STATE DISBURSEMENTS TO LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT
Act 101 of 1979
21.233 Definitions; E to N.
Sec. 3.
(1) "Existing law" means a public or local act enacted prior to December 23, 1978, a rule promulgated prior to December 23, 1978, or a court order concerning such a public or local act or rule. A rule initially promulgated after December 22, 1978 implementing for the first time an act or amendatory act in effect prior to December 23, 1978 shall also be deemed to be existing law.
(2) "Federal requirement" means a federal law, rule, regulation, executive order, guideline, standard, or other federal action which has the force and effect of law and which requires the state to take action affecting local units of government.
(3) "Implied federal requirement" means a federal law, rule, regulation, executive order, guideline, standard, or other federal action which has the force and effect of law and which does not directly require the state to take action affecting local units of government, but will, according to federal law, result in a loss of federal funds or federal tax credits if state action is not taken to comply with the federal action.
(4) "Legislature" means the house of representatives and the senate of this state.
(5) "Local unit of government" means a political subdivision of this state, including school districts, community college districts, intermediate school districts, cities, villages, townships, counties, and authorities, if the political subdivision has as its primary purpose the providing of local governmental services for residents in a geographically limited area of this state and has the power to act primarily on behalf of that area.
(6) "Necessary cost" means the net cost of an activity or service provided by a local unit of government. The net cost shall be the actual cost to the state if the state were to provide the activity or service mandated as a state requirement, unless otherwise determined by the legislature when making a state requirement. Necessary cost does not include the cost of a state requirement if the state requirement satisfies 1 or more of the following conditions:
(a) The state requirement cost does not exceed a de minimus cost.
(b) The state requirement will result in an offsetting savings to an extent that, if the duties of a local unit which existed before the effective date of the state requirement are considered, the requirement will not exceed a de minimus cost.
(c) The state requirement imposes additional duties on a local unit of government which can be performed by that local unit of government at a cost not to exceed a de minimus cost.
(d) The state requirement imposes a cost on a local unit of government that is recoverable from a federal or state categorical aid program, or other external financial aid. A necessary cost excluded by this subdivision shall be excluded only to the extent that it is recoverable.
(7) "New activity or service or increase in the level of an existing activity or service" does not include a state law, or administrative rule promulgated under existing law, which provides only clarifying nonsubstantive changes in an earlier, existing law or state law; or the recodification of an existing law or state law, or administrative rules promulgated under a recodification, which does not require a new activity or service or does not require an increase in the level of an activity or service above the level required before the existing law or state law was recodified.
History: 1979, Act 101, Imd. Eff. Aug. 3, 1979
Constitutionality Notes:
Categorical aid to school districts for specific, identifiable programs which the districts are required to provide by statute or agency rule may not be reduced below the proportion paid by the state during the 1978-79 fiscal year, such as by requiring districts to offset any deficiency in categorical aid due by use of unrestricted aid. Durant v State Board of Education, 424 Mich 364; 381 NW2d 662 (1985).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2021 · leading case:
Adair v. Michigan, 860 N.W.2d 93 (Mich. 2014).
Adair v. Michigan, 860 N.W.2d 93 (Mich. 2014).
· cites it 45× “In the Court of Appeals’ view, Adair I stood for the proposition that neither Const 1963, art 9, § 29 nor MCL 21.233 required plaintiffs to prove how much their districts’ costs had increased as a result of a new or increased mandate.”
Adair v. State of Michigan, 785 N.W.2d 119 (Mich. 2010).
· cites it 38× “9, § 29 nor MCL 21.233 suggests that plaintiffs bear the burden of proving precisely how much the school districts' costs increased as a result of the mandate.”
Durant v. State Bd. of Educ., 381 N.W.2d 662 (Mich. 1986).
· cites it 8× “Defendants further urge us to adopt the Legislature's interpretation of the term found in the implementing legislation for the Headlee Amendment, specifically MCL 21.233(6); MSA 5.3194(603)(6): "Necessary cost" means the net cost of an activity or service provided by a local…”
Adair v. State, 680 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. 2004).
· cites it 2× “§ 21.233(7)." Id. With regard to EO 2000-9 and its standards for uniform reporting of information, the majority found that they were merely designed to streamline a process that had existed before Headlee and thus did not mandate new activity.”
Adair v. State, 302 Mich. App. 305 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 9× “The majority explained: Neither Const 1963, art 9, § 29 nor MCL 21.233 suggests that plaintiffs bear the burden of proving precisely how much the school districts’ costs increased as a result of the mandate.”
Durant v. Dep't of Educ., 342 N.W.2d 591 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “See also MCL 21.233(5); MSA 5.3194(603)(5). Thus, we must decide the following issues: (1) whether "education” is an existing activity or service required of school districts by state law, within the meaning of the Headlee Amendment, (2) whether the costs that the plaintiffs…”
Oakland Cnty. v. State of Mich., 566 N.W.2d 616 (Mich. 1997).
· cites it 2× “9, § 29 directs the state to reimburse only the "necessary costs" of county foster care.”
Adair v. State of Michigan, 651 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “MCL 21.233(7). Turning now to the executive order, it creates, for a two-year duration ending September 27, 2002, the Center for Educational Performance and Information.”
Adair v. State, Dept. of Educ., 705 N.W.2d 541 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
“” Adair I, supra at 712. With regard to the effects of the EO, the majority opined that the order mandated no new activity within the meaning of the POUM provision: The data addressed by the executive order [are] already in the possession of plaintiff districts and agencies in…”
Univ. Emergency Servs., PC v. City of Detroit, 367 N.W.2d 344 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
“MCL 21.233(7); MSA 5.3194(603)(7). Birmingham & Lamphere School Districts v Superintendent of Public Instruction, 120 Mich App 465, 477-478 ; 328 NW2d 59 (1982), lv den 417 Mich 1100 .”
Berrien Cnty. v. Michigan, 357 N.W.2d 764 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
“The Legislature has defined "necessary cost” in MCL 21.233(6); MSA 5.3194(603)(6) as follows: "(6) 'Necessary cost’ means the net cost of an activity or service provided by a local unit of government.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 21.233(5) — 4 cases
Durant v. Dep't of Educ., 342 N.W.2d 591 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
“See also MCL 21.233(5); MSA 5.3194(603)(5). Thus, we must decide the following issues: (1) whether "education” is an existing activity or service required of school districts by state law, within the meaning of the Headlee Amendment, (2) whether the costs that the plaintiffs…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 21.233(6) — 7 cases
Adair v. Michigan, 860 N.W.2d 93 (Mich. 2014).
“In the Court of Appeals’ view, Adair I stood for the proposition that neither Const 1963, art 9, § 29 nor MCL 21.233 required plaintiffs to prove how much their districts’ costs had increased as a result of a new or increased mandate.”
Adair v. State of Michigan, 785 N.W.2d 119 (Mich. 2010).
“9, § 29 nor MCL 21.233 suggests that plaintiffs bear the burden of proving precisely how much the school districts' costs increased as a result of the mandate.”
Durant v. State Bd. of Educ., 381 N.W.2d 662 (Mich. 1986).
“Defendants further urge us to adopt the Legislature's interpretation of the term found in the implementing legislation for the Headlee Amendment, specifically MCL 21.233(6); MSA 5.3194(603)(6): "Necessary cost" means the net cost of an activity or service provided by a local…”
Durant v. Dep't of Educ., 342 N.W.2d 591 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
“See also MCL 21.233(5); MSA 5.3194(603)(5). Thus, we must decide the following issues: (1) whether "education” is an existing activity or service required of school districts by state law, within the meaning of the Headlee Amendment, (2) whether the costs that the plaintiffs…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 21.233(6)(a) — 2 cases
Adair v. State of Michigan, 785 N.W.2d 119 (Mich. 2010).
“9, § 29 nor MCL 21.233 suggests that plaintiffs bear the burden of proving precisely how much the school districts' costs increased as a result of the mandate.”
Adair v. State, 302 Mich. App. 305 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“The majority explained: Neither Const 1963, art 9, § 29 nor MCL 21.233 suggests that plaintiffs bear the burden of proving precisely how much the school districts’ costs increased as a result of the mandate.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 21.233(6)(c) — 2 cases
Adair v. State of Michigan, 785 N.W.2d 119 (Mich. 2010).
“9, § 29 nor MCL 21.233 suggests that plaintiffs bear the burden of proving precisely how much the school districts' costs increased as a result of the mandate.”
Adair v. Michigan, 860 N.W.2d 93 (Mich. 2014).
“In the Court of Appeals’ view, Adair I stood for the proposition that neither Const 1963, art 9, § 29 nor MCL 21.233 required plaintiffs to prove how much their districts’ costs had increased as a result of a new or increased mandate.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 21.233(6)(d) — 1 case
Durant v. State Bd. of Educ., 381 N.W.2d 662 (Mich. 1986).
“Defendants further urge us to adopt the Legislature's interpretation of the term found in the implementing legislation for the Headlee Amendment, specifically MCL 21.233(6); MSA 5.3194(603)(6): "Necessary cost" means the net cost of an activity or service provided by a local…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 21.233(7) — 4 cases
Adair v. State, 680 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. 2004).
“§ 21.233(7)." Id. With regard to EO 2000-9 and its standards for uniform reporting of information, the majority found that they were merely designed to streamline a process that had existed before Headlee and thus did not mandate new activity.”
Adair v. State of Michigan, 651 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
“MCL 21.233(7). Turning now to the executive order, it creates, for a two-year duration ending September 27, 2002, the Center for Educational Performance and Information.”
Adair v. State, Dept. of Educ., 705 N.W.2d 541 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
“” Adair I, supra at 712. With regard to the effects of the EO, the majority opined that the order mandated no new activity within the meaning of the POUM provision: The data addressed by the executive order [are] already in the possession of plaintiff districts and agencies in…”
Univ. Emergency Servs., PC v. City of Detroit, 367 N.W.2d 344 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
“MCL 21.233(7); MSA 5.3194(603)(7). Birmingham & Lamphere School Districts v Superintendent of Public Instruction, 120 Mich App 465, 477-478 ; 328 NW2d 59 (1982), lv den 417 Mich 1100 .”
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.