The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 5309 June 6, 1978 MUNICIPALITIES: Rehabilitation and Industrial Development Districts Act REHABILITATION AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS ACT: Consent by municipality to loss of employment Section 9(2)(d) of the Rehabilitation and Industrial Development Districts Act, 1975 PA 198, authorizes the legislative body of a local governmental unit to give its consent to issuance of an industrial facility's exemption certificate by another community where employment is to be transferred from the first municipality to the other municipality. The legislative body of a local government unit may not, however, require the proprietor of the industrial facility to perform certain acts or make certain grants as a condition of obtaining its consent. Honorable John R. Otterbacher State Senator 32nd District The Capitol Lansing, Michigan Honorable Robert VanderLaan State Senator 31st District The Capitol Lansing, Michigan Citing section 9(2)(d) of the rehabilitation and industrial development districts act, 1975 PA 198; MCLA 207.559(2)(d); MSA 7.800(9)(d), you have requested my opinion upon the following restated question: May the legislative body of a local governmental unit, in consideration of granting its consent to allow loss of employment in its own community by virtue of the issuance of an industrial facilities exemption certificate by another community, impose conditions either in the resolution granting consent or by separate agreement? 1974 PA 198, Sec. 9, supra, provides in pertinent part: '(2) The legislative body of the local governmental unit shall not approve an application and the commission shall not grant an industrial facilities exemption certificate unless the applicant complies with all of the following requirements: (d) Completion of the facility shall not have the effect of transfer of employment from 1 or more local governmental units of the state to the local governmental unit in which the facility is to be located, except that this restriction shall not prevent the granting of a certificate if the legislative body of each local governmental unit from which employment is to be transferred consents by resolution to the granting of the certificate if the local governmental unit does not give its consent, a copy of the resolution of denial showing reasons for same shall be filed within 20 days of adoption with the department of commerce.' [Emphasis supplied] Section 9(2)(d) has been twice amended since its original enactment in 1974 PA 198. See 1975 PA 302 and 1976 PA 224. In the original enactment, a decrease in employment was not an impediment to the issuance of a certificate. See 1974 PA 198, Sec. 9(2)(d). Under the current statute, a transfer or decrease of employment is an impediment to the issuance of an exemption certificate. The legislative history of this section therefore reflects concern that a transfer of an industrial facility from one community to another should not be made without the consent of the local governmental unit suffering loss of the facility. The legislature has, therefore, given local governmental units authority to grant or withhold their consent but has not given them authority to impose conditions either precedent or subsequent. In Ridgemont Co. v City of East Detroit, 358 Mich 387; 100 NW2d 301 (1960), the Supreme Court held that, where a city refused to approve a plat unless the proprietor agreed to comply with the condition of conveying certain parcels to the city, the city had acted without statutory or other authorization and was required to convey the realty to the proprietor. In so deciding, the Court stated: 'The conclusion may not be avoided that the plat act of 1929, above cited, did not empower the defendant city to require, as a condition prerequisite to the approval of plaintiffs' plats, that the lots in question be deeded to the city. The fact that the plats were approved must be taken to indicate that no statutory ground was discovered for rejecting them. Such being the case, plaintiffs were entitled to [reconveyance]. . . .' It is therefore my opinion that the legislative body of a local governmental unit may not, by contract or resolution, condition its consent to the issuance of an industrial facilities exemption certificate. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General