[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]

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. 5878

April 17, 1981

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:

Const 1963, art 7, Sec. 28--joint administration of municipal functions

MUNICIPALITIES:

Urban cooperation act

Local units of government may enter into interlocal agreements with the sheriff of the county for the provision of law enforcement services to enforce ordinances of the local units, and local units of government may pay the county sheriff for services provided.

Honorable Alfred A. Sheridan

State Representative

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

You have inquired about the legality of local units of government contracting with the county sheriff's department, and paying the sheriff for providing law enforcement services in the local unit, inasmuch as a county sheriff's law enforcement duties are exercised county wide.

The authority to enter into interlocal agreements for governmental services is conferred by Const 1963, art 7, Sec. 28:

'The legislature by general law shall authorize two or more counties, townships, cities, villages or districts, or any combination thereof among other things to: enter into contractual undertakings or agreements with one another or with the state or with any combination thereof for the joint administration of any of the functions or powers which each would have the power to perform separately; share the costs and responsibilities of functions and services with one another or with the state or with any combination thereof which each would have the power to perform separately; transfer functions or responsibilities to one another or any combination thereof upon the consent of each unit involved; cooperate with one another and with state government; lend their credit to one another or any combination thereof as provided by law in connection with any authorized publicly owned undertaking.'

OAG, 1975-1976, No 4966, p 369 (April 6, 1976), discussed the countywide duties and responsibilities of county sheriffs, including the sheriffs' law enforcement activities within local units of government situated in the county. The statutory duties of the sheriff were quoted from 1919 PA 237, Sec. 7; MCLA 45.407; MSA 5.917:

'It is hereby provided that this act shall be so construed as to require the sheriff, under-sheriff and deputy sheriffs to perform all reasonable services within the jurisdiction of their offices for which the county may be liable and to serve and execute all civil writs and processes that may be reasonably served and executed by said officers under salary.'

OAG, 1975-1976, No 4966, supra, further stated:

'It follows that for purposes of law enforcement and police protection, a sheriff is obligated to enforce county ordinances and state laws throughout the county, including those areas designated as villages. This obligation embraces police protection services supplied by the county sheriff and is limited only to the sheriff's duties to 'matters for which the county may be liable." [Emphasis added.]

'However, the distribution of deputy sheriffs throughout the county remains an administrative function within the discretion of the sheriff.

A village, which desires additional police protection, has the option of entering into a contract with the county whereby the sheriff would be obligated to provide additional manpower to the village, 1967 PA 236; MCLA 123.811; MSA 5.3323(1), or by the establishment of a village police force, 1895 PA 3; MCLA 67.44; MSA 5.1328.

'Furthermore, absent a contractual agreement, the substance of village ordinances and regulations would not relate to matters for which the county would be liable, and as a consequence the responsibility for the enforcement of the same would lie with the village president, 1895 PA 3; MCLA 67.2; MSA 5.1244; the village marshall, 1895 PA 3; MCLA 67.13; MSA 5.1255; or the village police force, 1895 PA 3; MCLA 67.44; MSA 5.1328.'

As indicated in the last-quoted paragraph above, the responsibility for the enforcement of local ordinances would resist with the local unit of government, and the county sheriff would have no responsibility in such regard, unless there was a contractual agreement between the local unit and the county sheriff under which the sheriff would provide such law enforcement services.

As discussed above regarding villages, local units of government are authorized to establish their own police departments or to provide for local law enforcement. See also 1945 PA 246, Sec. 1; MCLA 41.181; MSA 5.45(1):

'The township board of a township may, at a regular or special meeting by a majority of the members elect of the township board, adopt ordinances . . . and shall enforce the same and may for that purpose employ and establish a police department with full power to enforce local township ordinances and state laws, and in the event state laws are to be enforced, a township shall have a law enforcement unit composed of not less than 1 full-time person . . . or may by resolution appropriate funds and call upon the sheriff of the county in which the township is located to provide special police protection for the township. The sheriff shall, when called upon, provide special police protection for the township and enforce all local township ordinances, to the extent that township funds are appropriated for the enforcement. Special township deputies appointed by the sheriff shall be under the jurisdiction of and solely responsible to the sheriff. . . .'

See also 1951 PA 181; MCLA 41.851 et seq; MSA 5.2640(31) et seq, an act providing for police protection in townships.

It is, therefore, my opinion that local units of government (1) do have the authority to enter into interlocal agreements with the county sheriff, inter alia, for the provision of law enforcement services in such local units or, alternatively, for such local units to provide their own law enforcement services. Inasmuch as the county sheriff does not have the responsibility of enforcing local ordinances or regulations of the local unit, in addition to the sheriff's countywide law enforcement responsibilities, the enforcement of local ordinances is provided for either by the local unit's own law enforcement agency, or by the county sheriff under a contractual agreement as discussed above.

Your second question contemplates that a local unit of government has its own law enforcement agency, and also contracts for additional law enforcement services or manpower with the county sheriff. Payment under the interlocal agreement to the county sheriff would depend upon the level of services or manpower provided by the sheriff, and the level of services performed by the local units own law enforcement agency. For example, if the local unit were to contract for additional manpower, the cost to the sheriff of providing such personnel would be provided in the interlocal agreement. Similarly, if under the interlocal agreement the sheriff provided for enforcement of local ordinances, the agreement would reflect the additional cost. Provisions of the interlocal agreements should indicate the level of services and manpower to be provided, and the cost allocated therefor, if duplication of effort and cost is to be avoided. The process is illustrated by the urban cooperation act, 1967 Ex Sess PA 7, Sec. 5; MCLA 124.505; MSA 5.4088(5), which states in pertinent part:

'A joint exercise of power pursuant to this act shall be made by contract or contracts in the form of an interlocal agreement which may provide for:

'(a) The purpose of such interlocal agreement or the power to be exercised and the method by which the purpose will be accomplished or the manner in which the power will be exercised.

'(d) The manner in which the parties to the interlocal agreement will provide for financial support from the treasuries that may be made for the purpose set forth in the interlocal agreement, payments of public funds that may be made to defray the cost of such purpose, advances of public funds that may be made for the purposes set forth in the interlocal agreements and repayment thereof, and the personnel, equipment or property of 1 or more of the parties to the agreement that may be used in lieu of other contributions or advances.

'(f) A method or formula for equitably providing for and allocating revenues and for equitably allocating and financing the capital and operating costs. . . .

'(g) The manner of employing, engaging, compensating, transferring or discharging necessary personnel, subject to the provisions of applicable civil service and merit systems.

'(q) The manner in which strict accountability of all funds shall be provided for and the manner in which reports, including an annual independent audit, of all receipts and disbursements shall be prepared and presented to each participating party to the interlocal agreement.

'(r) Any other necessary and proper matters agreed upon by the participating public agencies.'

It is my opinion, that payment for additional law enforcement services, under an interlocal agreement between a local unit of government and the county sheriff, in accordance with the provisions of the urban cooperation act, supra, would be lawful.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General

(1) A county is precluded from entering into an agreement with a charter township located in another county. OAG, 1979-1980, No. 5772, p 962 (September 5, 1980).

 


[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]