24-003600 POJ.pdf
Kap-Land LLC, Petitioner V Township Of Richland, Respondent · 24-003600-TT
Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760 PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906 Katharine Boudeman, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003600 Richland Township, Case Type: Special Assessment Respondent. PROPOSED OPINION AND JUDGMENT PROPOSED ORDER CORRECTING DOCKET Personnel Presiding: Sean M. Mulchay, Administrative Law Judge Location of Hearing: Telephonic Hearing Hearing Held on: August 26, 2025 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: Katharine Boudeman Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Robert Thall PROPOSED JUDGMENT The special assessment at issue shall be as follows: Parcel Number: 03-02-176-013 Type of Special Assessment Total Amount to be Levied Road Paving $5,511.64 PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner protested the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll. The hearing was held on June 18, 2024. The special assessment roll was confirmed at the hearing. Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on June 28, 2024, and Respondent filed an answer on December 2, 2024. ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW The issue in this matter is as follows:
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003600 Page 2 of 9 1. Whether the benefit from the special assessment is proportional to the cost of the improvement. The Michigan Supreme Court has held: A special assessment is a levy upon property within a specified district. Although it resembles a tax, a special assessment is not a tax. In contrast to a tax, a special assessment is imposed to defray the costs of specific local improvements, rather than to raise revenue for general governmental purposes . . . . In other words, a special assessment can be seen as remunerative; it is a specific levy designed to recover the costs of improvements that confer local and peculiar benefits upon property within a defined area.1 Special assessments “are permissible only when the improvements result in an increase in the value of the land specially assessed,”2 and to be valid “‘there must be some proportionality between the amount of the special assessment and the benefits derived therefrom.’”3 The Court of Appeals has held that “[t]he essential question is not whether there was any change in market value, but rather whether the market value of the assessed property was increased as a result of the improvement.”4 Further, Common sense dictates that in order to determine whether the market value of an assessed property has been increased as a result of an improvement, the relevant comparison is not between the market value of the assessed property after the improvement and the market value of the assessed property before the improvement, but rather it is between the market value of the assessed property with the improvement and the market value of the assessed property without the improvement.5 It is well settled, however, that municipal decisions regarding special assessments are presumed valid and should generally be upheld.6 When reviewing the validity of special assessments, it is not the task of courts to determine whether there is ‘a rigid dollar-for-dollar balance between the amount of the special assessment and the amount of the benefit . . . .’ Rather, a special assessment will be declared invalid only when the party challenging the assessment demonstrates that ‘there is a substantial or unreasonable disproportionality between the amount assessed and the value which accrues to the land as a result of the improvements.’7 1Kadzban v Grandville, 442 Mich 495, 500; 502 NW2d 299 (1993) (citations omitted). 2 Id. at 501. 3 Id. at 501-502. 4 Ahearn v Bloomfield Charter Twp, 235 Mich App 486, 496; 597 NW2d 858, 863 (1999). 5 Id. 6 Id. at 502 7 Id.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003600 Page 3 of 9 “[T]he question whether and how much the value of land has increased as the result of certain improvements is factual, to be determined on the basis of evidence presented by the parties. As such, it is to be resolved by the trier of fact . . . .”8 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE A. Petitioner’s Evidence Petitioner contends that the Special Assessment is invalid and should be reduced as follows: Type of Special Assessment Petitioner’s Contention Road Paving $0 The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1 and 13 of the docket maintained in this case.9 No evidence was excluded. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that the parcel does not receive a “direct and unique benefit” from the project, the property will not be enhanced by the road improvement, and the project will not impact or increase the market value of the land. All of these items are requirements that must be met in order for a special assessment to withstand scrutiny. The parcel is a vacant, forty-five-acre parcel with no buildings, located adjacent to Sterling Avenue. The property was purchased in 2002 as farmland and has remained in its natural state ever since. The property will be placed into a conservation easement either during Petitioner’s lifetime or upon Petitioner’s death in their estate plan to prevent future development and to maintain a nature preserve in perpetuity. The decision by the township board members to include this parcel in the special assessment district was discretionary and not mandatory. In effect, this parcel does not legally have to be included in the special assessment district. The special assessment of $5,511.64 is equal to 213% of the 2024 real estate taxes for the subject property and is equal to 7.04% of the 2024 state equalized value (SEV). Petitioner argues that this amount is a substantial, unreasonable and disproportionate amount given the overall special assessment and the value of the subject property. Access to this parcel is through M- 43 Highway, and the subject property does not rely on Sterling Avenue for daily access. At the hearing, Petitioner testified that she owns forty-five acres of vacant land, adjacent to the Tanglewood Hills neighborhood plat. The plat, which has approximately twenty- nine parcels, also contains a private road named Sterling Avenue that leads to the M-43 highway. The neighborhood wanted to repave Sterling Avenue and the neighborhood worked with the Township in order to ensure everyone was paying their fair share of the 8 Id. at 502-503. 9 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case.
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 24-003600 Page 4 of 9 cost. Respondent included the subject property in the special assessment district because the property is located at the end of the dead-end road. Petitioner’s primary residence is in the neighborhood, and she is not seeking to appeal the special assessment for that parcel. In contrast, the subject property is vacant and without buildings, located adjacent to the neighborhood. Petitioner purchased the subject property in 2002 because the property was near her home, and she wanted to keep it in its natural state. Petitioner is a conservationist and has continued to keep the subject property in its natural state since she acquired it. The parcel is not located in the neighborhood and is not associated with the private road. Primary access to the subject property is via M-43 and not Sterling Avenue. There is no access point to the subject property off of Sterling Avenue, and any type of vehicle attempting to access the subject property would be through M-43. Petitioner’s Exhibit E-4 compares the two properties owned by Petitioner and notes that the special assessment is more than double (213%) of the actual taxes for the subject property. For Petitioner’s other property impacted by the special assessment, the assessment amount was only 46% of the actual taxes for that property. As a result, Petitioner claims that this is an unfair financial burden given that Petitioner is not receiving a direct or unique benefit from the road paving. The paving of Sterling Avenue will not benefit the subject property; instead, Petitioner is being penalized as they do not use Sterling Avenue for any purpose. Although the neighborhood utilized the special assessment process, Petitioner believes that, as a landowner, the neighborhood would not have otherwise come to Petitioner to request financial participation in the repaving project. While the board was within their legal discretion to include the subject property in the special assessment district, this was not a mandatory decision, and Petitioner’s property could have been excluded given its location relative to Sterling Avenue and the neighborhood as a whole. Finally, no consideration was given to the fact that the subject property and Petitioner’s primary residence are contiguous, and Petitioner would only have had to pay the special assessment as if only one parcel was within the district. On rebuttal, Petitioner testified that Kap-Land LLC is the president and sole owner of the LLC. Petitioner testified that she is the only member of the Kap-Land LLC. Petitioner notes that her address is listed as Kap-Land LLC’s address. While there is a grass trail to access the property, Petitioner does not use vehicles on the subject property. Rather than speculating as to what Petitioner could do with the property, Petitioner cites her ownership of the property and the fact that it has remained in its natural state for more than 20 years. The other parcel within Tanglewood Hills with its address on M-43 highway does not have access to Sterling Avenue. B. Respondent’s Evidence Respondent contends that the Special Assessment is lawful and should be upheld as follows:
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 24-003600 Page 5 of 9 Type of Special Assessment Total Special Assessment Levied Road Paving $5,511.64 The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on lines 6 and 11 of the docket maintained in this case.10 No evidence was excluded. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends that the subject property has access off of Sterling Avenue. Respondent created a special assessment district pursuant to the provisions of Public Act 188 of 1954, as amended, for the purposes of funding the road improvements, as well as repairs and maintenance on Sterling Avenue. The subject property was included in the district due to the fact that it has frontage on Sterling Avenue, along with the other properties that have frontage on Sterling Avenue. Respondent followed the proper procedure to establish the special assessment and approved the special assessment roll on June 18, 2024. Respondent acted within its lawful discretion setting the special assessment roll and assessment on the subject parcel. The special assessment amount is the relative portion of the whole sum to be levied against all parcels of land in the special assessment district, as the benefit to the parcel of land bears to the total benefit of all parcels in the special assessment district. The subject property receives a special benefit different from owners of the public in general because it has access and frontage off of Sterling Avenue. At the hearing, Respondent claimed that the special assessment was set up under Public Act 188 of 1954 for road improvements. Each parcel with frontage on Sterling Avenue was part of the special assessment district, including the subject property. The special assessment was limited to the costs of the project, with the costs spread equally among the parcels within the district. The special assessment amount of $5,511.64 was payable in full or could be paid over 15 years with 5% interest. Respondent’s representative pointed out that MCL 205.735a provides that an appeal can only be taken by a party-in-interest. The subject property is owned by Kap-Land LLC. The deed submitted by Respondent indicates that the subject property was transferred from Petitioner to Kap-Land LLC in 2009, and there is no evidence that Petitioner is a party-in-interest. Petitioner has not offered any documentation that Petitioner is obligated to pay the special assessment. In terms of the substance of Petitioner’s appeal, Respondent argued that, in order to be valid, there must be a reasonable proportionality between the amount of the special assessment and the value of the benefit.11 Citing Kazban v Grandville,12 Respondent claimed that special assessments are presumed valid and should be generally upheld. 10 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case. 11 Dixon Road Group v City of Novi, 426 Mich 390; 395 NW2d 211 (1986) 12 Kadzban v City of Grandville, 442 Mich 495; 502 NW2d 299 (1993).
Page 6
MTT Docket No. 24-003600 Page 6 of 9 Respondent articulated that it is a well-settled principle that municipal decisions regarding special assessments are presumed to be valid, and that the decisions of municipal officers regarding special assessments generally should be upheld. When reviewing the validity of special assessments, it is not the task of courts to determine whether there is a rigid dollar-for-dollar balance between the amount of the special assessment and the amount of the benefit. Rather, a special assessment will be declared invalid only when the party challenging the assessment demonstrates that there is a substantial or unreasonable disproportionality between the amount assessed and the value which accrues to the land as a result of the improvements. Consideration must be made regarding the value of the land with the special assessment and without the special assessment. Here, Petitioner has not submitted any valuation evidence of the subject property with or without the improvements. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to meet their burden of proof. The special assessment district felt strongly that all parcels with frontage on Sterling Avenue should be included in the district. Each parcel would benefit equally, at least in proportion to the cost of the project. Equal assessment was spread on all parcels within the district, whether vacant or improved. The Township believed this to be the most equitable manner in spreading the cost of the project. The subject property has frontage on Sterling Avenue, a private road, and has equal access as all other parcels in the district. While there may be other ways to calculate the benefit, the Michigan Supreme Court does not require a dollar-for-dollar formula. This is the method that was chosen by the Township and Petitioner has not submitted any evidence to rebut the Township’s determination. In terms of Petitioner’s arguments, specifically Petitioner’s claim that the property is not part of the plat, Respondent points to the legal description within the quit claim deed from 2009 which includes the following description for the subject property: the West 20 feet of Lot 33 of Tanglewood Hills. As such, Respondent asserts that the parcel is part of the plat pursuant to its own legal description. Second, the subject property does have direct access to Sterling Avenue. There is a two-tract road between the subject property and private road that can be used for access to the subject property. Photographs submitted in this case demonstrate that this path exists and allows access to the property from Sterling Avenue. Although Respondent could not speculate as to the degree, it was clear to Respondent that Sterling Avenue was used to access the subject property. Regardless of whether the property is in the plat, the subject property uses and benefits from Sterling Avenue access. Third, nothing currently prevents the property from being used for residential purposes. The Township’s zoning ordinance allows for a home to be built on the subject property, and the property is not currently in a conservation easement. Development of these forty-five acres is possible, and Petitioner’s future plans are merely speculative in nature. While the property may have an address on M-43, it still has access and frontage on Sterling Avenue. There is another property within the plat that is addressed on M-43 and that property was also included in the special assessment district. The district was not established based on address; rather it was based on frontage and ability to use Sterling Avenue.
Page 7
MTT Docket No. 24-003600 Page 7 of 9 The calculation employed by Petitioner in comparing the percentage of special assessment to property taxes or SEV is not an appropriate measurement of benefit. The proper analysis is the increase in value to the property, with and without the project. Further, the SEV and tax liability analysis only takes into account the subject property, and other properties within the district may have different percentages, which may be less. In closing, Respondent’s representative argued that is not the subjective value to Petitioner, but the objective value of the property with the improvements, which is determinative in this case. FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence, based upon the pleadings, the exhibits and the testimony: 1. The subject property is located at M-43 Highway in Kalamazoo County. 2. The special assessment at issue in this appeal was imposed under PA 188 of 1954, MCL 41.721 et seq. 3. The special assessment is levied for 15 years. 4. The total amount of the special assessment is $5,511.64. 5. The improvements proposed by the special assessment consist of the repaving of Sterling Avenue. 6. Neither party provided documentary evidence of value for the parcels at issue, such as an appraisal or land sales study. 7. Similarly, neither Petitioner nor Respondent submitted valuation evidence demonstrating the subject’s value with and without the private road improvement. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: As a preliminary matter, Respondent asserted at the hearing that the subject property is owned by Kap-Land LLC and not Petitioner. In support, Respondent submitted a 2009 quit claim deed indicating Petitioner transferred the subject property to Kap-Land LLC. However, during the hearing Petitioner credibly testified that she paid the special assessment and that she owned Kap-Land LLC. While the Tribunal notes that the petition in this matter was filed in the name of Katharine Boudeman, but on behalf of Kap-Land LLC, the owner and party-in-interest of the property at issue.13 Kap-Land LLC is the proper petitioner in this matter, and the docket should be corrected to reflect the same. The noted error is appropriately corrected under the misnomer doctrine.14 13 The Michigan Court of Appeals has held that “a ‘party in interest’ . . . includes persons or entities with a property interest in the property being assessed.” Spartan Stores, Inc v City of Grand Rapids, 307 Mich App 565, 567 (2014). 14 See Vanco 1 LLC v Grand Rapids, unpublished opinion per curiam of the court of appeal, issued November 18, 2014 (Docket no. 317305).
Page 8
MTT Docket No. 24-003600 Page 8 of 9 In terms of the merits of Petitioner’s appeal, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner has not met their burden of proof to show any error in the formation of the assessment district or any disproportionality between the amount levied and the benefit derived. Although Petitioner argued that the subject should not have been included in the special assessment district, Petitioner did not present any evidence or testimony that the formation of the special assessment district was improper, or any arguments sufficient to invalidate the special assessment district. Respondent provided a copy of Resolution 24-06-15 establishing the Sterling Avenue improvement special assessment district. At the hearing held in this appeal, Petitioner did not offer any evidence or testimony that they were not advised of the district’s formation, that Petitioner was not properly notified of the special assessment district’s formation, or of Respondent’s intention to place the property into a special assessment district.15 In terms of valuation, as pointed out by Respondent, Petitioner did not provide any valuation information showing that the amount of the assessment was disproportional to the benefit derived.16 During the hearing, Petitioner’s testimony focused on her belief that the subject property should not be included within the district, and the fact that the special assessment was disproportionate to the amount of taxes levied on the subject property. However, Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient information or detail that would allow the Tribunal to compare the value of the property with and without the improvement. Furthermore, the Tribunal finds that the improvement at issue in this case included the surfacing of a private road that abuts the subject property and, that the improvements offer some benefit to the property, even if neither party provided an exact amount of value increase. As such, the assessment is upheld because Petitioner has not demonstrated an error in the formation of the district or the benefit derived from the amount assessed. IT IS ORDERED that the docket shall be corrected to reflect Kap-Land LLC as Petitioner in this matter. JUDGMENT This is a proposed decision and not a final decision. As such, no action should be taken based on this decision. After the expiration of the time period for the opposing party to file a response to the exceptions, the Tribunal will review the case file, including the Proposed Opinion and Judgment (POJ) and all exceptions and responses, if any, and: a. Issue a Final Opinion and Judgment (FOJ) adopting the POJ as a Final Decision; b. Issue an FOJ modifying the POJ and adopting the Modified POJ as a Final Decision; or 15 MCL 41.724(4). 16 See Kadzban, supra.
Page 9
MTT Docket No. 24-003600 Page 9 of 9 c. Issue an Order vacating the POJ and ordering a rehearing or such other action as is necessary and appropriate. EXCEPTIONS The parties have 20 days from the “Entered” date below to notify the Tribunal in writing, by mail or by electronic filing, if they do not agree with the POJ and to state in writing why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., file exceptions to the POJ). Exceptions must be signed and are limited to the evidence submitted prior to or at the hearing and any matter addressed in the POJ. There is no fee for filing exceptions. Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their exceptions and file proof of service with the Tribunal (i.e., submit a written statement indicating that the opposing party has been provided or “served” with a copy of the exceptions). Service on the opposing party can be made by mail, or if agreed to by the parties, by electronic service (i.e., email). The proof of service must be signed. The opposing party has 14 days from the date the exceptions are served on that party to file a written response with the Tribunal. Responses to exceptions must be signed. Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their response to the exceptions and file a signed proof of service with the Tribunal. If the parties fail to sign their exceptions or responses, or if they fail to submit a signed proof of service for the exceptions and/or responses, the Tribunal may not consider the exceptions or responses in issuing the FOJ. By _________________________________ Entered: October 9, 2025 PROOF OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized representatives. By: Tribunal Clerk