Charter Township of Harrison letter of protest 2.0 Submitted April 13 2026.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.

Charter Township of Harrison 

Township Clerk’s Office and Board of Trustees 

 

38151 L'Anse Creuse 

Harrison Township, MI 48045 

 

 

Formal Letter of Protest II 

RE: Written objection to proposed Huron Pointe canal dredging Special Assessment District 

(SAD). 

Hearing Date: April 13th, 2026 

 

04/13/2026 

 

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 

Dear City Clerk Adam Wit and Township Board of Trustees, 

 

As the record owners of the properties listed above, we are writing to formally lodge a written 

protest of objection to the proposed Huron Pointe S.A.D. canal dredging project. 

 

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 letter of protest 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 me 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. This is simply 

scare tactics as they know 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. 

I would be pleased to receive a response from the Clerks office regarding these petition 

protocols and how the Township has concluded that this meeting is legitimate as it 

relates to the supplied information showing the lack of signatures and frontage needed to 

advance this project. 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 

(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. 

 

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 $20000+ 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, 

179.75 is not a firm quote. 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, 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 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. 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 we 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 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. Why have not all the residents of Huron 

Pointe 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. How is this property deeded 

that it allows the Township to make such decisions. 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. The township has engineers on staff. Use them. 

 

 

 

Please record the written protest as part of the official minutes for the Public Hearing on March 

9th, 2026. We understand that filing this written protest is a requirement to preserve our right to 

appeal this assessment to the Michigan Tax Tribunal. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Jeffrey J. Kovacik & Cindy L. Kovacik 

 

 

 

X_________________________________________________________ Date: 

 

Jeffrey J. Kovacik 

 

X_________________________________________________________ Date: 

 

Cindy L. Kovacik 

 

Contact Information: 

 

Email: kovakservices@gmail.com 

Phone: 616-401-1833 

Mailing Address: 38886 Pardee St. Harrison Twp. MI. 48045

← View full record