Eric D. Williams | 524 North State St | Big Rapids, MI 49307 | 616-796-8945

The legislature’s grant of jurisdiction to the Boundary Commission is plain and direct. Obviously, the grant of jurisdiction includes the authority necessarily involved “in processing and approving, denying, or revising a petition or resolution “for annexation.” Reversing the Boundary Commission’s decision will encourage townships not to enter
Act 425 agreements with cities, because the complete statutory shield against annexation will be available by way of interlocking township agreements, without the clearly identified legislative goal of contractual annexations between cities and townships. That would be a mistake of immense proportions, because it would thwart the intent of the legislature in adopting Act 425, and it would allow the filing of pro forma Act 425 agreements between townships around every city in the state as a means of barring all petitions or resolutions for annexation before the Boundary Commission. Heralding this as the ultimate intent of the legislature based on the alleged “plain language” of MCL 124.29; MSA 5.4087(29), is utter nonsense. The Boundary Commission properly exercised its jurisdiction and authority over petitions for annexation in construing MCL 124.29; MSA 5.4087(29) and applying the statute to the facts of this case, and determining the Act 425 agreements between Casco, Lenox and Columbus Townships were not an absolute bar to annexation ordered by the Boundary Commission.