Committee for Marshall-Not the Megasite v. City of Marshall
369603
Mich. Ct. App.Jun 18, 2024Background
- The City of Marshall rezoned land for the Ford BlueOval Battery Park (the "Marshall Megasite"), including appropriations within the rezoning ordinance.
- Plaintiffs, city electors opposed to the rezoning, formed the Committee for Marshall-Not the Megasite, to seek a referendum overturning the ordinance.
- The City Clerk rejected the referendum petition, citing that the ordinance contained appropriations and, under the Marshall Charter, was not subject to referendum.
- The Committee sought mandamus, declaratory, and injunctive relief, alleging violation of the City Charter and improper ordinance procedures.
- Following trial court dismissal of all Committee claims (and denial of intervention for the Michigan Economic Development Corp. and others), only the Committee appealed; the trial court's decisions and underlying charter interpretation were affirmed.
- The court also found it lacked jurisdiction to hear MEDC and MSF's cross-appeal on intervention because they were not parties and had not timely sought leave to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to Mandamus | Clerk wrongly refused referendum and certification task is ministerial | Referendum not allowed for appropriations ordinance, alternate remedy exists | No mandamus; no clear right, adequate alternate remedy |
| Appropriations by Ordinance | Charter requires appropriations by resolution only; not allowed in ordinance | Appropriations by ordinance are allowed; charter contemplates it | Charter permits appropriations by ordinance |
| Title/Single Subject of Ordinance | Ordinance improperly included appropriations, violating title-object rule | Appropriations are germane to zoning ordinance’s subject | No violation; appropriations were sufficiently related |
| Charter Notice Requirements | Public notice was insufficient and summary omitted appropriations | Notice substantially complied; appropriations not required in summary | Notice requirements satisfied, substantial compliance |
| Violation of Master 425 Agreement | Zoning change breached City’s agreement with Township | Agreement did not bar zoning change, City retains zoning power | Ordinance valid; no enforceable contractual bar |
| Intervention/Cross-appeal Jurisdiction | - | - | No jurisdiction; not timely/not parties |
Key Cases Cited
- MGM Grand Detroit v. Comm Coalition for Empowerment, Inc., 465 Mich 303 (referendum not available for ordinances containing appropriations under Detroit’s charter)
- Albright v. Portage, 188 Mich App 342 (zoning ordinances are legislative acts subject to referendum if charter allows)
- Hanlin v. Saugatuck Twp, 299 Mich App 233 (mandamus unavailable where another adequate legal remedy exists)
- Bay Co v. Hand, 257 Mich 262 (substantial compliance in notice requirements suffices for municipal actions)
- Grand Haven v. Grocer’s Co-op Dairy Co, 330 Mich 694 (municipal power to legislate is subject to state law/charter, not contract)
- Robertson v. DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732 (charter/statutory interpretation should not render provisions nugatory)