Midland Tp. v. Michigan State Boundary Commission

• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: D. E. HOLBROOK
• Citation: Midland Tp. v. Michigan State Boundary Commission, 236 N.W.2d 551, 64 Mich.App. 700 (Mich. App. 1975)
• Decision Date: 13 October 1975
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 19154
• Parties: TOWNSHIP OF MIDLAND, a Municipal Corporation in Midland County, Michigan, and Robert B. Chatterton, Individually and as Supervisor of said township, Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. MICHIGAN STATE BOUNDARY COMMISSION, Defendant, and City of Midland, Intervening Defendant-Appellant. TOWNSHIP OF MIDLAND, a Municipal Corporation in Midland County, Michigan, and Robert B. Chatterton, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MIDLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, a body corporate, et al., Defendants-Appellees. to 19156, 20255. 64 Mich.App. 700, 236 N.W.2d 551

Page 551

236 N.W.2d 551

TOWNSHIP OF MIDLAND, a Municipal Corporation in Midland

County, Michigan, and Robert B. Chatterton,

Individually and as Supervisor of said

township, Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. MICHIGAN STATE BOUNDARY COMMISSION, Defendant, and City of Midland, Intervening Defendant-Appellant.

TOWNSHIP OF MIDLAND, a Municipal Corporation in Midland

County, Michigan, and Robert B. Chatterton, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MIDLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, a body corporate, et

al., Defendants-Appellees.

Docket Nos. 19154 to 19156, 20255.

64 Mich.App. 700, 236 N.W.2d 551

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Oct. 13, 1975.

Released for Publication Jan. 5, 1976.

[64 MICHAPP 704] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Frank J. Pipp, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Boundary Comm.

Bauckham, Reed, Lang & Schaefer by John H. Bauckham, Kalamazoo, for Township and Chatterton.

William D. Sinclair, Midland, for plaintiffs-appellees.

David S. DeWitt, Midland, Morris, Culver & Hunter, P.C. by David Morris, Kalamazoo, for City of Midland.

Edward G. Durance, Midland, for defendants-appellees in 20255.

Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and D. E. HOLBROOK and CAVANAGH, JJ.

D. E. HOLBROOK, Judge.

Three of the four appeals involve the same case, heard in the Circuit Court for the County of Ingham. The plaintiffs-appellees and both defendants-appellants were granted leave to appeal by our Court, each claiming that the trial court committed error in one or more of its rulings on the issues presented therein.

[64 MICHAPP 705] The instant case involves two petitions for annexation to the City of Midland. 71--AT--7 was a petition for annexation of 319 acres of the Township of Midland into the City of Midland, and was filed with the County Board of Commissioners on February 15, 1968, and was transferred to the State Boundary Commission (SBC) on April 28, 1971, pursuant to 1970 P.A. 219. These 319 acres were contiguous to the City of Midland, and the site for a nuclear energy plant. 71--AR--11 was a petition to annex the remainder of the Township of Midland into the City of Midland, and was filed with the SBC May 6, 1971 under the same 1970 P.A. 219. Both petitions were approved by the SBC.

The Circuit Court for Ingham County granted a motion for summary judgment brought by plaintiffs, claiming that 1970 P.A. 219 was unconstitutional. Both defendants-appellants appeal from the summary judgment, and plaintiffs appeal claiming that the said statute is deficient for other reasons as claimed by plaintiffs in their motion for summary judgment, but which were rejected by the trial court. The trial judge in ruling on the matter wrote a very thorough opinion, which we deem advisable to set forth in full herein, Viz.:

'This matter is submitted to the court on briefs and after oral argument on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. In their motion and brief, plaintiffs raise essentially eight issues upon which it claims the court can grant the relief sought. The court will address these issues in the order presented by the parties.

'I

'Was the procedure followed by the Legislature in enacting Act 219 of 1970 violative of Article IV, Secs 24 and 25, of the Michigan Constitution of 1963?

'In order to understand this issue, some historical [64 MICHAPP 706] reference is necessary. Prior to 1968, procedures for the incorporation of cities and the annexation of territory thereto were governed by various provisions contained within 1909 PA 279 (the Home Rule Act), CL 117.01(117.1) Et seq., particularly by Sections 6, 7, 8 nd 9 thereof, variously added to the Home Rule Act, and amended by 1951PA 40; 1953 PA 173; 1955 PA 33; 1956 PA 77; 1957 PA 210; 1951 PA 58; and 1956 PA 68. However, in 1968, by the terms of 1968 PA 191, effective November 15, 1968, the Legislature passed the State Boundary Commission Act wherein they created a State Boundary Commission having responsibility, at that time, solely over proposed municipal incorporation. In turn, the State Boundary Commission Act (1968 PA 191) was not directly amended granting the State Boundary Commission authority over annexation petitions or resolutions until 1972 PA 362 effective January 9, 1973, well after the completion of the proceedings herein complained of. However, the Legislature did, by 1970 PA 219 effective April 1, 1971, amend the Home Rule Cities Act (1909 PA 279) and specifically Section 9 thereof, by adding, Inter alia, the following language to Section 9 of 1909 PA 279:

"(1) In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this act and Act No. 191 of the Public Acts of 1968, being sections 123.1001 to 123.1020 of the Compiled Laws of 1948, regarding an incorporation or consolidation, the provisions of Act No. 191 of the Public Acts of 1968 shall govern . . .

"(2) Except as provided in subsections (1) and (8), a petition or resolution for annexation of territory shall be filed in the Lansing office of the state boundary commission. The commission, after determining the validity of the petition or resolution, shall hold a public hearing in or reasonably near the area proposed for annexation. The commission in processing and approving, denying or revising a petition or resolution for annexation shall have the same powers and duties and be in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Act No. 191 of the Public Acts of 1968, relating to petitions which propose incorporations.

"(4) If an annexation is approved, and if on the date [64 MICHAPP 707] the petition or resolution was filed 100 persons or less resided in the area approved for annexation, the commission's order shall not be subject to a referendum. The commission shall send a certified copy of its order to the clerk of each county, city, village and township affected and to the secretary of state. The annexation shall be effective on a date set forth in the commission's order.

"(9) The provisions of section 14 shall not be applicable to an annexation approved by the commission of part of a township or village to a city except in the event of outstanding bonds or other evidences of indebtedness of the township or village. In such event, the commission shall determine and order an equitable division of assets and liabilities which relate to the bonds or other indebtedness.

"(10) The provisions of sections 8 and 8a shall not be applicable to petitions or resolutions filed with the state boundary commission.

"(11) On and after the effective date of the 1970 amendments to this section, and so long as Act No. 191 of the Public Acts of 1968 is in effect, annexation of territory from a township or village to a home rule city shall be as provided in this section and no other means of annexation shall be effective.'

'The proposed annexation in dispute in this matter was a purported annexation conducted under the provisions of subsection 4 of Sec 9 of 1909 PA 279, I.e., a commission order not subject to referendum because 100 persons or less resided in the area to be annexed.

'There is no question that the Legislature, by the adoption of 1970 PA 219 amending the provisions of Section 9 of 1909 PA 279, attempted to increase the powers and duties of the State Boundary Commission created by 1968 PA 191, by giving them additional 'supervisory' duties over annexation matters. Plaintiffs thus contend such legislative effort is constitutionally deficient because of the provisions of Const. 1963, art 4, § 24, and art 4, § 25, which read as follows:

" § 24 No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title. No bill shall be altered or amended on its passage through either house [64 MICHAPP 708] so as to change its original purpose as determined by its total content and not alone by its title.

" § 25 No law shall be revised, altered or amended by reference to its title only. The section or sections of the act altered or amended shall be reenacted and published at length.'

'In support of their contention, plaintiffs most vigorously put forward the authority of Alan v. Wayne County, 388 Mich. 210, 200 N.W.2d 628 (1972), the famous (or infamous) Detroit Tiger Stadium case, as well as the authority of Mok v. Detroit Building & Savings Association, No. 4, 30 Mich. 511 (1875). Defendants, however, in reply also rely upon Alan, supra, and attempt to distinguish the factual situation there from the facts at hand. In light, however, of the broad language of Alan, the specific overruling of Burton v. Koch, 184 Mich. 250, 151 N.W. 48 (1915), therein, and the factors hereafter mentioned, plaintiffs' position, Prior to the 1972 amendment to the Boundary Commission Act, appears to be the better taken. We are not dealing here with a situation where, because of a special fact situation, two absolutely conflicting statutes are passed, thus requiring a judicial interpretation, but rather, succintly (sic) put, we are dealing with a situation where the Legislature sought to do indirectly what it certainly could have done, and later did, directly, I.e., amend the State Boundary Commission Act. By amending the Home Rule Cities Act through adoption of 1970 PA 219 it conferred additional powers upon the State Boundary Commission, I.e., jurisdiction over annexations, it obviated provisions for election in proposed territories for annexation of less than 100 residents, and, Inter alia, it limited means of annexation to the ways provided in Sec 9, 1909 PA 279. It is at least at this point where Art 4, § 24, Supra, comes into play, for neither in the title of 1909 PA 279 nor in the title of 1970 PA, 219 is the object of the law, to wit, 'annexation,' mentioned. Rather the title reads, 'An act to provide for the incorporation of cities and for revising and amending their charters.' Nor does the title of 1970 PA 219 mention the conferring of additional powers over the subject of annexation on the State Boundary Commission. Rather than confer powers of home rule upon cities, 1970 PA [64 MICHAPP 709] 219 appears to...