26-000850.pdf

Jeffrey Kovacik Petitioner V Township Of Harrison Respondent · 26-000850-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

RECEIVED 

SEP 02 2026 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

. 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 

MTT DOCKET NO. 26-000850-TT 

Pursuant to Tax Tribunal Rule {TTR} 281, you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., resolution 

confirming the special assessment roi) with this answer. If you do not submit this document, you may be held in defauit. 

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact information 

Unit of Government: 

Charter Township of Harrison 

Section 2: Respondent’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information 

First Name 

["EN 

Last Name 

Rosemary 

Davis 

rene 

®™ irk, Huth, Lange & Badalamenti, PLC 

Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O, Box or Rurat Route) 

19500 Hall Rd #100 

City or Town 

State 

ZiP Code 

Clinton Twp 

M 

we 

Telephone Number (586) 41 2-4900 

Email Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email) 

rdavis@kirkhuthlaw.com 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? 

If no, list all parcels that are adjoining in separate groupings. Attacha 

separate sheet if necessary. 

[v4] Yes 

(ml) No 

Oa 

Not Applicable 

Parcel Identification Number(s): 

17-12-22-103-021; 17-12-22-103-020 

Classification of Property: 

Real] 

Personal [1 (check one) 

Agricultural [3 

Commercial 

[J] 

Industriai[l}] 

Residential 

[J] 

 Timber-Cutover [1 

Developmental 

[J 

Utility 

[J (check one)

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GOVERNOR 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal 

Please see attached answer. 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

Did Petitioner protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? [¥4] Yes 

[Ine 

What was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

April 13, 2026 (Ultimately Confirmed on May 26, 2026) 

How many years is the special assessment being levied? 

What is the total amount of the special assessment being levied 

(per parcel)? 

10 

$10,500.37 

What is the basis for the special assessment? Identify the applicable statutory provision. 

Public Act 188 of 1954, MCL 41.721 et seq. 

Signature *required 

Respondent or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: 

> 

Io Army) Vile 

/ 

At gist <2 2024

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

JEFFREY KOVACIK, 

Petitioner, 

-Vs- 

MTT Docket No: 26-000850-TT 

TOWNSHIP OF HARRISON, 

Respondent. 

/ 

JEFFREY KOVACIK 

ROBERT S. HUTH, JR. (P42531) 

Petitioner 

ROSEMARY DAVIS (P47336) 

38886 Pardee Street 

KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BADALAMENTI, PLC 

Harrison Township, MI 48045 

Attorneys for Respondent 

(616) 401-1833 

19500 Hall Road, Suite 100 

kovakservices@gmail.com 

Clinton Township, MI 48038 

(586) 412-4900 

rdavis@kirkhuthlaw.com 

TOWNSHIP OF HARRISON'S ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION-SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 

The Township of Harrison (“Respondent”), by and through 

its attorneys, KIRK, 

HUTH, LANGE 

& BADALAMENTI, PLC, 

for 

its Answer to Petitioner's Property Tax 

Petition-Special Assessment states as follows: 

1. 

Respondent’s Contact Information: Township of Harrison, 38151 L'Anse 

Creuse, Harrison Township, MI 48045. 

2. 

Respondent’s 

Attorney/Authorized 

Representatives 

Contact

3. 

Subject Property Information: 

Parcel 

ID. 

No. 17-12-22-103-020" 

and 

17-12-22-103-021. 

Taxing authority: Charter Township of Harrison, Macomb County. 

4. 

Basis for Answer to Appeal: 

In accordance with the appropriate valuation 

approach, the value that accrues to the parcel because of the improvement is reasonably 

proportionate to the amount assessed to the parcel. This will be demonstrated 

in the 

valuation disclosure which will be filed 

in accordance with TTR 287. A copy of the 

Resolution confirming the Special Assessment Roll is attached as Exhibit 1. 

5. 

Jurisdiction Issues: 

Petitioner did protest the Special Assessment at the 

hearing held to confirm the Special Assessment Roll by attendance at the hearing and 

through submission of a letter received by the Township Clerk on April 13, 2026. 

The date of the hearing held to confirm the Special Assessment Roll was April 13, 

2026. The Special Assessment Roll was ultimately confirmed by Resolution No. 5 on May 

26, 2026. See Exhibit 1. 

The Special Assessment is being levied for 10 years, with the first assessment 

being due in December of 2026. 

The total amount of the Special Assessment being levied for each parcel is Ten 

Thousand Five Hundred and 37/100 ($10,500.37) Dollars. 

MCL 41.721, 

et seq. (Public Act 188 of 1954, as amended) 

is the applicable 

statutory provision.

WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests the Tax Tribunal dismiss the 

Petition and affirm the assessment. 

Respectfully submitted, 

KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BADALAMENTI, PLC 

A 

. HUTH, JR. (P42531) 

ROSEMARY DAVIS (P47336) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

19500 Hall Road, Suite 100 

Clinton Township, MI 48038 

(586) 412-4900 

Dated: August 27, 2026 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

The Township of Harrison (“Respondent”), by and through 

its attorneys, KIRK, 

HUTH, LANGE 

& BADALAMENTI, PLC, 

for 

its Affirmative Defenses 

to Petitioner's 

Property Tax Petition-Special Assessment states as follows: 

1. 

The Michigan Tax Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over Petitioner's claim 

because it is premature. MCL 205.731(a) limits the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to final decisions 

concerning special assessments; therefore, an assessment cannot be challenged before 

the roll is filed, considered, and confirmed. Carman v. Village of Northport, No. 269487, 

slip op. at 2 (Mich. Ct. App. June 12, 2007) (unpublished). After confirmation, the special 

assessment must be challenged within 30 days otherwise it becomes final and conclusive

2. 

The Michigan Tax Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over Petitioner's 

challenges to the petition and its signatures because these claims are untimely. Under 

MCL 41.725(1)(c), the sufficiency of a petition may be challenged only within 30 days 

after the township board 

adopts 

the 

resolution finding 

it valid. 

Here, Respondent 

determined that the petition and 

its signatures were sufficient on February 9, 2026, 

through Resolution No. 

1 and 2, but Petitioner did not file until May 11, 2026 —- over three 

months later. 

TOWNSHIP OF HARRISON'S ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS 

1. 

Response to Paragraph 1: Respondent denies the allegations contained 

therein because they are untrue. 

First, Petitioner wrongfully claims that the parcel-count changes rendered the 

petition insufficient. MCL 41.724(3) permits a township to amend the proposed district 

during the formation process, and MCL 41.726(2) allows the township to amend or correct 

the assessment roll. Further, MCL 41.724(4) only requires additional notice when property 

is added. Here, Respondent properly reduced the count from 131 to 128 by removing 

parcels that would receive no benefit. This correction did not add any property to the 

district so additional notice was unnecessary. 

Second, Petitioner incorrectly argues that the petition required support from 51% 

of affected property owners and 51% 

of canal frontage. 

For canal dredging, MCL 

41.722(1)(n) and 41.723(3)(a) require support from 50% of the final district's total land

Third, Petitioner incorrectly argues that the petition was circulated for an excessive 

period. Neither Public Act 188 of 1954 nor Harrison Township's ordinances limit how long 

a petition may be circulated. 

Fourth, Petitioner incorrectly alleges that residents were coerced and harassed 

into signing the 

petition. “Special assessments are presumed 

to be valid. Thus, 

to 

effectively challenge special assessments, plaintiffs, at a minimum, must present credible 

evidence to rebut the presumption that the assessments are valid.” Kadzban v. City of 

Grandville, 442 Mich. 4985, 505 (1993) citing Axtell v. City of Portage, 32 Mich. App. 491, 

497 (1971) and Johnson v. Secretary of State, 406 Mich. 420, 441 (1979). Here, Petitioner 

offers only vague allegations, and no credible evidence, of coercion and harassment. 

Notably, 

the 

petition 

was 

privately 

circulated 

as 

a 

citizen-initiated 

action, 

and 

Respondent's communications were limited 

to hearing 

notice and 

project updates. 

Respondent also offered assessment 

relief to properties hosting sediment bags 

or 

equipment to offset resident's costs, not to pressure them into signing the petition. 

1.2. 

Response to Paragraph 1.2: Respondent denies the allegations contained 

therein because they are untrue. 

Petitioner incorrectly argues that Respondent could not proceed because neither 

the petition nor Respondent's resolution expressly stated the district's total land area. 

MCL 41.723(3)(a) requires petition signatories to represent more than 50% of the final 

district's total qualifying land area but there is no provision requiring the calculations to

1.3. 

Response to Paragraph 1.3: Respondent denies the allegations contained 

therein because they are untrue. 

First, Petitioner repeats their previous misconstrued argument that decreasing 

properties from 131 to 128 was improper. Again, MCL 41.724(3) permits a township to 

amend the proposed district during the formation process, and MCL 41.726(2) allows the 

township to amend or correct the assessment roll. Further, MCL 41.724(4) only requires 

additional notice when property is added. 

Second, Petitioner incorrectly asserts that the price change from $10,179.75 to 

$10,500.37 was improper. Again, MCL 41.724(3) permits a township to amend the cost 

of the proposed district during the formation process. Likewise, MCL 41.725(1)(b) enables 

the township to adopt amended or changed cost estimates. Here, Respondent rightfully 

required an unsubstantial price increase because properties were removed during the 

formation process. 

2. 

Response to Paragraph 2: Respondent denies the allegations contained 

therein because they are untrue. 

Petitioner 

incorrectly contends 

that 

the 

uniform 

per-parcel assessment was 

disproportionate and should have been allocated according to canal frontage. Michigan 

law does not require “a rigid dollar-for-dollar balance between the amount of the special 

assessment and the amount of the benefit.” Kadzban, 442 Mich. at 502 citing Dixon Rd. 

Group v. Novi, 426 Mich. 390, 402-03 (1986). Rather, the assessment is presumed valid,

Mich. at 403. Equal per-parcel assessments have been upheld. See Deward v. City of 

Farmington Hills, No. 337608, slip op. (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2018) (per curiam). 

Petitioner has presented 

no appraisal, valuation evidence, 

or parcel-specific 

analysis showing that his assessment substantially exceeds the benefit accruing to his 

property. 

Instead, 

he advocates 

a frontage-based calculation even though Act 188 

measurers the required support for canal-dredging by the district's total area — not canal 

frontage. In fact, there is a proportionate benefit because each of these properties are 

similarly situated along the same canal system, which has not been dredged since its 

creation. This district would provide each parcel with essentially the same benefits: 

removing accumulated sediment, restoring navigable depth preserving boat and dock 

access, maintaining the waterfront's usability, preventing the progressive loss of canal 

access, and enhancing the property's utility, marketability, and value. Moreover, each of 

the parcels are relatively the same size and were given the opportunity to reduce their 

costs by hosting equipment and/or sediment bags. 

3. 

Response to Paragraph 3: Respondent denies the allegations contained 

therein because they are untrue. 

Petitioner incorrectly argues that dredging confers no special benefit because 

smaller boats can still navigate the canals. This speculative concern does not constitute 

credible evidence sufficient to rebut the assessment’s presumed validity. Kadzban, 442 

Mich. at 505. There is a proportional benefit because dredging will remove accumulated

4. 

Response to Paragraph 4: Respondent denies the allegations contained 

therein because they are untrue. 

Petitioner incorrectly contends that the district is invalid because dredging may 

affect structural 

integrity, 

provide 

only temporary 

relief, 

and 

coincide with 

natural 

fluctuations in lake levels. These speculative concerns do not constitute credible evidence 

sufficient to rebut the assessment’s presumed validity. Kadzban, 442 Mich. at 505. The 

project does not have any integrity risks because it only involves removing sediment and 

will not alter the underlying hardpan. Because the canals have not been dredged since 

their creation, removing the accumulated sediment is a reasonable means of providing 

routine maintenance. 

5. 

Response to Paragraph 5: Respondent denies the allegations contained 

therein because they are untrue. 

Petitioner incorrectly claims that there has been a lack of planning for the district. 

These speculative concerns do not constitute credible evidence sufficient to rebut the 

assessment’s presumed validity. Kadzban, 442 Mich. at 505. Likewise, Act 188 does not 

impose any specific engineer planning or bidding process. Respondent contracted with 

Aquatic Hydraulic Dredging, 

LLC 

to create 

a proposal. Respondent chose Aquatic 

Hydraulic Dredging because the district was created based on a citizen-initiated petition, 

and this was who the citizens wanted to perform the work. Any additional projections or 

testing was unrequired because this 

is a low-intensive sediment removal that will not

Petitioner incorrectly claims that storing sediment bags in Aune Park is improper. 

These speculative concerns do not constitute credible evidence sufficient to rebut the 

assessment’s presumed validity. Kadzban, 442 Mich. 

at 505. Aune Park 

is the only 

property owned by Respondent capable of storing these bags and there has been no 

indication that they will damage the community, environment, or local infrastructure. 

WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests the Tax Tribunal dismiss the 

Petition and award the Respondent its costs and attorney fees. 

Respectfully submitted, 

KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BADALAMENTI, PLC 

OBERT 

$7HUTH, JR. (P42531) 

ROSEMARY 

DAVIS (P47336) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

19500 Hall Road, Suite 100 

Clinton Township, MI 48038 

(586) 412-4900 

Dated: August 27, 2026

Exhibit 1

ARCHER, LAKESHORE AND PARDEE CANAL PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 

DISTRICT 

FOR ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT AND AQUATIC WEEDS REMOVAL 

RESOLUTION NO. 5 

At a regular meeting of the Township Board of the Charter Township of Harrison, County of 

Macomb, held on the 26 day of May, 2026 at Rosso Memorial Hall, 38255 L'Anse Creuse Road, 

in said Township at 7:00 p.m. 

PRESENT: 

Verkest, Wit, Tomenello, Batkins, Bratto, Olgiati, Rabaut 

EXCUSED: 

None 

The following preamble and resolution were offered Treasurer Tomenello and second by Trustee 

Bratto. 

WHEREAS, the Township Board of the Charter Township of Harrison, Macomb County, 

Michigan, after due and legal notice, reviewed a Special Assessment Roll prepared for the purpose 

of defraying the cost of the following described construction project declared to be a necessary 

and desirable project: 

There are 128 lots in the district. The proposed project consists of removing an average of 2 

to 3-feet of organic sediment from lake canals that measures 4,860 linear feet long. Lots that 

host dredging equipment or pipeline access to sediment bag location at Aune Park will not 

be charged for the cost of work. Lots that host sediment bags will not be charged for the cost 

of the work. 

and 

WHEREAS, the Township Board deems said Special Assessment Roll to be fair and equitable as 

reported to it by the Clerk; and 

WHEREAS, after due and legal notice, the Township Board met on April 13, 2026 for a second 

time and heard all persons interested in the Special Assessment Roll with respect to the proposed 

Special Assessment District and proposed project plan, including all objections thereto. 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 

1. The Special Assessment Roll shall be designated as "Special Assessment No.231." 

2. Special Assessment Roll No. 231, in the amount of One Million Three Hundred Thirty-three 

Thousand Five hundred Forty-seven dollars and Three cents ($1,333,547.03) estimated prepared

4. That the installments of Special Assessment Roll No. 231shall bear interest at an estimated rate 

of five percent (5%) per annum. 

The interest on the special assessment roll shall be payable 

annually on each instaliment due date, the calculation of which interest shall commence on July 1, 

2026. 

5. The assessments set forth in the Special Assessment Roll are hereby ordered and directed to be 

collected and the Township Clerk shall deliver the Special Assessment Roll to the Township 

Treasurer with his warrant attached commanding the Treasurer to collect the assessments in 

accordance with the directions of the Township Board. 

With respect thereto, the Treasurer is 

directed to collect the amount assessed as the assessment becomes due. 

6. The Assessments for each parcel may be prepaid until June 24, 2026. 

Motion by Treasurer Tomenello and second by Trustee Bratto to adopt Resolution No. 5 for 

the Archer, Lakeshore and Pardee Canals Sediment and Aquatic Weeds removal Special 

Assessment District as presented. 

ROLL CALL: 

AYES: 

Verkest, Wit, Tomenello, Batkins, Bratto, Olgiati, 

Rabaut 

NAYS: 

None 

EXCUSED: 

None 

RESOLUTION ADOPTED 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Adam Wit, Clerk of the Charter Township of Harrison, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true 

and correct copy of a Resolution adopted by the Charter Township of Harrison Board of Trustees at its 

yn A on May 26, 2026. 

AVE Clerk

id 

KIRKIHUTHILANGE 

¢BADALAMENTIZ 

ATTORNINS 

AT TAW 

ROBERT 

W. KIRK * 

FLORIDA OFFICE 

ROBERT S. HUTH, JR. 

4933 TAMIANI TRAIL N. 

CRAIG W, LANGE 

RAECHEL M. BADALAMENTI 

19500 HALL ROAD 

SUITE 203 

ROSEMARY V. DAVIS 

SUITE 100 

NAPLES, FL 34103 

PATRICK S. MCKAY 

CLINTON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN 48038 

ELIZABETH P. MORRIS 

§ 

CHAD L. RIDDLE 

(586) 412-4900 

JOSEPH B. URBAN 

. 

MITCHELL W. PAQUETTE 

www.KirkHuthLaw.com 

RYAN M. LANXTON 

WRITER'S E-MAIL: 

vis@kirkhuthlaw.com 

Of Counsel: 

FACSIMILE: (586) 412-4949 

JOHN E. FITZGERALD 

“Also Member of Florida Bar 

August 27, 2026 

Dept. of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

RE: 

Jeffrey Kovacik v. Charter Township of Harrison 

MTT Docket No. 26-000850-TT — Small Claims 

Dear Clerk: 

Enclosed 

for filing please find Respondent’s Answer to Petitioner’s Property Tax Appeal 

Petition — Special Assessment and Affirmative Defenses regarding the above-referenced matter. 

Please contact my office if you have any questions. 

Very truly yours, 

KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BADALAMENTI, PLC 

Rocemary 

VY. Davie 

Rosemary V. Davis 

[caw 

Enclosure

mmmint 

LAW OFFICES

KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BA

19500 Hall Rd., St

CLINTON TWP., MICHI

(586) 412-49

Dept. of Licensing &

Michigan Tax Tribun

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909

← View full record