Mich. Comp. Laws § 247.183

Public utilities, cable television companies, broadband companies, and municipalities; construction and maintenance of structures; consent of governing body; construction and maintenance of utility lines and structures longitudinally within limited access highway rights-of-way; standards; charges; use of revenue; relocation permit; use of electronic devices within limited access and rights-of-way to provide travel-related information.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

HIGHWAY OBSTRUCTIONS AND ENCROACHMENTS; USE OF HIGHWAY BY PUBLIC UTILITIES


Act 368 of 1925


247.183 Public utilities, cable television companies, broadband companies, and municipalities; construction and maintenance of structures; consent of governing body; construction and maintenance of utility lines and structures longitudinally within limited access highway rights-of-way; standards; charges; use of revenue; relocation permit; use of electronic devices within limited access and rights-of-way to provide travel-related information.

Sec. 13.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided under subsection (2), telegraph, telephone, power, and other public utility companies, cable television companies, broadband companies, and municipalities may enter upon, construct, and maintain telegraph, telephone, or power lines, pipelines, wires, cables, poles, conduits, sewers or similar structures upon, over, across, or under any public road, bridge, street, or public place, including, longitudinally within limited access highway rights-of-way, and across or under any of the waters in this state, with all necessary erections and fixtures for that purpose. A telegraph, telephone, power, and other public utility company, cable television company, broadband company, and municipality, before any of this work is commenced, shall first obtain the consent of the governing body of the city, village, or township through or along which these lines and poles are to be constructed and maintained.

    (2) A utility as defined in 23 CFR 645.105 may enter upon, construct, and maintain utility lines and structures, including pipelines, longitudinally within limited access highway rights-of-way and under any public road, street, or other subsurface that intersects any limited access highway at a different grade, in accordance with standards approved by the state transportation commission and the Michigan public service commission that conform to governing federal laws and regulations and is not required to obtain the consent of the governing body of the city, village, or township as required under subsection (1). The standards must require that the lines and structures be underground and be placed in a manner that will not increase highway maintenance costs for the state transportation department. The standards may provide for the imposition of a reasonable charge for longitudinal use of limited access highway rights-of-way. The imposition of a reasonable charge is a governmental function, offsetting a portion of the capital, maintenance, and permitting expense of the limited access highway, and is not a proprietary function. The charge must be calculated to reflect a 1-time installation permit fee that does not exceed $1,000.00 per mile of longitudinal use of limited access highway rights-of-way with a minimum fee of $5,000.00 per permit. If the 1-time installation permit fee does not cover the reasonable and actual costs to the department in issuing the permit, the department may assess the utility for the remaining balance. All revenue received under this subsection must be used for capital and maintenance expenses incurred for limited access highways, including the cost of issuing the permit.

    (3) If a city, village, township, county, or county road commission or the state transportation department requests or requires an entity holding a license under the Michigan telecommunications act, 1991 PA 179, MCL 484.2101 to 484.2603, or holding a franchise under the uniform video services local franchise act, 2006 PA 480, MCL 484.3301 to 484.3315, to relocate facilities, the city, village, township, county, or county road commission or the state transportation department may require the entity to obtain a permit for the relocation of the facilities but shall waive any permit fees including, but not limited to, any permit fee under subsection (2). This subsection does not apply if the request to relocate facilities was due to an entity placing facilities in a location not authorized by a current or previous permit.

    (4) A person engaged in the collection of traffic data or the provision of travel-related information or assistance may enter upon, construct, and maintain electronic devices and related structures within limited access and other highway rights-of-way in accordance with standards approved by the state transportation commission that conform to governing federal laws and regulations. The standards must require that the devices and structures be placed in a manner that will not impede traffic and will not increase maintenance costs for the state transportation department. The state transportation department may enter into agreements to authorize the use of property acquired for or designated as a highway or acquired for or designated for ancillary purposes for the installation, operation, and maintenance of commercial or noncommercial electronic devices and related structures for the collection of traffic data or to assist in providing travel-related information or assistance to motorists who subscribe to travel-related services, the public, or the department. Any revenue generated by the agreements must be deposited in the state trunk line fund established under section 11 of 1951 PA 51, MCL 247.661. The department may accept facilities or in-kind services to be used for public purposes in lieu of, or in addition to, monetary compensation.

History: 1925, Act 368, Eff. Aug. 27, 1925 ;-- CL 1929, 4053 ;-- CL 1948, 247.183 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 268, Imd. Eff. Oct. 11, 1972 ;-- Am. 1989, Act 215, Imd. Eff. Nov. 13, 1989 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 306, Imd. Eff. July 14, 1994 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 151, Imd. Eff. Apr. 8, 2002 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 103, Imd. Eff. July 22, 2005 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 450, Eff. Mar. 21, 2019 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 565, Eff. Mar. 28, 2019

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Mayor of Lansing v. Public Service Commission
Mayor of Lansing v. Public Service Commission (2004) mich · cites it 44× “With regard to the reasonableness of the project, the PSC determined that there were no equal protection violations in the route selection and found the project necessary and safe.”
S. Dearborn Envtl. Improvement Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't of Envtl. Quality (2018) mich · cites it 7× “The Legislature subsequently amended MCL 247.183 by enacting 2005 PA 103 . See, e.”
City of Lansing v. Michigan (2007) michctapp · cites it 22× “The Court determined in Lansing Mayor I that, under MCL 247.183, Wolverine was required to obtain plaintiffs consent, but did not have to obtain the consent before it could file its application with the PSC.”
Mayor of Lansing v. Public Service Commission (2003) michctapp · cites it 10× “This case presents an issue of first impression: Whether MCL 247.183, as amended in 1994, requires a petroleum-pipeline company to seek the consent of the affected local governments for the construction of a pipeline project and, if so, whether such consent should be obtained…”
Blackhawk Development Corp. v. Village of Dexter (2005) mich · cites it 2× “§ 247.183(1). However, as the dissenting Court of Appeals judge stated in this case, "the `improvements' sought by defendants do not merely affect the surface or subsurface of Dan Hoey Road," but they also affect the unimproved portion of plaintiff's property that was subject to…”
Petersen v. Magna Corp. (2009) mich · cites it 2× “[22] In that case, the Court examined MCL 247.183 to determine whether it required a company to obtain local government consent before beginning pipeline construction.”
Eyde Bros. Development Co. v. Eaton County Drain Commissioner (1986) mich · cites it 2× “It is Eyde’s claim that the Drain Code is the exclusive authority for the location and construction of drains, and thus § 13 of the general highway law, MCL 247.183; MSA 9.263, is irrelevant. While we agree that the critical issues in this case implicate the Drain Code, this…”
In Re APPLICATION OF MICHIGAN ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION CO (2014) michctapp · cites it 2× “183(2), which permits a utility to construct transmission lines “longitudinally within limited access highway rights-of-way and under any public road, street, or other subsurface that intersects any limited access highway” without obtaining the consent of the governing…”
Detroit Edison Co. v. Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority (1987) michctapp · cites it 2× “MCL 247.183 [MSA 9.263] authorizes public utilities, such as plaintiff, to enter upon, construct and maintain telegraph, telephone and power lines, and the like, upon any public road.”
Union Township v. City of Mount Pleasant (1968) mich · cites it 2× “” CL 1948, § 247.183 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev §9.263). “Li case it is proposed to construct a telegraph, telephone or power line, pipe lines, wires, cables, poles, conduits, sewers, or like structures upon, over or under a county road or bridge, the consent of the hoard of county road…”
Gunn v. Delhi Township (1968) michctapp · cites it 3× “The problem of defining such rights from cases does not have to be met, since the statute spells out the rights in question here; CL 1948, § 247.183 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 9.263) provides: “Telegraph, telephone, power and other public utility companies and municipalities are…”
Detroit Edison Co. v. Township of Richmond (1986) michctapp “See Const 1963, art 7, § 29; MCL 247.183; MSA 9.263, MCL 247.185; MSA 9.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 247.183(1) — 9 cases
S. Dearborn Envtl. Improvement Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't of Envtl. Quality (2018) mich “The Legislature subsequently amended MCL 247.183 by enacting 2005 PA 103 . See, e.”
Mayor of Lansing v. Public Service Commission (2004) mich “With regard to the reasonableness of the project, the PSC determined that there were no equal protection violations in the route selection and found the project necessary and safe.”
Blackhawk Development Corp. v. Village of Dexter (2005) mich “§ 247.183(1). However, as the dissenting Court of Appeals judge stated in this case, "the `improvements' sought by defendants do not merely affect the surface or subsurface of Dan Hoey Road," but they also affect the unimproved portion of plaintiff's property that was subject to…”
Mayor of Lansing v. Public Service Commission (2003) michctapp “This case presents an issue of first impression: Whether MCL 247.183, as amended in 1994, requires a petroleum-pipeline company to seek the consent of the affected local governments for the construction of a pipeline project and, if so, whether such consent should be obtained…”
City of Lansing v. Michigan (2007) michctapp “The Court determined in Lansing Mayor I that, under MCL 247.183, Wolverine was required to obtain plaintiffs consent, but did not have to obtain the consent before it could file its application with the PSC.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 247.183(2) — 7 cases
S. Dearborn Envtl. Improvement Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't of Envtl. Quality (2018) mich “The Legislature subsequently amended MCL 247.183 by enacting 2005 PA 103 . See, e.”
City of Lansing v. Michigan (2007) michctapp “The Court determined in Lansing Mayor I that, under MCL 247.183, Wolverine was required to obtain plaintiffs consent, but did not have to obtain the consent before it could file its application with the PSC.”
In Re APPLICATION OF MICHIGAN ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION CO (2014) michctapp “183(2), which permits a utility to construct transmission lines “longitudinally within limited access highway rights-of-way and under any public road, street, or other subsurface that intersects any limited access highway” without obtaining the consent of the governing…”
Mayor of Lansing v. Public Service Commission (2003) michctapp “This case presents an issue of first impression: Whether MCL 247.183, as amended in 1994, requires a petroleum-pipeline company to seek the consent of the affected local governments for the construction of a pipeline project and, if so, whether such consent should be obtained…”
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.