Case Name: WILLIAMS TOWNSHIP v. CITY OF MIDLAND
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1980-02-05
Citations: 95 Mich. App. 239
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 78-1696, 78-1697, 78-1698
Parties: WILLIAMS TOWNSHIP v CITY OF MIDLAND
Judges: Before: M. J. Kelly, P.J., and M. F. Cavanagh and Mackenzie, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 95
Pages: 239–252

Head Matter:
WILLIAMS TOWNSHIP v CITY OF MIDLAND
Docket Nos. 78-1696, 78-1697, 78-1698.
Submitted February 14, 1979, at Lansing.
Decided February 5, 1980.
Leave to appeal applied for.
John Rapanos filed a petition with the State Boundary Commission requesting the annexation of certain territory in Williams Township to the City of Midland. Williams Township is located in Bay County. The City of Midland is located in both Bay and Midland Counties with the greater portion being situated in Midland County. The commission accepted the petition and appointed two Midland County members to the panel for consideration of the annexation petition. The commission approved the annexation. Upon a request for review of the commission findings by the Township of Williams, the matter came before the Bay County Circuit Court, Leon R. Dardas, J. The questions presented in this appeal were whether the local members of the State Boundary Commission should have been appointed from Bay County or from Midland County and whether the commission had used reasonable criteria in arriving at its order permitting annexation. Judge Dardas ordered that the decision of the commission be set aside on the grounds that board members should have been appointed from Bay County and not Midland County. The court did not reach the question of whether the commission used reasonable criteria in reaching its decision. John Rapanos, the State Boundary Commission and the City of Midland appeal. Held:
The parties’ differences stem from their conflicting interpretations of the meaning of the word "territory” as it is used in the annexation statute. The affected districts in a petition for annexation include the whole of each city or township being considered. Therefore, the county members who sit on the State Boundary Commission to vote on the question of annexation should be chosen from the county in which the greater part of the territory to be included within the adjusted boundaries lies. This is Midland County, not Bay County. On remand a determination of whether the commission used reasonable criteria in reaching its decision should be resolved.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 4] 56 Am Jur 2d, Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions §§ 55-57, 66, 67, 70 et seq.
Proper remedy or procedure for attacking legality of proceedings annexing territory to municipal corporation. 18 ALR2d 1255.
[2] 56 Am Jur 2d, Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions § 55.
[3] 73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes §§ 249, 250, 257.
[5] 56 Am Jur 2d, Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions §§ 66, 67.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Mackenzie, J., concurred separately. She states that the phrase "municipal boundary adjustment” includes the process of consolidation and incorporation as well as annexation. The total affected area is considered in both consolidation and incorporation; therefore, since the total affected area is considered for the two other forms of "municipal boundary adjustment”, the interests of consistency suggest that "territory” be interpreted to be the combined area of the city and township where the "municipal boundary adjustment” involves annexation. She concurs in holding that the annexation commission containing two Midland County members was properly constituted.
Opinion op the Court
1. Municipal Corporations — Annexation — Boundaries — State Boundary Commission — Voting Members — Statutes.
The district to be affected by a petition for annexation includes the whole of each city, village or township from which territory is to be taken or to which territory is to be annexed; therefore, where a statute provides that "if a municipal boundary adjustment involves territory lying in more than one county, the county members of the county in which the greater part of the territory to be included within the adjusted boundaries lies shall serve on and be voting members of the [boundary] commission” the plain meaning is that county members who sit on the State Boundary Commission to decide the question of annexation shall be chosen from that county which has the larger proportion of the total territory encompassed by the proposed boundaries (MCL 123.1005; MSA 5.2242[5]).
2. Municipal Corporations — Boundaries — Vested Rights — Annexation.
The Legislature is free to change city, village and township boundaries at will; no governmental authority or person has any legal right in the boundaries of such governmental units.
Concurrence by Mackenzie, J.
3. Statutes — Construction — Consideration op All Parts — General Plan and Purpose.
Judicial interpretation of a statute requires that all parts of a speciñc statutory provision, as well as the entire act, should be considered to determine the general plan and purpose of the provision involved.
4. Municipal Corporations — Annexation — Boundary Adjustments — City — Township — Voting Privileges — Construction op Statutes — Statutes.
The term "territory” in the statute providing that two members of the State Boundary Commission should be from the county in which a municipal boundary adjustment is being considered should be interpreted to include the combined area of an annexing city and a township to be annexed; therefore', for the purpose of designating commissioners to vote on possible annexation, the commissioners should come from the county containing the greater part of the combined city ahd township area where the municipal adjustment involves a city annexing a portion of a township located in a neighboring county (MCL 123.1005; MSA 5.2242[5j).
5. Municipal Corporations — Annexation.
The territory involved in an annexation includes the area of the territory to be annexed as well as the territory created as a result of the annexation.
Higgs, Higgs & Darbee, P.C. (by Michael A. Makulski), for plaintiff.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Milton I. Firestone, Craig Atchinson and Chester W. Lewis, Assistants Attorney General, for the State Boundary Commission.
Darrell W. Foell, for John A. Rapanos.
John J. Rae, for the City of Midland,
Before: M. J. Kelly, P.J., and M. F. Cavanagh and Mackenzie, JJ.

Opinion:
M. F. Cavanagh, J.
We agree with the conclusion reached by Judge Mackenzie in her concurring opinion and refer the reader to her opinion for a thorough representation of the facts. We feel it necessary, however, to employ an approach different from that of Judge Mackenzie in reaching that conclusion.
As recognized by Judge Mackenzie, the parties' differences stem from their conflicting interpretations of the meaning of the word "territory" as it is used in the sixth sentence of § 5 of the state boundary commission act. MCL 123.1001 et seq.; MSA 5.2242(1) et seq. We, too, note that the term is arguably ambiguous if the reader contemplates that it could refer to the end result, i.e., the city seeking the annexation combined with the land area to be annexed, or, simply, the land area to be annexed. However, if the Legislature intended the latter interpretation, it could have simply added to the word, "territory", the single word "sought", or the phrase, "sought to be annexed", or some such similar effective description. We are persuaded that to adopt the construction urged by the plaintiff township would be to adopt an overly narrow and constrained meaning of the term, especially in light of other statutory provisions.
Section 11a of the boundary commission act vests jurisdiction in the commission "over petitions or resolutions for annexation as provided in section 9 of Act No. 279 of the Public Acts of 1909, as amended". MCL 123.1011a; MSA 5.2242(lla). Section 9 directs, in its second sentence, that, "The district to be affected by every such proposed incorporation, consolidation or change of bounda ries shall be deemed to include the whole of each city, village or township from which territory is to be taken or to which territory is to be annexed". MCL 117.9(1); MSA 5.2088(1). Section 9 then describes: (1) how the commission shall process annexation requests according to the provisions of the boundary commission act, MCL 117.9(2); MSA 5.2088(2); (2) how approval of the annexation of an area where more than 100 persons reside is subject to a referendum under specified conditions, MCL 117.9(5); MSA 5.2088(5); and (3), that annexation of territory from a township to a home rule city must follow the provisions of § 9 so long as 1968 PA 191 is in effect. MCL 117.9(11); MSA 5.2088(11). Midland is a home rule city.
The sixth sentence of § 5 of the boundary commission act states that, "If a municipal boundary adjustment involves territory lying in more than one county, the county members of the county in which the greater part of the territory to be included within the adjusted boundaries lies shall serve on and be voting members of the commission". MCL 123.1005; MSA 5.2242(5). Two definitions included in that act are pertinent to the foregoing sentence, viz., " 'adjusted boundaries' means the total area that would be encompassed by a municipality if a municipality boundary adjustment is approved as proposed in a petition or resolution", MCL 123.1001(a); MSA 5.2242(l)(a) and " 'municipal boundary adjustment' means the annexation of territory to a city where the commission has jurisdiction over annexation proceedings". MCL 123.1001(e); MSA 5.2242(l)(e). When these definitions are substituted into the sixth sentence and one recalls the directive that the "affected districts" include the whole of each city or township being considered, the ambiguity which plaintiff propounds loses credence. The meaning of the contested sentence is plain, i.e., the county members who sit on the commission shall be chosen from that county which has the larger proportion of the total territory encompassed by the proposed boundaries. We agree with the importance of Judge Mackenzie's observation that neither county will lose any territory as a result of the annexation proceedings. Romeo Homes, Inc v Commissioner of Revenue, 361 Mich 128, 135; 105 NW2d 186 (1960). A case that concerned a nearly identical factual context and that relied upon similar language in an earlier version of the home rule cities act interpreted the statute in an analogous manner. Warren Products, Inc v Northville, 356 Mich 481; 96 NW2d 764 (1959).
The reasoning of the trial judge in setting aside the commission's order is appealing, but superfluous, since "The Legislature is free to change city, village and township boundaries at will [and] no governmental authority or person has any legal right in the boundaries of a city, village or township". Midland Twp v State Boundary Comm, 401 Mich 641, 664-674; 259 NW2d 326 (1977), lv den 435 US 1004; 98 S Ct 1873; 56 L Ed 2d 386 (1978). Rather than attempting to discern the logic behind the legislation here involved, " the judiciary ought to be especially circumspect in reviewing commission rulings and determinations". Midland Township, supra, p 674.
Therefore, the decision of the lower court is reversed and the cause remanded for determination of the remaining issue. No costs, a public question being involved.
M. J. Kelly, P.J., concurred.