The Michigan Court of Appeals recently issued its published decision in Spaulding v Swiacki (July 2021), which posted a warning sign to public officials who might consider proceeding with a public meeting, while knowing in advance that the meeting was not properly posted on the public body’s website, in accordance with the requirements of the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”). The Court’s warning sign states, in effect, that such action could result in a public official being held personally liable for statutory damages, court costs and attorney fees, even if the meeting was otherwise conducted in substantial compliance with OMA’s notice requirements.

The United States Supreme Court recently considered the subject of governmental takings in the case of Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid, which involved a state regulation granting union organizers access to agricultural employers’ land.

A recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision issued on May 13, 2021 held that documents otherwise discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) are not generally rendered exempt merely because they provide the basis for a closed meeting under the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) or are included in the official record of the same. Accordingly, the Appeals Court decision establishes that, although the minutes and transcripts of a closed session are exempt from disclosure, various documents that may be relevant to or relied upon in the same are not necessarily exempt. As a result of this ruling, it is important to remember that absent a specific exemption under FOIA, files are ultimately disclosable.

Over the past several years, the popularity of short-term rentals has exploded, due in no small part to apps and websites such as AirBNB and VRBO, which provide a relatively effortless way for people to book short-term rentals. The quick increase in short-term rental units and the influx of their guests has presented unique challenges for municipalities to balance the interests of residents who wish to preserve the residential character of their neighborhoods on one hand, and the interests of local businesses that benefit from economic activity brought from out-of-town visitors on the other. As short-term rentals have become more and more prevalent, municipalities across Michigan have been crafting, debating, and revising their own policies to address the relevant issues on the local level. Many municipalities have amended their zoning ordinances to regulate short-term rentals in various ways, such as by prohibiting short-term rentals in certain residential districts, restricting the density or maximum number of short-term rentals that may operate in a given area, or requiring short-term rental owners to obtain special land use permits. However, two bills currently pending in the state legislature could nullify those regulations and require municipalities to treat short-term rentals no differently from other residential dwellings in the same zone.

A recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision issued on March 18, 2021 held that “persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their property against drone surveillance.”

Prior to the pandemic, the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) had been interpreted by the Courts and Attorney General to allow remote electronic participation by members of the public body, as long as those members could hear and be heard at the meeting.

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARP”) allocated significant funding to local units of government.

As a result of the voters’ approval of the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (“MRTMA”) in 2018 (commonly known as the recreational marijuana law), the marijuana business is booming in Michigan.

2020 was a rough year for many local businesses, and municipal governments may be looking for ways to make 2021 a bit more enjoyable and prosperous for their constituents.

There have been two new developments in the last week affecting the ability of local governments to continue meeting virtually into 2021.

Beginning on February 12, 2021, civil infraction and misdemeanor citation forms issued by municipalities will be required to contain certain language that was not previously included on standard citation forms.

Last month, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the Governor lacks authority to extend states of emergency in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the last week of September, and over the strong opposition of MTA and others, SB 431, a bill to eliminate oversight from local governments over mining operations in their communities, was referred favorably out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to the Senate as a whole.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) issued a new emergency order to combat the spread of Coronavirus (the “Emergency Order”).

On October 16, 2020, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed Senate Bill 1108 into law as part of a COVID-19 response plan approved by the Legislature this week following the Michigan Supreme Court’s recent ruling striking down the Governor’s Coronavirus-related executive orders. SB 1108 amends the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) to permit and establish procedures for a public body to hold meetings electronically.

On Friday evening, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion in In Re Certified Question from the U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan, holding that executive orders issued by Governor Whitmer after April 30, 2020 for purposes of addressing the COVID-19 pandemic were issued without valid legal authority.

What is Riparian Land? The body of Michigan law governing riparian property rights applies, self-evidently, only to riparian land. Therefore, the threshold question is, what constitutes riparian land? Under Michigan law, “riparian land” is defined as a parcel of land which is bounded by, or includes therein, a natural watercourse.

At the November 2018 election, the Michigan voters approved Proposal 3, which had the effect of creating a constitutional right to vote by absentee ballot, without providing a reason. As a result of the broad language appearing in this constitutional amendment, there has been a degree confusion about how to implement some of the finer details of no-reason absentee voting. Some of these issues were resolved by the Michigan Court of Appeals in the recent case of League of Women Voters of Michigan v Secretary of State, which was published on July 14, 2020.

Zoning Boards of Appeals (“ZBAs”) interpret zoning ordinances and maps, hear appeals of administrative orders and decisions, and consider variances from strict application of a zoning ordinance. In January and February of 2020, three unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals opinions were issued which offer guidance to ZBA members as they undertake their statutory duties.

On May 28, 2020, the Michigan Tax Tribunal issued a long-awaited decision in the Menard v City of Escanaba case impacting property tax valuations for big box stores.