STILLE-DEROSSETT-HALE SINGLE STATE CONSTRUCTION CODE ACT
Act 230 of 1972
125.1522 Fees; state construction code fund; fund for purchase and sale of codes and standards.
Sec. 22.
(1) The legislative body of a governmental subdivision shall establish reasonable fees to be charged by the governmental subdivision for acts and services performed by the enforcing agency or construction board of appeals under this act, which fees shall be intended to bear a reasonable relation to the cost, including overhead, to the governmental subdivision of the acts and services, including, without limitation, those services and acts as, in case of an enforcing agency, issuance of building permits, examination of plans and specifications, inspection of construction undertaken pursuant to a building permit, and the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, and, in case of a board of appeals, hearing appeals in accordance with this act. The enforcing agency shall collect the fees established under this subsection. The legislative body of a governmental subdivision shall only use fees generated under this section for the operation of the enforcing agency or the construction board of appeals, or both, and shall not use the fees for any other purpose.
(2) To accomplish the objectives of this section and this act, a state construction code fund is created. The director, after approval by the commission and following a public hearing held by the commission, shall establish reasonable fees to be charged by the commission for acts and services performed by the commission including, without limitation, inspection of plans and specifications, issuance of certificates of acceptability, testing and evaluation of new products, methods and processes of construction or alteration, issuance of building permits, inspection of construction undertaken pursuant to a building permit, the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, and hearing of appeals. Fees established by the department shall be intended to bear a reasonable relation to the cost, including overhead, of the service or act. Until the director establishes fees pursuant to this act, the fees established pursuant to this subsection shall remain in effect. The state treasurer shall be the custodian of the fund and may invest the surplus of the fund in investments as in the state treasurer's judgment are in the best interest of the fund. Earnings from those investments shall be credited to the fund. The state treasurer shall notify the director and the legislature of interest credited and the balance of the fund as of September 30 of each year. The director shall supervise and administer the fund. Fees received by the department and money collected under this act shall be deposited in the state construction code fund and shall be appropriated by the legislature for the operation of the bureau of construction codes, and indirect overhead expenses in the department. Funds that are unexpended at the end of each fiscal year shall be returned to the state construction code fund. A self-supporting fund shall be established within the commission to provide for the purchase and sale of codes and standards to the general public.
History: 1972, Act 230, Eff. Jan. 1, 1973 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 442, Imd. Eff. Oct. 9, 1978 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 371, Imd. Eff. Dec. 30, 1980 ;-- Am. 1999, Act 245, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 1999
PopularName Notes:
Act 230
PopularName Notes:
Uniform Construction Code
Notes of Decisions
Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. City of Troy, 871 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2015).
· cites it 5× “Plaintiffs, a group of associations representing builders, contractors, and plumbers, filed suit against defendant, the city of Troy, claiming that defendant’s building department fees violated § 22 of the Single State Construction Code Act (CCA), MCL 125.1522, as well as a…”
Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. City of Troy (Mich. 2019).
· cites it 63× “In the City’s answer to the application, it notes that “[t]here are also indirect costs to enforce the CCA, and MCL 125.1522 expressly allows for the inclusion of these costs in the required accounting and reporting.”
Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. City of Troy (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 27× “FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case originated on December 15, 2010, when plaintiffs filed a two-count complaint alleging that defendant’s collection of building department revenue that exceeded the amount owed in accordance with its SAFEbuilt contract,2 and the deposit of…”
Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. City of Troy (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 27× “FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case originated on December 15, 2010, when plaintiffs filed a two-count complaint alleging that defendant’s collection of building department revenue that exceeded the amount owed in accordance with its SAFEbuilt contract,2 and the deposit of…”
Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. City of Troy (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 25× “Plaintiffs alleged that this practice violates MCL 125.1522(1) [of the CCA], which requires that fees (1) be reasonable, (2) “be intended to bear a reasonable relation to the cost” of Building Department services, and (3) be used only for operation of the Building Department.”
Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. City of Troy (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 8× “(dissenting) Plaintiffs allege that “significant monthly surpluses” of fees generated under defendant’s contractual arrangement with SAFEbuilt and deposited into defendant’s general fund evidence a violation of both MCL 125.1522(1) and the Headlee Amendment, Const 1963, art 9, §…”
Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. City of Troy (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 8× “(dissenting) Plaintiffs allege that “significant monthly surpluses” of fees generated under defendant’s contractual arrangement with SAFEbuilt and deposited into defendant’s general fund evidence a violation of both MCL 125.1522(1) and the Headlee Amendment, Const 1963, art 9, §…”
Kevin Logan v. Charter Twp. of West Bloomfield (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 5× “Plaintiffs contend that the circuit court erred because: (1) they were permitted to plead alternative and inconsistent causes of action, and (2) the circuit court incorrectly ruled that plaintiffs were precluded from raising a claim of unjust enrichment premised on MCL…”
Kevin Logan v. Charter Twp. of West Bloomfield (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “Plaintiffs contend that the circuit court erred because: (1) they were permitted to plead alternative and inconsistent causes of action, and (2) the circuit court incorrectly ruled that plaintiffs were precluded from raising a claim of unjust enrichment premised on MCL…”
Kevin Logan v. Charter Twp. of West Bloomfield (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “Plaintiffs contend that the circuit court erred because: (1) they were permitted to plead alternative and inconsistent causes of action, and (2) the circuit court incorrectly ruled that plaintiffs were precluded from raising a claim of unjust enrichment premised on MCL…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.1522(1) — 10 cases
Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. City of Troy, 871 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2015).
“Plaintiffs, a group of associations representing builders, contractors, and plumbers, filed suit against defendant, the city of Troy, claiming that defendant’s building department fees violated § 22 of the Single State Construction Code Act (CCA), MCL 125.1522, as well as a…”
Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. City of Troy (Mich. 2019).
“In the City’s answer to the application, it notes that “[t]here are also indirect costs to enforce the CCA, and MCL 125.1522 expressly allows for the inclusion of these costs in the required accounting and reporting.”
Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. City of Troy (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case originated on December 15, 2010, when plaintiffs filed a two-count complaint alleging that defendant’s collection of building department revenue that exceeded the amount owed in accordance with its SAFEbuilt contract,2 and the deposit of…”
Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. City of Troy (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case originated on December 15, 2010, when plaintiffs filed a two-count complaint alleging that defendant’s collection of building department revenue that exceeded the amount owed in accordance with its SAFEbuilt contract,2 and the deposit of…”
Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. City of Troy (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“Plaintiffs alleged that this practice violates MCL 125.1522(1) [of the CCA], which requires that fees (1) be reasonable, (2) “be intended to bear a reasonable relation to the cost” of Building Department services, and (3) be used only for operation of the Building Department.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.1522(2) — 1 case
Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. City of Troy (Mich. 2019).
“In the City’s answer to the application, it notes that “[t]here are also indirect costs to enforce the CCA, and MCL 125.1522 expressly allows for the inclusion of these costs in the required accounting and reporting.”
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.