On December 6, 2011, Senate Bill 8, a bill that would create the "Municipal Partnership Act" was submitted to Governor Snyder for signature.   This act is tie-barred to Senate Bill 9 and 10 and would allow two or more local governments or one or more local governments and a public agency to enter into a contract with each other to form a joint endeavor to perform or exercise any function, service, power, or privilege that the local government or public agency could exercise separately.

The new joint endeavor could use tax revenue that was previously dedicated to pay for the exercise or performance of any function, service, power, or privilege by that local government or public agency individually, to fund the exercise or performance of that function, service, power, or privilege by the joint endeavor.  Moreover, the joint endeavor could levy a tax up to five mills on all taxable property in the areas it served for the purposes of providing revenue to the joint endeavor, but only if approved by a majority of electors served by the endeavor.

The Municipal Partnership Act also makes various topics prohibited subjects of bargaining between a local government or public agency and the bargaining representative of its employees.  Specifically, the following would be prohibited subjects of bargaining under the Act:

• Whether the local government would enter into a contract for a joint endeavor under the proposed Act for or in connection with one or more functions or services;
• The procedures for obtaining the contract for a joint endeavor;
• The identities of the other parties to the contract;
• The contents or language of the contract; and
• The impact of the contract on individual employees or the bargaining unit.

To learn more about the Municipal Partnership Act please contact Andria Ditschman at (517) 886-7139 or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or Mark Koerner at (517) 886-7109 or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Pursuant to Michigan's Environmental Indicators Act of 1999, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) worked with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to produce a new report on the quality of Michigan's environment. Entitled "State of Michigan's Environment 2011," the report is divided into three sections: Environmental Measures, Programmatic Measures, and Emerging Contaminants of Concern in Michigan. The Environmental Measures section presents the ecological, physical, and chemical measures used by the State to track environmental quality. The Programmatic Measures section covers those measures used by the State to fulfill state and federal environmental program requirements. The final Emerging Contaminants section examines recognized contaminants with potential for environmental and public health impacts.

Click here for the full report.

Hubbard employees once again worked to help bring Christmas to Michigan children in foster care by taking part in Operation Good Cheer. Operation Good Cheer, which is celebrating its 40^th year in operation, is an endeavor by Child and Family Services of Michigan, Inc. to make a difference during the holidays in the lives of infants, children, teenagers and adults with disabilities who reside in foster care in Michigan by providing donated gifts to be opened on Christmas morning.  Click here to learn more about Operation Good Cheer.

Montcalm County became embroiled in a boundary dispute between neighbors when it obtained an easement to install a main sewer line from property owners within the County.  After obtaining the easement, the adjoining property owners claimed ownership of a narrow strip of land on which the easement was located.

The litigation between neighbors in which the County was named solely because of the easement threatened to tie up the sewer project for years and add several thousands to its cost. In an attempt to save the County and sanitary sewer district both time and money, The Hubbard Law Firm quickly filed a motion seeking dismissal of the County from the lawsuit.

In its Motion, Hubbard argued that even if the south property owners have a valid claim against the north property owners which could proceed to trial, the claims against the County must fail for a number of factual and legal reasons. A hearing on various motions was held on November 29.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the Montcalm County Circuit Court agreed with Hubbard and dismissed the County from the lawsuit, while allowing the boundary dispute between the neighbors to continue.