On Saturday, September 24, 2011, Governor Snyder signed Senate Bill 7, making it the law of the State.  Beginning on Jan. 1, 2012, a public employer such as a city, county or township will be limited from paying more than $5,500 for health benefits annually for a single employee, $11,000 for an employee plus spouse or $15,000 for family coverage. These amounts are tied to inflation based on the medical component of the Consumer Price Index.

Alternatively, a public employer may split the cost of medical coverage with its employees, who will have to pay a proportion of their health insurance costs. Under this option, a public employer may pay no more than 80 percent of the annual cost of medical benefits.

A local unit of government that is held to this new standard may exempt itself from these requirements with a two-thirds vote of its governing body.

At the request of the Michigan Township Association, Hubbard Shareholder Andria Ditschman gave a nuts-and-bolts presentation and led an interactive discussion on interlocal agreements as part of the MTA's Training Retreat for Supervisors and Trustees on September 15 in Cadillac, Michigan.

As townships strive to find effective ways to continue delivering services affordably, it is impossible to ignore the push from the State Capitol on cooperation. There are several laws already in place (and even more expected) authorizing intergovernmental agreements. Andria demonstrated the importance of determining a desired outcome first before entering into an agreement, to allow for the selection of the best approach to the agreement and for the protection of community's interests.

Andria led a frank discussion of the benefits and costs of such agreements, and the Supervisors expressed their disappointment with the level of revenue sharing in the current State budget.

The Michigan Township Association has asked Andria to provide the same information as part of its Training Retreat for Township Clerks and Treasurers on September 27.

For more details regarding interlocal agreements, please contact Andria Ditschman at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

On July 21, 2011, PA 126 of 2011 became effective, which requires Township Treasurers who collect property taxes to remain in the township offices between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on the last day that summer taxes are due to accept summer tax payments.  Before the change to the General Property Tax Act, it required a Township Treasurer to remain in the township offices on at least one business day between December 25 and December 31 in order to collect winter taxes.  This new law will be effective this year and will apply on the last day the 2011 summer taxes are due.

In a recent decision by the Court of Appeals (Edw C Levy Co v Marine City Bd of Zoning Appeals, No. 296023 (2011)), the Court determined MCL 125.3603(2) requires a vote by the zoning board of appeals to be supported by a majority of the board's total members and not by a majority of the members present at a given meeting.  In this case, plaintiff's appealed the City Manager's decision to the zoning board of appeals, which has five members.  However, only three members were present at the meeting during which the zoning board of appeals voted 2-1 to overturn the City Manager's decision.  The Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court correctly concluded the zoning board of appeals vote was not sufficient to overturn the City Manager's decision, since it was not supported by a majority of all five members of the zoning board of appeals.

In addition, the Court of Appeals outlined the legal standards that a circuit court applies to review the decision of a zoning board of appeals: (a) Does the decision comply with the constitution and laws of the State? (b) Is the decision based upon proper procedure? (c) Is the decision supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the record? (d) Does the decision represent the reasonable exercise of discretion granted by law to the zoning board of appeals?  The Court of Appeals defined "substantial evidence" as "evidence which a reasonable person would accept as sufficient to support a conclusion."  Edw C Levy Co v Marine City Bd of Zoning Appeals, No. 296023, at 3 (2011).

Senate Bill 215 passed the Michigan House of Representatives on June 28, 2011 and was ordered enrolled.  If the Bill is signed by the Governor, it will increase the number of members who may serve on a board of public works in counties with a population of more than 85,000 and less than 90,000 according to the latest federal decennial census and it will allow a Township Supervisor to be appointed as a board member in those counties.

A second lawsuit was filed to stop Public Act 4 (commonly known as the Emergency Manager Law) on Wednesday June 22, 2011.  This time the petitioner is the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice and the complaint claims that the Public Act 4 violates the separation of powers under the state Constitution.

An earlier lawsuit was filed by City of Detroit pension boards in federal court.  The current complaint is filed in the Ingham County Circuit Court.

Two petitions drives are also being circulated to eventually repeal the Act.

To read more, visit: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20110623/POLITICS02/106230397/1022/local/New-suit-challenges-Michigan's-emergency-manager-law

Governor Rick Snyder has proclaimed June 4 - 12, 2011 as Water Week, in Michigan.  This is an opportunity for citizens to get immersed in educational activities associated with Michigan's water resources.  Read more about Water Week from the DEQ.

Last September, the Ann Arbor Chronicle filed suit against the City of Ann Arbor claiming that members of the City Council violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA).  The Chronicle alleged that the City violated the OMA by discussing medical marihuana issues with the city attorney behind closed doors.  Shortly after that closed meeting, the City of Ann Arbor voted on a moratorium prohibiting the establishment of  any new medical marihuana dispensaries.  The court dismissed the claim recognizing that the Council was allowed to have a closed meeting to discuss privileged attorney-client information.  For more information, please see the following article.