MITATPetitionSAFormInit.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.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 

 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer Type:

Individual 

Local Unit of Government:

First Name

Jeffrey

M.I.

Last Name/Company Name

Kovacik

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

38886 Pardee Street

City or Town

Harrison Township

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48045

Telephone Number

(616)401-1833

E-mail Address

kovakservices@gmail.com

 

 

Section 3: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you appealing?

2

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? *If no, you must file separate 

appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel.

 Yes

Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) (If multiple, list first property’s address)

38886 Pardee Street

Harrison Twp.

Michigan

48045

Parcel Identification Number(s):

17-12-22-103-021 & 17-12-22-103-020

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Harrison (MACOMB)

County 

Macomb

 

Section 4: Explain the Reason for this Appeal

Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 277(3), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (e.g. a copy of the resolution confirming the 

special assessment roll) with this Small Claims Petition, if applicable. If you do not submit this document, you may be held in default.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

RE: Written Reason for Appeal to proposed Huron Pointe canal dredging Special Assessment District (SAD). 

Hearing Date: April 13th, 2026

Property Owner(s): Jeffrey J. Kovacik & Cindy L. Kovacik 

Property Owner(s) Address: 38886 Pardee Street Harrison Twp., MI. 48045

Parcel Identification Number(s): 17-12-22-103-020 & 17-12-22-103-021

We object to this assessment based on the following concerns and invalidity of the project:

1.

Note: The below Procedural Errors regarding an Invalid Petition was submitted during the first meeting in March. I am leaving this section in our 

appeal as we do not believe the board should have proceeded with township hearings without resorting back to the point of error in the procedure which would 

have been redoing the petition which did not have 51% of the lot votes at the time of the meeting. Instead, the board dropped (3) properties off the project and 

later informed us that (2) properties had combined lots and (3) properties, (in question of both owners having did not sign the petition) were a matter of a death 

of one of the owners. So, on the fly, it was determined the board could change the number of properties, the amount of property footage and the overall scope 

of the project. Following the prior errors, we are submitting new errors in the petition procedure that once again should result in the board tabling or not moving 

forward with this project until the errors are corrected. 

Prior errors from March 9th meeting: Procedural Errors / Invalid Petition: 

After reviewing the petition that was circulated to property owners, we are submitting an analysis of the petition, coupled with property canal frontage 

information which shows that the petition did not meet the criteria of achieving 51% of both property owners affected nor the 51% of canal frontage outlined 

and necessary to proceed with this S.A.D. approval. 

In addition, we are questioning the methods of the Township and the protocol that surrounds petitions for Special Assessment District projects. Nowhere in our 

research have we been able to find the length of time allotted to the parties conducting these petitions to complete the process. Our research has shown many 

surrounding Townships and Cities which typically allow a maximum of 30 days to complete said process. This particular petition has been circulating from October 

of 2025 through February of 2026. This in our opinion seems excessive and has created a concerning consequence as a result. We personally experienced and 

talked with other neighbors that had experienced the same, of petitioners that harassed and attempted to coerce property owners into signing the petition. On a 

personal level we were contacted via phone and in-person, more than half a dozen times asking us to sign. Despite our answer consistently being “No”. We were 

also told that if we did not sign the petition, it was likely that our vacant lot, that was proposed in the project, to be utilized for equipment storage and would not 

be assessed the project costs, would no longer be eligible for being excluded. It has since been confirmed by Harrison Twp. Clerk Adam Witt, on Friday 5/8/2026 

that our vacant lot would not be utilized for project equipment storage and any discount to assessment on that property was off the table. This was simply 

coercion tactic as they knew we could potentially be charged double if we did not comply. We are not the only property owners that experienced constant 

pestering and coercion tactics. We believe there are senior citizens and others that were hoodwinked into signing.

The time frames given to the 90-day petition as it relates to the 10-day response time given to property owners to object to the letter that was sent out to 

property owners, notifying them of the meeting to move forward on March 9th seems very unfair and inconsistent. 

It would be in the best interest of all parties involved that confirmation of sufficiency regarding the petition is conducted.

Current errors:

1.2.

Procedural Errors / Invalid Petition: After further investigation into protocol for Special Assessment Districts in Michigan, we would like to site errors 

in the petition process as they relate to MCL 41.723 Written objections; petition; filing; signatures; determining record owners; determining sufficiency of 

petition; supplement to petition; validity of signatures.. 

 This is a Public Improvements (Excerpt) from Act 188 of 1954 –

Sec. 3.

 

(1) The township board may proceed to carry out an improvement as provided in this act

unless written objections to the improvement are filed with the township board at or before the

hearing provided in section 4 by property owners as follows:

 (a) For an improvement under section 2(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (l), (n), or (o) by

the record owners of land constituting more than 20% of the total land area in the proposed

special assessment district.

 (b) For an improvement under section 2(1)(c), (g), (k), or (m), by the record owners of land

constituting more than 20% of the total frontage upon the road, bicycle path, or sidewalk.

 (2) A township board may require the filing of a petition meeting the requirements of

subsection (3) before proceeding with an improvement under this act.

 (3) If written objections are filed as provided in subsection (1), or if the township board

requires a petition before proceeding, the township board shall not proceed with the

improvement until there is filed with the board a petition signed as follows:

 (a) For an improvement under section 2(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (l), (n), or (o) by

the record owners of land constituting more than 50% of the total land area in the special

assessment district as finally established by the township board.

 (b) For an improvement under section 2(1)(c), (g), (k), or (m), by the record owners of land

constituting more than 50% of the total frontage upon the road, bicycle path, or sidewalk.

 (4) Record owners shall be determined by the records in the register of deeds' office as of

the day of the filing of a petition, or if written objections are filed as provided in subsection

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

(1), then on the day of the hearing. In determining the sufficiency of the petition, lands not

subject to special assessment and lands within a public highway or alley shall not be included

in computing frontage or an assessment district area. A filed petition may be supplemented as

to signatures by the filing of an additional signed copy or copies of the petition. The validity of

the signatures on a supplemental petition shall be determined by the records as of the day of

filing the supplemental petition.

41.722 Types of improvements authorized; approval; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) The following improvements may be made under this act:

 (a) The construction, improvement, and maintenance of storm or sanitary sewers or the

improvement and maintenance of, but not the construction of new or expanded, combined

storm and sanitary sewer systems.

 (b) The construction, improvement, and maintenance of water systems.

 

(c) The construction, improvement, and maintenance of public roads.

(d) The acquisition, improvement, and maintenance of public parks.

(e) The construction, improvement, and maintenance of elevated structures for foot travel over roads in the township.

(f) The collection and disposal of garbage and rubbish.

 

(g) The construction, maintenance, and improvement of bicycle paths.

(h) The construction, maintenance, and improvement of erosion control structures or dikes.

 (i) The planting, maintenance, and removal of trees.

 (j) The installation, improvement, and maintenance of lighting systems.

 (k) The construction, improvement, and maintenance of sidewalks.

 (l) The eradication or control of aquatic weeds and plants.

 (m) The construction, improvement, and maintenance of private roads.

 (n) The construction, improvement, and maintenance of a lake, pond, river, stream, lagoon,

or other body of water or of an improvement to the body of water. This subdivision includes,

but is not limited to, dredging.

 

(o) The construction, improvement, and maintenance of dams and other structures that

retain the waters of this state for recreational purposes.

(p) The construction, improvement, and maintenance of sound attenuation walls, pavement,

or other sound mitigation treatments unless a written objection is filed in the same manner as

provided under section 3 by the record owners of land constituting more than 20% of the total

area in the proposed special assessment district. If a written objection is filed, then the

township board shall not proceed with the improvement until a petition signed by the record

owners of land constituting more than 50% of the total land area in the special assessment

district as finally established is filed with the board.

The total land area in the special assessment district was not established by the township board nor was it proposed in the petition this way and therefore should 

be tabled or not allowed to proceed. In addition, the Township Board makes no record of using Aune ParkParcel (#17-12-22-151-001. Owned by:ST CLAIR HAVEN 

SUB HO ASSOC

PARK .) to store spoils, from the project, for up to a year time frame. This property should be included in the total land area of the special assessment. The 

property is not deeded to the Township and residents that are affected by this park usage were not included nor notified during the approval process.

1.3.

 Procedural Errors / Hearing Notice: After reviewing both the first hearing notice (March 9th meeting notice.) and the second hearing notice (April 

13th meeting notice.), we can see that the number of lots has dropped from 131 to 127. This can be explained by the questionable decision the board made to 

drop, combined and allow signature adjustments, to the petition post the initial meeting on March 9th. What is equally questionable is the fact that the price 

went up per parcel to $10,500.37 from $10,179.75 after the adjustments. In addition, the notices state that they are removing sediment from lake canals that 

measure 4,860 linear feet long. So, why has the project and cost not been altered accordingly. 

2.

Disproportionate Cost/Benefit: We are disputing that the costs of this project are not justified and equitably distributed. It is impossible to conclude 

that all property lots involved in this project will have equal increases in property value as it relates to same cost being charged to all property owners involved, 

regardless of the amount of canal footage and property size each retains. The assessment amount will exceed the actual increase in property value for some and 

not for others. This is also a concern when we look at “vacant lots” compared to those with structures. The “Unit Benefit” method being used is inappropriate 

because the diversity of the lots does not reflect each lot in the project to be a single home site. Rather a canal front foot method would be more appropriate. It 

would also eliminate those with split lots from being burdened with paying double or triple the amount for the same size lot as a neighbor that has combined 

numerous lots into a single unit. You simply cannot have a flat rate without regard for benefit. 

In our personal scenario, we could be assessed $21,000+ for (2) connected lots, with a total canal frontage of 84’. At the same time my neighbor has a single lot 

with a total canal frontage of 126’ and yet another neighbor has a canal frontage of 42’ and both only have a projected cost of $10000. 

We feel we are being discriminated against for an imaginary line. We have investigated combining our properties to relieve our personal burden, but according to 

the property split application for Harrison Twp., even if we were to attempt this, the application states changes do not take effect on property assessments until 

the following year. Again, we are not the only residents being burdened while others benefit from these inconsistencies. 

There is also a concern about uncertain and excessive costs. The current estimate of $10,500.37 is not a firm quote and has already increased from the original 

quote of $10,179.75 issued at initial board meeting on March 9th, 2026. We object to being assessed an open-ended amount for a project that may exceed these 

estimates due to unforeseen construction and environmental costs.

3.

Lack of Special Benefit: Unfortunately, after the Pardee bridge was removed (Prior SAD issued in 2017), many on the canal began acquiring much 

larger boats. This canal is much narrower than other canals in the area like Venetian canal or even the Riverdale/Powers canal. This canal does not accommodate

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

these large 30+ foot boats and never has prior to the bridge removal. This petition is a result of residents most concerned about navigating shallow waters. It is 

tough just maneuvering this canal with such large vessels. We have had no issues with our 25’ vessel or our wave runners navigating this canal in the past or 

currently. This brings up the question of the “necessity”. We do not believe those wishing to fund this project “found” or “determined” by resolution a solution 

which makes an improvement as opposed to something that is convenient or desirable. 

4.

Potential negative impact on property owners: We have many concerns/risks that we feel have not been addressed and that have a lack of 

answers/research and alternatives. These concerns are as follows:

A.

Structural integrity risks – We are concerned that dredging in the current low-water environment poses a significant risk of “undermining” my 

seawall. Removing sediment from the toe of the wall can lead to structural failure, the repair of which would far exceed any perceived benefit of this project. 

B.

Temporary Nature of the project: Canals are natural silt traps. There is a high probability that sediment will return before the 10-year assessment is 

even paid off, making this an inefficient use of homeowner funds. I have personally seen recent projects conducted on this canal, where seawalls were 

repaired/replaced and a certain amount of dredging was conducted at the same time. Those areas have been filled with silt and muck in under 2 years’ time. In 

addition, the last time this project was investigated (the prior petition for approval one year ago), there was a considerable amount of conversation concerning 

the several lots that have no seawalls at all and are continually eroding those properties into the canal which compounds the problem of potential dredging 

failure. This challenge continues to be a significant problem which has not even been taken into consideration.

C.

Natural cyclical levels: Great Lakes water levels are cyclical. We believe that a taxpayer-funded “fix” for a natural low-water cycle is unnecessary, as 

levels will naturally rise without risking the stability of my shoreline.

5.

Lack of Planning: We are under the impression that many aspects of this project seem rushed, or reactive and should require more alternative 

solutions. We believe the current planning is insufficient and even dangerous. Some examples include:

A.

Cost projections should be prepared by a registered engineer as opposed to a contractor that is trying to secure a bid for profit.

B.

Cost projections, testing, and project planning should be prepared by more than one single entity. The only entity that has provided information for 

this project is Aquatic Hydraulic Dredging, LLC. According to a LARA business entity search, this company has only been organized since 2023. In addition, the 

company that was considered in the last petition was literally formed in 2024 as the project was being proposed and was a retired township firefighter who was 

also a resident of the project and owned no equipment to even do the work. Needless to say, that company did not meet the insurance requirements and the 

project was tabled. The company prior to that (Sediment Removal System) had a projected cost of $4,246 per lot (also failed to secure a contract to proceed with 

the project). Half of the current projected quote from the one contractor that we have a proposal for this time. It seems they will take any contractors analysis 

just to get someone to do the job. 

C.

There is a lack of research as it relates to water flow, weed treatments and other aspects that could be contributing to the silt/muck build up. 

D.

Environmental concerns: Why are we trusting a contractor’s tests as opposed to numerous lab tests conducted by independent sources? We are 

about to store tons of canal debris/spoils in a park where children regularly frequent and play. We are directly connected to the Clinton River which is under 

tremendous scrutiny by state officials because of the amount of raw sewage that is pumped into this river causing huge problems on Lake St. Clair. Are we to 

believe there are no dangers to our children and community based on a single test? In addition, there are concerns of odor, insects and other environmental 

issues that could accompany this storage of debris in a park utilized by the entire community. All the residents of St. Clair Haven community have not been made 

aware of the use of the park or the use of shared roads that will succumb to tons of gravel hauler use that could damage the roads we all utilize. Legacy 

Contamination is a real thing. Dredging stirs up decades of old sediments which may contain contaminants. In addition to the dangers, we may be subjecting our 

community too, this can also impact local water quality and the stability of the “good” aquatic plants that keep our canal bottom firm. 

6.

Concerns of storing project debris in Aune Park Parcel #17-12-22-151-001:

a.

We would like to know by what authority the Harrison Township board have in determining using this property to store such debris. According to 

what we have researched, it appears this property this belongs to St. Clair Haven Sub HO Assoc. Park. This would be assumed that it is a resident’s owned park. 

Hence, all residents of this subdivision or homeowners’ group should, at bare minimum, be made aware via written notice that this project is being proposed. It 

would be our request that a time frame be given to petition the neighborhood to raise awareness and allow the residents to have a voice as the township did with 

those involved with the dredge project itself. Again, we are asking to have the project tabled or stop moving forward util this can be conducted.

b.

Environmental Impact: The board seems to want to pass the buck regarding the responsibility of testing the debris to be stored onto the contractor 

that did the testing. However, we believe the township has a responsibility to the residents of this community to protect us against potential silt pollutants that 

could contain heavy metals, harmful organic materials and additional issues that could harm our park and children that play there.

c.

Loss of community space: Our park is one of the few green spaces available for recreation, family gatherings, and outdoor activities. Using it as a 

dumping site would temporarily or possibly permanently destroy its usability without further needed testing. 

d.

Damage to local roads and infrastructure. Transporting large volumes of silt by heavy trucks will deteriorate neighborhood roads, create unsafe 

conditions for pedestrians and children and increase noise, dust and traffic congestion in our residential area. 

e.

Alternative solutions exist. The township or project managers should explore environmentally should and community-friendly alternatives such as 

designated containment areas or approved disposal sites specifically designed for dredged materials. The city should not be relying solely on a contractor to take 

responsibility and make all decisions. 

Support Attachments include:

Notice of Hearings

Analysis of original petition signatures

Actual project homeowners signatures

(2) protest letters submitted to Harrison Twp. City Board/Clerks office.

Additional Information Page

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues

Did you protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

Yes

If Yes, what was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll?

2026-04-13

If No, explain:

 

Fee Information

A fee of $100.00 is required for the filing of a Special Assessment Appeal.

Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature

Petitioner or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: 

/s/ Jeffrey J. Kovacik and Cindy L. Kovacik

← View full record