Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 21 / Act 101 of 1979
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 21.235 (2026)

Disbursements to local units of government; appropriation; purpose; schedule of estimated payments; duty of governor; prorating amount appropriated; supplemental appropriation; administration of act; personnel; guidelines; forms.

✓ current as of July 2026 Cite as: Mich. Comp. Laws § 21.235 (2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

STATE DISBURSEMENTS TO LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT


Act 101 of 1979


21.235 Disbursements to local units of government; appropriation; purpose; schedule of estimated payments; duty of governor; prorating amount appropriated; supplemental appropriation; administration of act; personnel; guidelines; forms.

Sec. 5.

    (1) The legislature shall annually appropriate an amount sufficient to make disbursements to each local unit of government for the necessary cost of each state requirement pursuant to this act, if not otherwise excluded by this act.

    (2) An initial disbursement shall be made in advance in accordance with a schedule of estimated payments established in each state requirement. The schedule of estimated payments shall provide that:

    (a) The initial advance disbursement will be made at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the state requirement, and

    (b) The first disbursement in each subsequent state fiscal year will be made no later than November 1.

    (3) The governor shall include in a report which is to accompany the annual budget recommendation to the legislature, those amounts which the governor determines are required to make disbursements to each local unit of government for the necessary cost of each state requirement for that fiscal year and the total amount of state disbursements required for all local units of government.

    (4) If the amount appropriated by the legislature for a state requirement is insufficient to fully fund disbursements for the necessary cost of a state requirement as required by this act, the director shall prorate the amount appropriated proportionately among those local units of government eligible for a disbursement for each state requirement in which the appropriation is insufficient. The director shall recommend a supplemental appropriation to the legislature sufficient to fully fund the disbursements for the necessary costs of each state requirement in which the initial appropriation was insufficient or which was imposed by court interpretation of a state law by requiring a new activity or service or an increase in the level of activity or service beyond that required by existing law. The legislature shall then appropriate the amount required in an appropriation bill introduced as a result of the request.

    (5) The department shall administer this act and shall assign sufficient personnel to assure proper and adequate administration. The department shall publish guidelines and furnish forms which shall be available to a local unit of government for submitting a claim for the disbursements required by this act.

History: 1979, Act 101, Imd. Eff. Aug. 3, 1979

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1997–2022 · leading case: Adair v. Michigan
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Adair v. Michigan (2014) mich · cites it 9× “f no funds were appropriated, the state would necessarily have determined that (1) the mandate would not constitute a new activity or service or an increase in the level of any activities or services, (2) local governments would not have necessary increased costs, and (3) any…”
Oakland County v. State of Mich. (1997) mich · cites it 2× “§ 21.235; M.S.A. § 5.3194(605). Subsection 4(5) defines "state requirement" as "a state law which requires a new activity or service or an increased level of activity or service beyond that required of a local unit of government by an existing law.”
Mayor of Detroit v. State (1998) michctapp · cites it 2× “§ 21.235(2); M.S.A. § 5.3194(605)(2) [4] because the Legislature did not make an appropriation sufficient to pay for the increase in an activity or service required of the city.”
Taxpayers for Michigan Constitutional Govt v. State of Michigan (2021) mich · cites it 19× “In this case, plaintiffs did not provide any argument or explanation regarding mandamus except for a single mention in the prayer for relief of their complaint that requested mandamus relief directing the state to comply with the reporting requirements of MCL 21.235 and MCL…”
Taxpayers for Michigan Constitutional Govt v. State of Michigan (2021) mich · cites it 19× “In this case, plaintiffs did not provide any argument or explanation regarding mandamus except for a single mention in the prayer for relief of their complaint that requested mandamus relief directing the state to comply with the reporting requirements of MCL 21.235 and MCL…”
Taxpayers for Michigan Constitutional Govt v. State of Michigan (2019) michctapp · cites it 4× “However, we grant summary disposition to plaintiff’s on Count IV and declare that pursuant to §29, funding for new or increased state mandates may not be counted for purposes of §30.”
Taxpayers for Michigan Constitutional Govt v. State of Michigan (2019) michctapp · cites it 4× “Finally, we grant mandamus relief and direct the State, and its officers and departments, to comply with the reporting and disclosure requirements of MCL 21.235(3) and MCL 21.241. BURDENS OF PROOF A.”
O Taxpayers for Michigan Constitutional Govt v. State of Michigan (2022) michctapp · cites it 3× “For these reasons, we conclude that state school aid paid to a PSA by its authorizing body qualifies as state funding paid to a local government and should be counted for purposes of “total state spending paid to all units of Local Government” under § 30 of the Headlee…”
Od Taxpayers for Michigan Constitutional Govt v. State of Michigan (2022) michctapp · cites it 2× “9 As noted in the Supreme Court’s opinion: “In answer to the complaint, the state defendants denied that they had not complied with MCL 21.235 but admitted that they had not completed the reporting requirements of MCL 21.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 21.235(1) — 1 case
Adair v. Michigan (2014) mich “f no funds were appropriated, the state would necessarily have determined that (1) the mandate would not constitute a new activity or service or an increase in the level of any activities or services, (2) local governments would not have necessary increased costs, and (3) any…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 21.235(2) — 2 cases
Adair v. Michigan (2014) mich “f no funds were appropriated, the state would necessarily have determined that (1) the mandate would not constitute a new activity or service or an increase in the level of any activities or services, (2) local governments would not have necessary increased costs, and (3) any…”
Mayor of Detroit v. State (1998) michctapp “§ 21.235(2); M.S.A. § 5.3194(605)(2) [4] because the Legislature did not make an appropriation sufficient to pay for the increase in an activity or service required of the city.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 21.235(3) — 4 cases
Taxpayers for Michigan Constitutional Govt v. State of Michigan (2021) mich “In this case, plaintiffs did not provide any argument or explanation regarding mandamus except for a single mention in the prayer for relief of their complaint that requested mandamus relief directing the state to comply with the reporting requirements of MCL 21.235 and MCL…”
Taxpayers for Michigan Constitutional Govt v. State of Michigan (2021) mich “In this case, plaintiffs did not provide any argument or explanation regarding mandamus except for a single mention in the prayer for relief of their complaint that requested mandamus relief directing the state to comply with the reporting requirements of MCL 21.235 and MCL…”
Taxpayers for Michigan Constitutional Govt v. State of Michigan (2019) michctapp “However, we grant summary disposition to plaintiff’s on Count IV and declare that pursuant to §29, funding for new or increased state mandates may not be counted for purposes of §30.”
Taxpayers for Michigan Constitutional Govt v. State of Michigan (2019) michctapp “Finally, we grant mandamus relief and direct the State, and its officers and departments, to comply with the reporting and disclosure requirements of MCL 21.235(3) and MCL 21.241. BURDENS OF PROOF A.”
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.