STATE BOUNDARY COMMISSION
Act 191 of 1968
123.1009 Review of proposed incorporation; criteria.
Sec. 9.
Criteria to be considered by the commission in arriving at a determination shall be:
(a) Population; population density; land area and land uses; assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries and drainage basins; the past and probable future urban growth, including population increase and business, commercial and industrial development in the area. Comparative data for the incorporating municipality, and the remaining portion of the unit from which the area will be detached shall be considered.
(b) Need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental services in the area to be incorporated; the probable future needs for services; the practicability of supplying such services in the area to be incorporated; the probable effect of the proposed incorporation and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services in the area to be incorporated and on the remaining portion of the unit from which the area will be detached; the probable increase in taxes in the area to be incorporated in relation to the benefits expected to accrue from incorporation; and the financial ability of the incorporating municipality to maintain urban type services in the area.
(c) The general effect upon the entire community of the proposed action; and the relationship of the proposed action to any established city, village, township, county or regional land use plan.
History: 1968, Act 191, Eff. Nov. 15, 1968
Notes of Decisions
Sylvan Twp. v. City of Chelsea, 882 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “But it is equally clear that the Legislature did not give the Commission the general authority to resolve disputes concerning the succession to property or liabilities that might be occasioned by the incorpo *318 ration of a new city; indeed, it provided that the “Succession to…”
Midland Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 259 N.W.2d 326 (Mich. 1977).
· cites it 2× “*669 "(c) The general effect upon the entire community of the proposed action; and the relationship of the proposed action to any established city, village, township, county or regional land use plan.”
Avon Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 293 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“2242(9): "Criteria to be considered by the commission in arriving at a determination shall be: "(a) Population; population density; land area and land uses; assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries and drainage basins; the past and probable future urban growth,…”
Shelby Charter Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 387 N.W.2d 792 (Mich. 1986).
“2242(9) provides: Criteria to be considered by the commission in arriving at a determination shall be: (a) Population; population density; land area and land uses; assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries and drainage basins; the past and probable future urban growth,…”
Rutland Twp. v. City of Hastings, 321 N.W.2d 647 (Mich. 1982).
“However, the stipulation of facts by the parties said that the township had filed the petition, and the circuit judge specifically found that all of the stipulations were true. 4 Presumably, the township’s plan was that the State Boundary Commission would reject the proposed…”
Twp. of Novi v. State Boundary Comm'n, 242 N.W.2d 449 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
“Do the criteria set out in MCLA 123.1009; MSA 5.2242(9) [ 1968 PA 191 ]provide adequate guidance to the SBC? We find no support for the Ingham County Circuit Court’s decision on this issue in the Brighton case.”
St Joseph Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 300 N.W.2d 578 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“The plaintiff further alleged that the findings as a whole had no basis in fact and were contrary to the criteria set forth in MCL 123.1009; MSA 5.2242(9). A temporary restraining order, *410 stipulated to by the parties on November 2, 1973, prevented immediate annexation.”
Teridee LLC v. Charter Twp. of Haring (Mich. 2017).
· cites it 3× “28 Those powers include the ability to consider, among other things, population statistics, the need for governmental services in the incorporated area, and the general effect on the entire community.”
Chase v. State Boundary Comm'n, 303 N.W.2d 186 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
“Plaintiffs alleged that the decision was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable since it was not based on any of the statutory criteria, as enumerated in MCL 123.1009; MSA 5.2242(9). Plaintiffs claimed that the decision was also deficient since it was not supported by the record…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.