Our Feed

We are involved in our communities, our profession, and our clients' associations and activities.

Is a township subject to any penalty or sanction if it fails to comply with the Public Act 152 of 2011, but does not receive Economic Vitality Incentive Program (EVIP) payments?

Act 152 of 2011 expressly limits public employer payments of annual healthcare premium costs for its employees. The Act strictly limits the amount townships may contribute to total annual health care premiums, based either on a “hard cap” or what’s known as the “80/20” plan. Townships, however, may choose to exempt themselves from the Act’s requirements on an annual basis with a 2/3 vote of the Board.  The Act imposes a monetary penalty for local governments that fail to comply: a 10% reduction in state school aid or EVIP funds. 

 

Practically speaking, this means that there is only a penalty if a township receives EVIP (formerly called statutory revenue sharing) funds. No other forms of state aid or funding are affected or reduced. If your township does not receive EVIP funds and either purposefully or inadvertently does not comply with the Act’s requirements, the only apparent sanction is the technical noncompliance being highlighted by a member of the public. 

 

Stay tuned for next month when we tackle another township’s pressing question. If you have current issues or legal topics you need addressed, please fill out the form below with your question. We will select a question each month to answer.

 

Author

Recent Articles & Announcements

  1. Are municipal cell tower leases ...

    Yes, cell tower leases can generate a steady stream of revenue and, in many cases, have automatic “renewal terms” which, in the aggregat...

    Read More
  2. Where Data Meets Land Use: A Mic...

    The rise of data centers across Michigan has generated significant public attention and, in many communities, considerable apprehension. Loc...

    Read More
  3. Debunking Michigan’s Myth Abou...

    In Plachta v Plachta, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2026) (Docket No. 374260), the Michigan Court of Appeals confirmed what should have be...

    Read More
Talk to an Attorney
Request a Consultation

At Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC, we’ve been helping municipalities, franchised businesses, employers, and more with their legal needs since 2008. We’d love to learn how we can help you, too.