Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 21.240 (2026)

Local government claims review board; creation; duties; appointment, qualifications, and terms of members; majority vote required to approve claim; concurrent resolution approving payment; adoption of procedures; limitations on appeal; powers of board; report.

✓ current as of July 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

21.240 Local government claims review board; creation; duties; appointment, qualifications, and terms of members; majority vote required to approve claim; concurrent resolution approving payment; adoption of procedures; limitations on appeal; powers of board; report.

Sec. 10.

(1) The local government claims review board is created in the department and shall advise the director on the administration of this act and perform other duties as required by this section.

(2) The board shall consist of 9 members appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the senate. Each member shall be appointed to serve for a 3-year term, except that of the members first appointed, 3 shall be appointed for a term of 3 years, 3 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years, and 3 shall be appointed for a term of 1 year.

(3) Not less than 4 members shall be representatives of a local unit of government.

(4) Subject to subsection (6), the board shall hear and decide upon disputed claims or upon an appeal by a local unit of government alleging that the local unit of government has not received the proper disbursement from funds appropriated for that purpose. The board shall not consider or approve a claim for a de minimus cost. A vote of a majority of the board members appointed to and serving on the board shall be required to approve a claim submitted to the board. If a claim is approved by the board, a concurrent resolution approving payment shall be adopted by both houses of the legislature before the claim is paid.

(5) The board shall adopt procedures for receiving claims under this section and for providing a hearing on a claim if a hearing is requested by an affected local unit of government. The procedures shall provide for the presentation of evidence by the claimant, the department, and any other affected state agency.

(6) An appeal submitted under this section for a disbursement for a state-required cost shall be limited to the following:

(a) An appeal alleging that the director has incorrectly reduced payments to a local unit of government pursuant to section 5(4).

(b) An appeal alleging that the director has incorrectly or improperly reduced the amount of a disbursement when a claim was submitted pursuant to section 8(2).

(c) An appeal alleging that the local unit of government has not received a proper disbursement of funds appropriated to satisfy the state financed proportion of the necessary costs of an existing activity or service required of a local unit of government by existing law, pursuant to section 12.

(7) In determining the merits of an appeal made pursuant to subsection 6(a), (b), or (c), the board, after reviewing the evidence presented, may increase or reduce the amount requested by the claimant or may allow or disallow the claim.

(8) Before January 31 of each year, the board shall report to the legislature and the governor on the number and amount of the claims the board has approved or rejected on appeal pursuant to this section.

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

Constitutionality Notes:

Taxpayers have standing to bring actions in the Court of Appeals under article 9 of the Michigan Constitution to enforce the provisions of §§ 25-31, including cases in which there are disputed facts; the local government claims review board has jurisdiction only over appeals under article 9 by local units of government. Durant v State Board of Education, 424 Mich 364; 381 NW2d 662 (1985).

Compiler's Notes:

In subsection (4), “de minimus” evidently should read “de minimis.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1981–1997 · leading case: Durant v. State of Michigan, 566 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Durant v. State of Michigan, 566 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 1997). · cites it 6× “§ 21.240; M.S.A. § 5.3194(610). [9] There is no distinction in this case between "activity" and "service" under § 29.”

Durant v. State Bd. of Educ., 381 N.W.2d 662 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 2× “The claims review board was instituted by the Legislature under MCL 21.240; MSA 5.3194(610) (hereafter § 240) to adjudicate claims by local units of government with regard to article 9.”

Durant v. Dep't of Educ., 342 N.W.2d 591 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “We denied mandamus on the basis that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies because they had not presented their claims to the local governmental claims review board under MCL 21.240; MSA 5.3194(610). Durant v Dep’t of Education, 110 Mich App 351 ; 313…”

Durant v. Dep't of Educ., 463 N.W.2d 461 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “We refused to issue the requested writ on the ground that plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies because they had failed to first obtain a decision before the local government claims review board pursuant to MCL 21.240; MSA 5.3194(610). Durant v Dep’t of Ed,…”

Durant v. Dep't of Educ., 313 N.W.2d 571 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “In the present case, the Legislature has chosen to establish an administrative remedy by creating the local government claims review board, 1979 PA 101 ; MCL 21.240; MSA 5.3194(610). The statute creating this agency does not appear to be unconstitutional on its face, cf.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 21.240(4) — 1 case

Durant v. State of Michigan, 566 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 1997). “§ 21.240; M.S.A. § 5.3194(610). [9] There is no distinction in this case between "activity" and "service" under § 29.”

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.