; sell v Cannon Hess taxes; contracts; money; to make to exercise borrow power; private police property public condemn of real and purposes; gifts personal property receive public government to use funds purposes; promote business; local and to sue and be grants Civil Michigan Jurisprudence, Townships, sued.” 84, pp Townships § 355-356. are granted power to adopt regulations ordinances and under MCL 41.181 health, regarding public safety, welfare Further, gives of its citizens and MCL 41.806 property. townships broad and maintain establish and fire police departments, including power to contract with the legislative neighboring bodies of mu- nicipalities to fire give police or receive services.
The Cannon Township board two approved resolu- tions, earlier, as discussed reflect the various policy issues that affect township. would The first approved resolution the Cannon Township Board Impacts assessed the on “Adverse *10 Township” and Grattan the manufac- proposed housing development tured would to cause defendant The township concern expressed: (§ traffic congestion la); growth over concerns because the agricultural zoning of in and the (§§ agricultural-residential zoning of Cannon (§ lc, le); lb, Id); educational funding issues sensitive watershed and environmental matters as well If). (§ Further, resolution, Cannon Township’s first in detail, meticulous joint outlined the interests of the two stating and contained the public declarations purpose purpose in the township opposing proposed (§§ 2, development 3,4). Finally, approved the board the of expenditure township defray funds to the help costs ongoing legal controversy. The has the ordinances to pass affecting precisely types these of interests MCL regarding public under 41.181 the Opinion the Court of its citizens welfare
health, safety, pass these ability the with Consistent property. concerns ability protect these the ordinances is necessary to expenditures to fund such town- any given purposes public the stated further ship. City Hays on the case of trial court relied
The (1947), 443; in Kalamazoo, NW2d the validating and in complaint dismissing plaintiffs’ another join with ability of defendants Hayes in plaintiff The mutually problem. shared meet city, its against suit brought who taxpayer was commissioners, purpose for the city and its mayor, that the alleged The plaintiff relief. obtaining equitable made annual contributions city improperly defendant (MML) using public Municipal League Michigan to the plaintiff from taxes and assessments. funds derived not authorized under was alleged expenditure that such The Court by any Constitution or statute. the state that the expenditure that it could not state concluded Legislature to the giving purpose funds for public anticipated legisla- information regarding proposed confronting villages cities and affecting problems tion The Court policy. Id. at 466-467. against public was as follows: reasoned suggested the lan-
Applying general principle light of the home-rule guage of Justice COOLEY, act, city and the home-rule provisions of the Constitution city had the that the of Kalamazoo think it must be said we join Michigan Municipal League, to avail itself right money thereby, expend out rendered and to of the services fully record payment therefor. The funds city justifies conclusion that the welfare was city hence, and, purpose was a thereby *11 served [Id. at purpose. 458.] public Here, Cannon Township’s contribution of funds served public purpose. valid Justice in People ex rel COOLEY, Detroit & Bd, Howell R Co v Salem Twp (1870), stated:
I do not understand that public, the word when em- ployed power, in reference to this is to be construed or applied any sense, narrow or any illiberal or in sense preclude Legislature which would taking hroad interest, necessity views of State policy, giving or from those views effect means of the revenues. Neces- sity alone is not the test which the limits of State defined, in this direction are to be but a wise statemanship beyond must look expenditures which absolutely are needful to the orga- continued existence of government, nized embrace others which tend to (cid:127) government make that subserve the well-being of society, present and advance the prospective happiness prosperity people. [Emphasis original.] In our Hays, Supreme Court upheld the expenditure of public funds to assist other cities’ shared interests in public policy initiatives with the Michigan Legislature. Hays provides foundational case law supporting and buttressing Cannon Township’s expenditure for a shared public policy initiative with Grattan Township.
Defendant Cannon Township’s two
dem
resolutions
onstrated its thorough fact-finding and deliberative
policy considerations. The actions of a municipal legis
lative body enjoy a presumption of constitutional valid
ity.
Detroit,
Watnick
596
265 Mich
Opinion
the Court
Detroit,
Marina,
364, 394; 144
Inc v
378 Mich
NW2d
(1966)
C.J.);
City
Horton v
(opinion by
503
KA.VANAGH,
(1978).
81;
Kalamazoo,
App
81 Mich
NW2d
incorrectly
although
that
the trial court
noteWe
was derived
Township’s power
determined that Cannon
41.2(3),
that
did
MCL
we find
to assist Grattan
legal
have the
42.2(l)(b).
ruling
MCL
“A trial court’s
under
issued, albeit
appeal
right
on
where the
result
upheld
wrong
Dep't
Transporta
for the
reason.” Gleason
(2003).
tion,
1, 3;
There
256 Mich
The inhabitants of a shall have the registered grant township, of the a vote of electors money, exceeding and vote not amounts limited sums law, they necessary defraying proper consider charges expenses arising township. in the The town- ship township a debt or board or a officer shall not create liability against township, warrant, or issue a certifi- cate, payment money, or order for the unless the creation liability payment money of the debt or or the has registered vote of the electors of the been authorized byor law. statute, Plaintiffs that on the basis of the above argue authority by the Cannon board exceeded its in aid of it expending litigation funds which was party and in the absence authorization to do so registered township. the vote of the electors of the “ primary statutory ‘The rule of construction is to Legislature determine and effectuate the intent of the through reasonable construction in consideration of the purpose object sought statute to be ” accomplished.’ Frankenmuth Mut Ins Co v Marlette (1998) Homes, Inc, 511, 515; NW2d (citations omitted). Where statute is clear and unambiguous, judicial precluded. construction is Id. plain language provides of MCL 41.3 registered grant electors of the shall vote to *13 money necessary defraying proper charges sums of expenses arising township in the and that the township liability board shall not create a or debt unless payment money by the of the has been authorized vote registered by of the electors or law. applicable
However, MCL 41.3 is not practice holding that have abolished the an annual meeting, such as in Cannon In these town- ships, township powers, the boards have assumed all pursuant 41.8(7), to MCL that could have been exer- by registered meeting cised the electors at the annual and, thus, are authorized to all exercise granted under MCL 41.3. provides parts:
MCL 41.8 in relevant (1) Except provided section, otherwise in this an meeting annual township of the electors each shall be Saturday held on the last in the last month of each fiscal year, place at the by time and township selected board. However, meeting the annual be held on an alternate date if the approved by majority alternate date is of the township board and is in the township’s last month of the year. fiscal 265 MICHAPP 582
(4) designated meeting place at the The electors shall by majority business vote. transact lawful (5) township township, the In a other than a charter resolution, may, filing board, by on the township or registered of the petitions signed a number of electors township equal to not less than of the electors who 5% immediately township supervisor preced- at the voted shall, township, ing township supervisor election of the question of the reestablishment of the annual submit meeting township of the electors to the electors of the at regular primary election election. The the next or township petitions resolution or shall be filed with the days the election at clerk not less than 70 before which majority question If a of the electors of the is submitted. township voting question on the votes to reestablish the electors, meeting meeting annual the annual township, for that and the electors electors is reestablished meeting at the annual shall reassume conferred meeting the annual has been statute. Once reestablished people, meeting may only annual a vote of the township submitting abolished a resolution of the board meeting question of the abolition of the annual to the township regular primary next electors of the at the general election.
(6) provided (5), township Except as in subsection is meeting required to hold an annual of the electors of board, by resolution, township unless meeting. elects to hold an annual (7) meeting, In a that does not hold an annual *14 by powers that could been exercised an have the electors at meeting may by township annual be exercised board. an provides While the above statute annual held meeting township electors shall be on Saturday year, in the last month of each it last fiscal provides also that when does not hold an meeting, powers annual that could have been exercised by by the electors be exercised board. Here, held, an annual not meeting was thus Twp Dissenting by Opinion J. Smolensk, that could have been by exercised the electors were properly by exercised the Cannon Township board. short,
In particular this type expenditure was registered authorized law and the electors Cannon right did not have the on the vote disburse- ment.
Affirmed.
NEFF, EJ., concurred. (dissenting). J. Because I find no consti-
SMOLENSKI, tutional or statutory authority for Cannon Township to expend funds to assist a neighboring township with a I legal dispute, respectfully dissent.
Townships
rather,
have no inherent powers;
they
ppssess only
those limited
conferred on them
the Legislature
by Michigan
Constitution. How
ell
470, 475;
Rooto
Corp,
(2003).
NW2d 713
The powers granted
townships
the Constitution and only
law
include
fairly
those
implied and
prohibited by
the Constitution.
Id. at
475-476, citing
Const
Thus,
§
art
34.
for the
disbursement of Cannon Township funds to Grattan
Township to be a valid expenditure,
there
must be
statute or
provision
constitutional
that expressly or
impliedly authorizes that
type
expenditure. Hansel
man v
Co
Wayne
Weapon
Bd,
Concealed
Licensing
(1984).
168, 187;
The majority finds contract with 41.2(l)(b), in MCL which provides that have the townships power “[t]o make necessary contracts and convenient for the exer- corporate cise of their powers.” While this statute does grant contracts, enter into it also limits that grant “necessary to contracts that are *15 APP 265 MICH 582
600
by
Dissenting Opinion
J.
Smolensk,
pow-
of their corporate
for the exercise
and convenient
41.2(l)(b).
the exercise
Consequently,
ers.” MCL
41.2(l)(b)
predicated
must be
contract
under MCL
power
grant
power.
a
and distinct
upon
separate
not and cannot demonstrate
has
Township was based on
that the contract with Grattan
grant
power.
and distinct
Nor
underlying separate
an
Township rely
general police power,
on a
can
Kalamazoo,
city
Hays City
did the
of Kalamazoo
(1947). Cities
443, 455-456;
316 Mich
funds all of the (a) agricultural, industrial, commercial, To advertise the educational, advantages state, or recreational county, township. or
(b) collect, prepare, To or maintain an exhibition of the products township any and industries of the at domestic or foreign exposition encourage immigration to and increase products township. trade in the of this state or the
(c) any To portion advertise this state or of this state to tourists and resorters. 3 provision The convention comment to this notes that cities and villages already enjoyed broad construction their and that “it is intention here to extend to counties and within the
granted equivalent interpretation to them latitude in the of the constitu Record, tion and p statutes.” 2 Official Constitutional Convention added). (emphasis 3395 41.181(1), township may adopt concerning Under MCL ordinances protection, licensing bicycles, traffic, such matters as “fire or use parking vehicles, repairs, licensing sidewalk maintenance and establishments, licensing regulating business amuse ments, regulation prohibition public nudity....” and the Ordi streets, apply roads, highways, designated nances also or other township areas of the as determined board. MCL 41.181(2). 41.181(1) only appropriate MCL authorizes a funds for township police department the establishment and maintenance of a county services sheriff. Dissenting Opinion by J. Smolensk,
(d) publication to dissemi- To maintain and circulate a regarding township improvements, ac- nate information tivities, functions. liberally, fairly none can be
Construing purposes these an- encompass providing funds cover construed legal costs. township’s other Accordingly, grant I reverse the trial court’s would of defendants and hold summary disposition favor granted in favor of summary disposition plain- 2.116(I)(2) 7.216(A)(7). pursuant tiffs MCR