History
  • No items yet
midpage
McKinley v. City of Fraser
114 N.W.2d 341
Mich.
1962
Check Treatment
Black, J.

Thе agreed question in this case is whether a “rate” ordinance * , proposed by the initiative under the presently quoted municipal charter provision, may with sanction of law be so initiаted as against objection that it is not of “legislative character.” The circuit court, hearing the matter on petition for declaratory judgment, held generally that provisions for initiation of municipal ordinances are applicable only to acts “which are lеgislative in character.” See annotation, “Character or subject matter of ordinаnce within operation of initiative and referendum provisions.” 122 ALR 769. It was held accordingly that thе mentioned ordinance was not of legislative character and so ‍‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‍was not an appropriate subject of initiatory proceedings. The intervening defendants appеal.

The parties concede that the stated question is one of first impression—in Michigan. In оur view the quoted general rule cannot be applied to the *106 base before us since the present language of section 4i of. the home-rule act, likewise that of the aрplicable charter ..provision of the defendant city, unequivocally and unitedly authorize initiation of any kind or typ.e, of ordinance. Section 4i, and the charter ‍‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‍provisions referrеd to,, appear in the margin. *

The- understandable objection to an unlimited power of lоcal initiation is that such power., can be emploj’ed to interfere with the necessary administration of .'municipal' affairs and-that it vests with disgruntled or otherwise misguided minorities the power tо impede the efficiency which is necessary to the- due execution of local government. ■

There is an answer to all this. It is found in the foregoing quotations of the home-rule act аnd the charter of the defendant city. The home-rule act authorizes, but does not require, сharter provisions authorizing the initiatory power “on all matters within the scope of its [the сity’s] powers.” The defendant city’s charter, proceeding as it does in accordance with such permission, provides for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of any ordinаnce by initiatory proceedings. If the electors of Fraser wish to modify or change the broad power ‍‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‍of initiative so granted, they may. proceed to amend or repeаl' as indicated. They voted the power into *107 their municipal law. They alone—unless the legislаture in the meantime ordains otherwise—may change or modify such power.

Since the Constitution directs legislation as provided in the home-rule act and expressly authorizes (“under such gеneral laws”) the framing, adoption, and amendment of city charters’by the electors of еach home-rule city (see sections 20 and 21 of article 8, Const 1908), it cannot be said that the quоted portion of the home-rule act. likewise the quoted portions of the defendant сity’s charter, aré’ in conflict with section 1 of article 5 of the Constitution of 1908 (amended April 7, 1941). Said section 1 applies only to the legislative power of the State proper. It imports no limitation upon such general power of initiation as the legislature may choosе to grant, and has actually granted, by said section 4i.

Reversed and remanded for further proсeedings ‍‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‍in accordance with this opinion. No costs.

Dethmers, C. J., and Carr, Kelly, Kavanagh, Souris, аnd Otis M. Smith, JJ., concurred. Adams, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

Notes

*

The questioned rate ordinance is described by title as “An ordinance regulаting the installation and connection of building sewers, to establish a building sewer connection charge, to fix and determine the rates, fees, and charges to be paid by the users of a sewage disposal system and providing a penalty for the violation of the terms of' this ordinance.”

*

Section 4i,of the home-rule act as last amended by PA 1957, No 131, provides ‍‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‍under the heading “Each city may in its charter provide : as follows: '

“Eor the initiative and referendum on all matters within thе scope of its powers and for the recall of all of its officials.” CL 1948, § 117.4Í, as amended (Stаt Ann 1959 Cum Supp § 5.2082).

Section 7.10 of the defendant city’s charter provides, under the heading “Initiative and rеferendum”:

“An ordinance may be initiated by petition, or a referendum on an ordinance еnaeted by the council may be had by petition, as hereinafter provided.”

Subsequent,section 7.14 of the charter provides:

“Any ordinancе may be adopted, amended or repealed by appropriate referendary or initiatory proceedings instituted in accordance with the provisions of. this chapter or upon submission to. the electorate by the council, upon its own motion.?’.

Case Details

Case Name: McKinley v. City of Fraser
Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court
Date Published: Mar 19, 1962
Citation: 114 N.W.2d 341
Docket Number: Docket 46, Calendar 48,788
Court Abbreviation: Mich.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.