Our Feed

This month’s E-Letter focuses on the latest legislative moves relevant to townships. Republicans and Democrats have different political priorities, and those differences extend to and impact Townships. We will review both what happened, and perhaps just as importantly, what did not happen. Every two years there is a “lame duck” session, which comes after the November election but before the newly elected state officials assume office. This year the last few legislative sessions were the final opportunity for Michigan Democrats to pass legislation with a majority in the Michigan House of Representatives.

What is “Lame Duck”?

“Lame Duck” refers to the period between an election and when the newly elected officials take office. In township government, the lame duck period is very short. Township officials take office on November 20^th, only 15 days after the election. Presidents also have a lame duck period. President Biden is currently in this situation. The election was November 5^th, but he remains in office until President Trump is sworn in on January 20^th. Finally, there are also congressional lame duck periods. In Michigan it is between November 5^th and 12:00 p.m. on January 1, 2025, which is when the officials elected in November take office.

Since most Townships have meetings once a month, and there is little, if any, period where a township official who chose not to run in November will still sit at the November board meeting. At the state congressional level, the two months of November and December are available to schedule legislative sessions. Michigan Democrats had a one-vote majority in the Michigan House of Representatives for the last two years. (They also controlled the Senate and the Governor’s Office.) The majority will switch back to Republicans in 2025. Therefore, the lame duck was the final opportunity for Democratic lawmakers to pass bills through the House on their own majority. Stated another way, Democrats could focus on their political priorities.

What Legislation Was Passed During Lame Duck?

Many bills passed; others failed to make it to the Governor’s desk. Particularly here we will focus on legislation important to townships and local leaders.

1. The Ground Emergency Medical Transportation (GEMT) program. (HB 5695)

This bill authorizes voluntary participation in the federal GEMT program. It provides supplemental reimbursement for medical ground transportation costs to emergency providers. In some cases, especially for Medicaid patients, the federal dollars could cover 100% of the local providers’ actual cost incurred. Total revenue sharing is estimated in the tens of millions of dollars. It is welcomed support for public safety services.

This bill awaits the Governor’s signature.

2. Modifications to the Public Health Insurance Contributions (HB 6058)

Municipalities presently have two options for “hard cap” contributions. The bill sought to remove the top limit and replace it with a minimum floor contribution. Since healthcare costs can change year-to-year, so can the minimum floor; projecting and managing the minimum contributions would be a continuing moving target.

The bill modified (but did not repeal) the existing Publicly Funded Health Insurance Contribution Act (PA 152). It increased the amount townships pay toward employee medical benefit plans with both a cap and a floor. An 80% funding floor was established, but if the municipality is already funding at that level, then the fiscal impact is negligible. Other municipalities may need to increase funding to reach the 80% mandate. The inflationary factor also increased. Municipalities may voluntarily increase funding beyond the state law levels. Additionally, an existing opt-out provision was retained.

This bill awaits the Governor’s signature.

3. Polling Places & Openly Carrying Firearms

Townships were often very limited (and even prevented) from regulating the open carrying of firearms during an election. HBs 4127 and 4128 provided clarity in this area. Now, while the polls are open, a person cannot openly possess a firearm in or within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place or early voting site. Ballot drop boxes are also protected for the 40 days before the election.

Concealed carry is still permitted. If a person has a license to carry a concealed pistol, they may do so while voting. Of course, since it is “concealed,” the public should be none-the-wiser. If a home is close to a polling place, those residents are not impacted. Further, police officers may also continue to openly carry in furtherance of their public service and safety.

These bills have been signed by the Governor and are now Public Acts 157 and 158 of 2024.

What Legislation Failed During Lame Duck?

Each legislative session contains bills and initiatives that directly impact local control. In recent memory, gravel mining, short-term rentals, and renewable energy have all been a focus of state leaders—often to the detriment of local control. Since different legislation and policies often return year after year, it is important to note what did not pass.

1. Gravel and Aggregate Mining Mandates Defeated

Gravel pits were once again a focus of statewide legislative efforts. No fewer than seven bills were introduced in the House seeking to remove local control of gravel and aggregate mines. The bills would also have changed the legal analysis for court challenges, further disrupting the landscape by undercutting court precedent. Thankfully, the voice of local leaders was heard once again, and these projects remain subject to local review and approval where officials can consider the unique location and circumstances of each proposed project and any resulting serious consequences.

2. Police and Fire Staffing in Collective Bargaining Defeated (HB 4688 and SB 1167)

Directed at police and fire departments, these bills would have required minimum staffing levels in union collective bargaining. Since it would be in the union agreement, arbitration would have also applied to these staffing labor disputes. These bills did not pass the House, protecting local control.

3. Changes to the Land Division Act (SB 480)

A dramatic increase was sought for the number of available parcel splits. Currently, a 10-acre parcel can be split four times. It would have increased five-fold to 20 splits. Along with that statutory increase, municipalities could approve additional splits under standards provided for in their local ordinances. With more lots, the idea was more housing, but nothing prevented excessive splitting. Nor would those 20 splits necessarily have access to sufficient water or sewer infrastructure. This bill passed the Senate but not the House.

4. Housing Bill Package Defeated

A set of bills targeted Michigan’s housing supply by “reforming” local level policy. The bills would have removed local policy in favor of state level directives. Since each municipality and locality is unique in both their housing needs and housing opportunities, a “top-down” approach was unlikely to be successful. Indeed, other states that implemented similar efforts have seen little improvement. Presently, Michigan communities can focus on their individual strengths—promoting multi-family housing in suburban townships but single-family housing with protections from rural commercial development.

If your township administers its own zoning, note that housing should be explicitly incorporated into the master plan at the next five-year review mark.

5. Short-Term Rentals Regulation Defeated (HB 5438)

Here the state sought to walk a narrow compromise between state and local interests. On one hand, it recognized continuing township authority to regulate STRs. On the other hand, a new statewide registry would be created. Along with administration and enforcement at the state level, it would have imposed an excise tax of 6% on STRs.

6. Impacts to Public Water Works Defeated

Whether via a township department or local authority, two efforts would have increased costs to residents and municipalities providing drinking water in their communities. First, several bills proposed a blanket $2 per month charge on all water customers. Although for the noble purpose of assisting low-income water customers, this “one-size-fits-all” approach did not account for needs or impacts within localities.

Second, two bills (SB 663, HB 5205) sought to expand EGLE’s permit authority over public works projects. These bills would have increased the time and money to complete water projects (among others) which ultimately would have been borne by citizens and ratepayers.

Sometimes the Bills that Did Not Pass would have Aided Local Government

7. Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (HB 4274 and 4275)

These bills would have directed a portion of sales tax collections to local revenue sharing. The total percentage would have been small: 0.348% of available sales tax. Yet as a dedicated funding mechanism, it would have provided a long-term foundation for local government resources. This bill could not pass the Senate.

8. Open Meetings Act – Remote Participation

House Bill 4693 would have increased remote participation and electronic meetings for boards and commissions that do not levy taxes. The flexibility would have been limited to advisory-type bodies. Although it was reported favorably from committee, it failed on the House floor.

Conclusion

The end of this legislative term is but the beginning of the next term. Several pressing statewide issues remain unresolved, including the minimum wage and tipping measures, economic development priorities, as well as funding for roads and local governments. Additionally, we expect the new lawmakers to continue examining the issues of aggregate mining and short-term rental regulation. Along with our other partners in local government, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC remains engaged on new legislation and new court cases impacting local government.

By: Matthew Kuschel

This publication is intended for educational purposes only. This communication highlights specific areas of law and is not legal advice. The reader should consult an attorney to determine how the information applies to any specific situation.