03._Property_Tax_Appeal_Petition_Form_Special_Assessment.433f2235-e0c2-4e33-b0ed-4d739ed625ac.pdf
Joseph Matthew Burkhart, Petitioner V Township Of Bloomfield, Respondent · 25-002370-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 ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM SPECIAL ASSESSMENT MOAHR DOCKET NO. Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information Filer Type: Individual First Name Joseph M.I. Matthew Last Name/Company Name Burkhart Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 412 N Williamsbury City or Town Bloomfield Village State Michigan ZIP Code 48301 Telephone Number 2486462630 Fax Number E-mail Address MBURKHART@BURKHARTASSOCIATES.COM Section 2: Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information First Name Joseph M.I. Matthew Last Name Burkhart Firm Name (if any) Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 412 N Williamsbury City or Town Bloomfield State Michigan ZIP Code 48301 Telephone Number 248-891-4094 Fax Number E-mail Address MBURKHART@BURKHARTASSOCIATES.COM 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.
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR Section 3: Subject Property Information How many parcels are you appealing? 1 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. Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) (If multiple, list first property’s address) 412 N Williamsbury Bloomfield Village Michigan 48301 Parcel Identification Number(s): 1927404005 Taxing Authority (City or Township) Township Of Bloomfield (OAKLAND) County Section 4: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 1. Bloomfield Village residents were provided with an explanation of the road improvement process that is materially differed from the process that was followed. The representations made to residents regarding how the road improvement process would move forward, which properties would be included and sharing of any and all cost options with residents were misleading and not adhered to. As a result, residents were deprived of a fair and transparent process, and their ability to make informed decisions or raise timely objections was significantly impaired. 2. The Road Commission of Oakland County divided Bloomfield Village into five Special Assessment Districts (SAD’s) – Pink, Blue, Gold, Yellow and Green. The Pink and Blue section road improvements occurred in 2024. Gold and Yellow improvements will occur during the 2025 construction season. The Green section SAD petition has not been released yet by Bloomfield Township. The current SAD boundaries for the five (5) sections in Bloomfield Village are drawn in such a manner that properties located on corner lots—many of which have significant frontage, and its address, in an adjacent section—were excluded from the adjacent section/SAD. As a result, the homeowners whose properties are included in the adjacent SAD are being subjected to an inequitable and disproportionate financial burden as they must pay for this excluded frontage. This arbitrary exclusion lacks a rational basis and undermines the principles of fairness and proportionality required under applicable law. 3. The procedures governing the circulation and collection of signatures for the SAD petitions were not properly followed by either the petition circulators or Bloomfield Township. The Township failed to adhere to its own established instructions regarding signature collection and validation. Specifically, in the 'Gold' SAD there are at least eleven (11) significant signature irregularities, and in the 'Yellow' SAD there are twelve (12). These irregularities include signature of spouse not obtained, illegible signatures, signatures not dated, addresses crossed out and handwritten on petition and signatures obtained on the incorrect address. 4. These SAD’s lack any substantiated evidence or supporting analysis demonstrating that the special benefits conferred—namely, any increase in property value—will be equal to or exceed the cost of the assessment imposed on the affected properties. This failure violates the requirements of Public Act 188, which mandates that special assessments must be proportionate to the benefits received by each property. 5. Bloomfield Township failed to consider or account for the public or general benefit derived from the road improvements funded through the SAD’s, despite a legal obligation to do so. The area in question serves not only the assessed property owners but also accommodates significant public use, including access to nearby public schools, shopping centers, banks, and a substantial volume of cut-through traffic from surrounding communities. By disregarding these broader public benefits, the Township improperly shifted the entire financial burden onto a limited group of homeowners, in violation of applicable legal standards requiring a fair apportionment between special and general benefits. 6. Bloomfield Township failed to exercise its fiduciary duty to the property owners affected by these SAD’s. The Township did not conduct a meaningful review or independent analysis of the proposed project costs. Despite substantial increases in the estimated cost of the improvements from the 2013 petition coordinated by the Township and the cost associated with improving the roads in the entire subdivision was approximately $18.0M or $18,000.00 per house. The Township accepted the current SAD’s that include significant increases without scrutiny, attributing them broadly and without evidence to 'inflation.' No competitive analysis, cost breakdown, or evaluation of alternatives was performed, demonstrating a lack of diligence and fiscal responsibility in the administration of public funds and the imposition of special assessments. 7. Bloomfield Township failed to conduct any review or analysis of the impact the proposed improvements would have on the existing sewer infrastructure, despite the presence of known and ongoing drainage issues in the affected area. Additionally, the Township did not evaluate the condition or capacity of the existing water and sewer lines, despite their advanced age and the likelihood that they may be inadequate to support any planned improvements. 8. The SAD assigns the same 'unit of benefit' to all properties in their respective section regardless of lot size, frontage, or actual use of the improvements. However, the cost per property owner in the five (5) sections varies by as much as 40%, resulting in a significant disparity in financial burden among similarly situated residents (Green section cost estimate is unknown at this time). This inconsistent cost allocation, despite a uniform benefit designation, creates an inequitable and disproportionate assessment in violation of the principle that special assessments must bear a reasonable relationship to the benefit conferred.
Page 3
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? No If Yes, what was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? If No, explain: I was unable to attend the meeting as I was out of town. 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/ Joseph M Burkhart