Michigan

Cletis Kendrick Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit Respondent

Petitioner: Cletis Kendrick
Respondent: City Of Detroit

Case overview

Docket number: 26-002687-TT
Status: Answer Due
CaseType: ET Property
Division: ET
County: Wayne
Judge: No judge assigned

Docket history

Line #	Subject	Filer	Line Ref	Enter Date/Post Mark	Fee	Related Item
7	Proof of service of petition was received.	PET	Not recorded	10/06/2026	Not recorded	Download
Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Download
6	Petition has been verified	PET	1	09/23/2026	Not recorded	Download
Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Download
5	Notice of Docket Number ET	Not recorded	Not recorded	09/22/2026	Not recorded	Download
4	Proposed Exhibits were filed for hearing.	Not recorded	Not recorded	07/16/2026	Not recorded	Download
3	Proposed Exhibits were filed for hearing.	Not recorded	Not recorded	07/16/2026	Not recorded	Download
2	Proposed Exhibits were filed for hearing.	Not recorded	Not recorded	07/16/2026	Not recorded	Download
Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Download
1	A petition was received.	PET	Not recorded	07/16/2026	$250.00	Download
Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Download

Documents

MTT_26-002687_Proof_of_Service.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

~~. 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

CLETIS KENDRICK, 

. 

. 

Petitioner, 

MTT Docket No. 26-002687 

V. 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

Respondent. 

PROOF OF SERVICE OF ENTIRE TRIBUNAL 

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PETITION 

To be filed after service of the docketed petition; special-assessment service governed by TTR 227(8). 

’ 

Cletis Kendrick states that on 

Qglober 6, 2026 

he served by USPS Certified Mail one complete copy of the 

docketed petition package in the above-captioned matter upon the clerk of the governmental unit levying the 

special assessment, as follows; 

Recipient: 

City Clerk, City of Detroit 

Office of the City Clerk, Coleman A. Young Municipal Center 

2 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

USPS Certified Mail Article / Tracking No.: 

9589 0710 5270 3474 0195 06 

Postal receipt / delivery confirmation retained by Petitioner as supporting proof of service under TTR 211 and TTR 227(10). 

DOCUMENTS SERVED 

- 180 PAGES TOTAL 

1. 

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner (2 pages); 

2. 

Entire Tribunal Special Assessment Petition, including the Line 12 and Line 13 supplements and 

Attachments A-F (26 pages); 

3. 

Exhibits 1-5 (18 pages); 

4. 

Exhibits 6-10 (45 pages); and 

5. 

Exhibits 11-15 (89 pages). 

The served copy is the complete docketed service package bearing MTT Docket No. 26-002687, assembled as 

"MTT_26-002687_COMPLETE_Docketed_Service_Package.pdf' (180 pages). 

| certify that the foregoing statement accurately identifies the manner of service, recipient, and documents served." 

Clute Kinde 

/0 Job [asa 

Signature of person serving/mailing copy 

Date signe 

* 

Cletis Kendrick 

Print/type name of person serving/mailing copy 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

| 611 W. Ottawa St., Lansing, MI 48933 

| 517-335-9760 

P.O. Box 30232, Lansing, M1 48809 

| Other Carriers: 2407 N. Grand River Ave., Lansing, Ml 48906

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

SubsequentFiling.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

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

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Docket Number: 26-002687

Is this case currently pending in the Small Claims Division? No

Party Filing Document 

Petitioner

Files

Document Type: Proof of Service: Petition

Attachment File Name: MTT_26-002687_Proof_of_Service

Fee Information

Filing Fee: $ 0.00

Payment Information

Payment: $ 0.00

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

PDF_1_Entire_Tribunal_Petition_and_Attachments_A-F.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

________________________________________________________________

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

GOVERNOR

DIRECTOR

LANSING

_____________________________,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Petitioner(s)

MTT Docket No.

_____________________________,

Respondent(s)

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PETITION

Property Parcel No: ________________________________________________

The property identified above is ___real ___personal.

The special assessment levied is for ___________________________________

The taxing authority levying the special assessment is

The action that prompted this appeal is _________________________________

The hearing held to confirm the special assessment was held on

Petitioner ______ (did/did not) protest the special assessment at this hearing. If a

protest was not made, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner

relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the special assessment at issue

(attach additional page if necessary):

The special assessment is to be levied for ________________years.

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

CLETIS KENDRICK

CITY OF DETROIT

Sherwood Forest SAD SMS/SWF Charge:

Snow Removal, Mosquito Abatement, Security Patrol.

02004962.001

City of Detroit

Disputed — Detroit appears to rely on November 21, 2023.

did not

Petitioner did not protest at a lawful Sherwood Forest roll-confirmation hearing because Detroit

has not produced evidence that such a hearing was lawfully noticed, conducted, or supported by

a Clerk-filed tentative assessment roll and confirmed Sherwood Forest special assessment roll.

Petitioner relies on the attached Petition, Attachments A-F, and Exhibits 1-15 to invoke the

Tribunal's authority over the current 2026 special assessment charge.

7 (purported; disputed)

The 2026 Detroit Summer Property Tax Bill imposing

the $300 Sherwood Forest SMS/SWF special assessment charge against Parcel No. 02004962.001.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 

Page 2 of 2 

9. 

The total amount levied against the subject parcel is $300.00 

10. 

Petitioner contends that the total amount levied should be $0.00 

11. 

The amount in dispute is $300.00 plus derivative refund and correction relief. 

12. 

Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): 

See attached "Supplement to ET Special Assessment Petition — Relief Requested.” 

13. 

List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the 

relief requested (attach additional page if necessary): 

See attached "Supplement to ET Special Assessment Petition — Separate and Specific Facts." 

Signature of ORE Ae 

ebe 

ntative or, if none, Petitioner: 

Printed Name of Petitioner's Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

Cletis Kendrick 

Email Address: cbkendrick@att.net 

Mailing 

Add 

; 

ailing 

AAAI®SS: 19130 Parkside 

Detroit, MI 48221 

Telephone Number: 

(313) 244-7249 

Date: 

67/14/2024

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL DIVISION

CLETIS KENDRICK,

Petitioner,

CITY OF DETROIT,

Respondent.

MTT Docket No. __________________

SUPPLEMENT TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PETITION

LINE 12 — RELIEF REQUESTED

12. Petitioner requests the following relief:

Petitioner requests cancellation, removal, refund by direct payment, and tax-record correction of the

2026 SMS/SWF $300 special assessment charge imposed against Parcel No. 02004962.001. The 2026

Detroit property tax bill, including the challenged SMS/SWF charge, has been paid in full. If the Tribunal

determines that Detroit lacked lawful authority to impose the 2026 SMS/SWF charge, Petitioner requests

refund by direct payment to Petitioner, with applicable interest, and correction of the City’s tax and

special assessment records. Petitioner does not request a credit against future taxes, future special

assessments, other tax liabilities, or later City charges unless Petitioner expressly agrees in writing.

Petitioner further requests that Detroit be prohibited from imposing any future SMS/SWF charge against

Petitioner’s parcel under the claimed 2023 Sherwood Forest SAD renewal unless Detroit proves a lawful

authority chain for that renewal.

If the Tribunal determines that Detroit’s claimed 2023 Sherwood Forest SAD renewal was unlawful, void,

unsupported, or not lawfully confirmed, Petitioner also requests derivative refund, direct-payment relief,

and record-correction relief, to the extent within the Tribunal’s authority in this docket, for all

SMS/SWF amounts imposed and paid under that same claimed renewal, including direct refund of the paid

2024 SMS/SWF charges totaling $300, direct refund of the paid 2025 SMS/SWF charge of $300, direct

refund of the paid 2026 SMS/SWF charge of $300, applicable interest, and correction of any City, County,

tax, delinquency, penalty, interest, administrative-charge, lien, collection, forfeiture, or special assessment

record attributable to those charges.

Petitioner specifically requests

Page 4

STAT

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

EntireTribunalCaseISPetition.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner

MTT DOCKET NO. 

 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer type: 

Individual 

Local Unit of Government

First Name

CLETIS

M.I.

Last Name/Company Name

KENDRICK

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

19130 Parkside

City or Town

Detroit

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48221

Telephone Number

(313) 244-7249

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail)

cbkendrick@att.net

 

Section 3: Issue 

Please designate one: 

Special Assessment 

 

Section 4: Subject Property Information 

How many parcels are you 

appealing?

1

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

19130 Parkside

Detroit

Michigan

48221

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

City of Detroit (Wayne) 

County

Wayne

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

 

 

Section 8: Special Assessment Information

Type of Special Assessment:

MCL 117.5i/Detroit Code Division8; Sherwood Forest SAD SMS/SWF charge — snow removal, mosquito abatement, and security services.

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?

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

If No, please explain:

Petitioner did not protest because Detroit has not produced evidence that a lawful Sherwood Forest special-assessment-roll confirmation hearing was properly

noticed, conducted, or supported by the required authority-chain records. Petitioner did not receive mailed notice of a lawful Sherwood Forest roll-confirmation

hearing. Detroit has not produced proof of mailed notice, mailing labels, a Clerk-filed tentative assessment roll, public-examination record, Sherwood Forest-

specific hearing-setting resolution, confirmed special assessment roll, Clerk endorsement, delivery or transmittal to Treasury, or Treasury billing authority. Detroit

appears to rely on a November 21, 2023, combined approval, but Petitioner disputes that it constituted lawful confirmation of a Sherwood Forest special

assessment roll under MCL 117.5i and Detroit City Code Division 8. Without those predicate records, Petitioner did not receive a meaningful opportunity to

protest, and any protest bar is disputed. Petitioner therefore disputes that any protest requirement was lawfully triggered. Petitioner relies on the attached

Petition, Attachments A–F and Exhibits 1–15 to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the current 2026 SMS/SWF charge.

Fee Information

The filing fee is based on the greater of State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention. If you are appealing more than one parcel, the parcel with the

highest State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention will be used to determine your filing fee, plus $25.00 will be added for each additional parcel being

appealed.

If the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: Your filing fee is:

$100,000.00 and under $250.00

$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $400.00

$Over $500,000.00 $600.00

* Plus $25.00 for each additional parcel, not to exceed a total filing fee of $2,000.00.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Special Assessment Appeal.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of an Equalization Tax Appeal.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Non-Property Tax Appeal.

A fee of $150.00 is required for the filing of a Classification Tax Appeal

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

Petitioner or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature:

/s/ Cletis Kendrick

Payment Information

Amount: 250

Success: True

Message: ""

Waiver Code:

Transaction Number: 26071693366382

Supporting Waiver Documents:

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

ET_Notice_of_Docket_Number.2026-09-22_10-37-10.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

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

Cletis Kendrick,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

MTT Docket No.: 26-002687

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that an Entire Tribunal petition has been filed and the above-noted

docket number has been assigned to that petition. This docket number shall be noted

on the petition and the petition shall be served within 45 days of the issuance of

this notice, as required by TTR 227 and MCL 205.735a, even if the petition was served

when filed. A proof of service shall also be filed with the Tribunal within 45 days of the

issuance of this notice evidencing the service of the petition.

If you submitted a proof of service with the petition, you must still serve the petition and

file a second proof of service including the docket number, pursuant to this notice.

Failure to serve the petition and file a proof of service within 45 days of the issuance of

the notice may result in the dismissal of this case.

Under TTR 235(1), “[t]he respondent shall file an answer or responsive motion within 28

days after the date of service of the petition with noted docket number.” Failure to do so

will result in Respondent being placed in default.

The docket number also needs to be noted on all other documents submitted in this

case. Further, the assignment of the docket number does not mean that the Tribunal

has authority over the petition or that the petition complies with statutory requirements

or the Tribunal’s rules.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: September 22, 2026

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

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

PDF_4_Exhibits_11-15.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

EXHIBIT 11 

REPEATED REQUESTS FOR MISSING SHERWOOD FOREST RESOLUTION AND 

OCTOBER 11, 2023, FIRST-HEARING DEFECT 

Exhibit 11 — Page 1 of 21 

Source Record: 

Combined City Council Formal Session and Budget, Finance and Audit Standing Committee transcript 

records for June 7, 2023; June 13, 2023; October 11, 2023; October 17, 2023; October 18, 2023; and 

October 24, 2023; November 8, 2023, Budget, Finance and Audit Standing Committee eSCRIBE 

Agenda Package excerpt; and Clerk archive / Detroit Legal News public-hearing notice excerpt. 

Short Title: 

Repeated Resolution Requests / October 11 First-Hearing No-Attachment Defect 

Purpose of Exhibit: 

This exhibit is offered to show that Deputy CFO / Assessor Alvin Horhn was repeatedly placed on 

record notice that a resolution was required before the Sherwood Forest SAD renewal hearing process 

could properly proceed. Despite that notice, the October 11, 2023, first public hearing proceeded with 

No Attachments and without any identified Sherwood Forest-specific resolution, tentative 

assessment roll, Clerk-filed public-examination record, Administering Department report, land-

area verification record, or notice-supporting authority material available to affected Sherwood 

Forest owners before that hearing. 

Material Record Points: 

1. On June 7, 2023, Committee Chair Fred Durhal asked whether the item was merely a report or a

resolution, and whether another request or line item would be needed to set the public hearing.

2. On June 7, 2023, Assistant City Council Committee Clerk Cindy Golden stated that, to set the

public hearing, “we would need a resolution to do so.”

3. On June 7, 2023, Golden stated that no resolution was attached and that no document had been

attached in the form of a resolution.

4. On June 7, 2023, Durhal asked Horhn whether he had the resolution and whether it had been

submitted through eSCRIBE.

5. On June 7, 2023, Horhn acknowledged that the resolution had not been submitted and stated that

he “should have known better.”

6. On June 7, 2023, Golden explained the upload timing required for a resolution to appear on the

next Formal Session agenda.

7. On June 7, 2023, the Committee moved Line Item 8.4 to Formal Session with a recommendation

to approve pending attachment of the resolution.

Page 2

8. On June 13, 2023, the Formal Session record still identified the item as “PENDING THE

RESOLUTION” and listed Detroit Golf Club and Palmer Woods resolution attachments, but no

comparable Sherwood Forest-specific resolution attachment.

9. On October 11, 2023, the first public-hearing record stated, “No Attachments.”

10. On October 11, 2023, after the first public hearing, Golden asked Horhn whether he would

provide the resolution for the matter to go before the full City Council.

11. On October 11, 2023, Durhal asked Horhn to provide a copy of the resolution before the next

Formal Session so Council could “lay eyes on it.”

12. The first combined Detroit Golf Club / Palmer Woods / Sherwood Forest resolution appearing

after the October 11, 2023, first public hearing was dated October 13, 2023. That document is

addressed separately in Exhibit 10.

13. On October 17, 2023, the Formal Session record shows that the matter was sent back to Budget,

Finance and Audit for a continued or additional public hearing.

14. On October 18, 2023, Horhn apologized for the prior week’s imprecise language and stated, “By

mistake I did not catch the Clerk in time.”

15. On October 24, 2023, the Formal Session record shows that Council approved setting the second

public hearing for November 8, 2023.

16. The November 8, 2023, Budget, Finance and Audit eSCRIBE Agenda Package identifies a 1:10

p.m. continued public hearing concerning Chapter 17 purchasing-and-supplies amendments, not

the noticed Sherwood Forest / Detroit Golf Club / Palmer Woods SAD second public hearing.

Tribunal Relevance: 

This exhibit is material because it shows that the October 11, 2023, first public hearing occurred after 

repeated record notice that the required resolution had not been submitted. The reviewed record does not 

show that a Sherwood Forest-specific resolution, tentative assessment roll, Clerk-filed public-

examination record, Administering Department report, land-area verification record, or notice-

supporting authority material was attached, filed, or made available before affected Sherwood Forest 

owners were expected to appear, review the matter, and object at the first public hearing. 

Golden’s October 11, 2023, post-hearing request for the resolution is material because it shows that the 

resolution issue remained unresolved at the time affected owners were expected to have already 

appeared and objected. Durhal’s request that Council be allowed to “lay eyes on it” before Formal 

Session is also material because affected Sherwood Forest owners needed a meaningful opportunity to 

review the same core authority materials before the hearing. 

The October 13, 2023, combined resolution did not cure the first-hearing defect because it appeared 

after the first public hearing had already occurred. As shown in Exhibit 10, a post-hearing combined 

multi-district resolution cannot retroactively serve as the pre-hearing Sherwood Forest-specific 

resolution, tentative assessment roll, Clerk-filed public-examination record, land-area verification 

record, or notice-supporting authority material required before the October 11, 2023, hearing. 

Exhibit

Page 3

Th

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

PDF_3_Exhibits_6-10.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

EXHIBIT 6

DETROIT CITY CODE DIVISION 8 — MANDATORY AUTHORITY-CHAIN

REQUIREMENTS FOR SMS/SWF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS

Exhibit 6 — Page 1 of 17

Source Record:

Detroit City Code, Chapter 44, Article III, Division 8, “Special Assessments for Snow Removal,

Mosquito Abatement, and Security Services.” Division 8 implements MCL 117.5i and governs

Detroit’s claimed authority to finance snow removal, mosquito abatement, and security services by

special assessment.

Short Title:

Division 8 / Governing SMS/SWF Authority Chain

Purpose of Exhibit:

This exhibit is offered to identify the mandatory Detroit ordinance requirements governing the

SMS/SWF special assessment charge challenged in this appeal. Division 8 is the City Code framework

Detroit purports to use for special assessments financing snow removal, mosquito abatement, and

security services/patrol.

This exhibit is material because the current 2026 SMS/SWF charge is derivative of Detroit’s claimed

2023 Sherwood Forest SAD renewal. Detroit cannot establish lawful authority merely by placing a

charge on a tax bill or by generating later billing records. Detroit must prove that it satisfied the

mandatory authority-chain requirements of MCL 117.5i and Detroit City Code Division 8 before

relying on the claimed 2023 Sherwood Forest SAD renewal to impose and continue collecting the

SMS/SWF charge.

This exhibit does not establish that Detroit complied with Division 8. It establishes the rules Detroit

had a legal duty to follow when invoking Division 8 special assessment authority.

Material Record Points:

1. Division 8 implements MCL 117.5i for special assessments financing snow removal, mosquito

abatement, and security services.

2. Division 8 defines the services covered by the SMS/SWF charge as snow removal from streets,

mosquito abatement, and security services.

3. Division 8 requires the sponsoring neighborhood organization to qualify as a designated

neighborhood improvement organization, including Michigan nonprofit good-standing status.

4. Division 8 requires the completed petition to be signed by record owners of not less than 51%

of the land within the proposed special assessment district.

5. Division 8 requires the City Clerk to receive the petition, file the original petition, report receipt

to City Council, and forward a copy to the Administering Department.

6. Division 8 requires the Administering Department to review petition compliance and, if the

petition satisfies the ordinance, submit a report to City Council verifying petition validity.

Page 2

7. Division 8 requires the Administering Department to obtain a tentative assessment roll from the

Board of Assessors and include that roll with its report to City Council.

8. Division 8 requires City Council, after receipt of the report and tentative assessment roll, to

adopt a resolution fixing the time and place of the public hearing.

9. Division 8 requires hearing notice to state that the plans, term, estimated costs, and tentative

assessment roll are on file in the City Clerk’s Office for public examination.

10. Division 8 requires City Council, after the required hearing process, to adopt a resolution

containing the petition sufficiency determination, district boundaries, services, estimated

assessed cost, estimated tax parcel share, benefit finding, term, redetermination dates, and date

for the roll-confirmation hearing.

11. Division 8 requires the Board of Assessors to prepare and file the special assessment roll with the

City Clerk, the Clerk to forward the roll to City Council for confirmation, and City Council to

confirm the special assessment roll.

12. Division 8 requires the Clerk, after confirmation, to endorse the confirmation date on the roll

and deliver a copy of the confirmed roll to the Board of Assessors, Treasurer, and sponsoring

designated neighborhood improvement organization.

13. Division 8 allows the Treasurer to collect the special assessment annually during the term only

after the special assessment roll is confirmed and delivered.

14. Division 8 requires annual accounting, reporting, reassessment, recalculation of tax parcel

share, and new roll procedures during the term.

15. Division 8 requires continuation of an existing special assessment district beyond its term to

occur in the same manner that a special assessment district is created.

16. Petitioner offers this exhibit to identify the mandatory authority-chain requirements Detroit must

prove before relying on the claimed 2023 Sherwood Forest SAD renewal to support the 2024,

2025, and current 2026 SMS/SWF billing sequence.

Tribunal Relevance:

This exhibit is material because it establishes the legal framework Detroit had to follow before relying

on the claimed 2023 Sherwood Forest SAD renewal to impose and continue collecting the SMS/SWF

charge through the property-tax system.

Division 8 matters to the current 2026 appeal because the 2026 SMS/SWF charge is derivative of the

claimed 2023 renewal. If Detroit did not satisfy the mandatory authority-chain requirements for the

2023 renewal, later billing records, Treasury processing, annual assessment extracts, or administrative

records cannot independently cure the defective renewal.

This exhibit also explains why the missing records identified in later exhibits are material. The required

records are not optional paperwork. They are the records that should show petition sufficiency, 51%

land-area verification,

Page 3

Thi

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

PDF_2_Exhibits_1-5.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

EXHIBIT 1

2026 CITY OF DETROIT SUMMER PROPERTY TAX BILL SHOWING $300 SMS/SWF SPECIAL

ASSESSMENT CHARGE

Exhibit 1 — Page 1 of 3

Source Record:

City of Detroit 2026 Summer Property Tax Bill for Parcel No. 02004962.001, commonly known as 19130

Parkside, Detroit, Michigan, showing a $300 SMS SWF charge imposed on Petitioner’s property. For

purposes of this appeal, SMS/SWF refers to Detroit’s Sherwood Forest special assessment charge for snow

removal, mosquito abatement, and security services/patrol, imposed under Detroit’s claimed authority from

MCL 117.5i and Detroit City Code Division 8. The bill identifies the taxpayer line as “Kendrick, Cleatis.”

Petitioner files under his correct legal name, Cletis Kendrick, and treats the taxpayer-name variation as a City

tax-record naming issue, not as a dispute over the parcel or the charge.

Short Title:

2026 Summer Tax Bill / Current $300 SMS/SWF Special Assessment Charge

Purpose of Exhibit:

This exhibit establishes the current tax-year special assessment charge giving rise to this Michigan Tax

Tribunal appeal. The 2026 Summer Property Tax Bill shows that Detroit imposed a $300 SMS/SWF special

assessment charge on Parcel No. 02004962.001, commonly known as 19130 Parkside.

This exhibit is the jurisdictional anchor for Petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner challenges the current 2026

SMS/SWF charge imposed through the property-tax system. The appeal is not merely a historical objection

to a 2023 proceeding. The 2026 charge is the present assessment being appealed.

This exhibit also establishes the controlling authority link. Detroit’s asserted authority for the current 2026

SMS/SWF charge is derivative of its claimed 2023 Sherwood Forest Special Assessment District renewal.

Any later billing, Treasury processing, assessment extraction, or annual administrative record depends on the

underlying 2023 renewal being lawful. Later annual records cannot independently cure a defective or

unlawful 2023 renewal.

If Detroit cannot prove lawful 2023 renewal authority, then the current 2026 SMS/SWF charge lacks the

legal foundation required for a compulsory special assessment imposed through the property-tax system.

Material Record Points:

The City of Detroit issued a 2026 Summer Property Tax Bill for Parcel No. 02004962.001.

The property address shown on the bill is 19130 Parkside.

The bill identifies the taxpayer line as “Kendrick, Cleatis.” Petitioner files under his correct legal

name, Cletis Kendrick, and treats the taxpayer-name variation as a City tax-record naming issue.

The bill includes a line item labeled SMS SWF in the amount of $300.

The challenged SMS/SWF charge is Detroit’s Sherwood Forest special assessment charge for snow

removal, mosquito abatement, and security services/patrol.

Detroit purports to impose the SMS/SWF charge under claimed special assessment authority from

MCL 117.5i and Detroit City Code Division 8.

Petitioner challenges the current 2026 $300 SMS/SWF charge.

Page 2

Detroit’s asserted authority for the current 2026 SMS/SWF charge is derivative of its claimed 2023

Sherwood Forest SAD renewal.

Any later billing, Treasury processing, assessment extract, annual accounting, reassessment,

redetermination, or administrative record depends on the 2023 Sherwood Forest SAD renewal being

lawful.

10. The tax bill, on its face, does not prove that the 2023 Sherwood Forest SAD renewal was lawfully

petitioned, verified, noticed, approved, confirmed by roll, endorsed by the Clerk, transmitted to

Treasury, or annually administered.

11. The tax bill, on its face, does not identify a lawful authority chain supporting continued collection of

the 2026 SMS/SWF charge.

12. Petitioner offers this exhibit to show that the current charge exists and to place before the Tribunal

whether Detroit can prove lawful authority to impose and continue collecting that charge.

Tribunal Relevance:

This exhibit is material because it identifies the specific current special assessment being appealed: the $300

SMS/SWF charge imposed on Petitioner’s 2026 Summer Property Tax Bill for Parcel No. 02004962.001.

The charge is not self-validating because it appears on a tax bill. A tax-bill line item is not proof of lawful

special-assessment authority. Detroit must identify the legal-authority chain connecting the current 2026

charge to a lawful 2023 Sherwood Forest SAD renewal.

Any claimed annual billing, Treasury processing, or administrative authority through 2026 is derivative of

that renewal. It cannot independently cure a defective or unlawful renewal. If the 2023 Sherwood Forest

SAD renewal lacks lawful authority, then the current 2026 SMS/SWF charge lacks lawful authority as well.

This exhibit therefore frames the controlling question for the Tribunal: whether Detroit can prove that it

satisfied the mandatory authority-chain requirements of MCL 117.5i and Detroit City Code Division 8

before relying on the claimed 2023 Sherwood Forest SAD renewal to impose and continue collecting the

current 2026 SMS/SWF special assessment charge.

Record Limitation:

Petitioner does not offer the 2026 Summer Property Tax Bill as proof that the $300 SMS/SWF charge is

lawful. Petitioner offers the bill to show that Detroit imposed the charge as a current tax-year special

assessment derived from Detroit’s unproven claim of lawful 2023 Sherwood Forest SAD renewal authority.

This exhibit is limited to

Page 3

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

SubsequentFiling.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

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

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Docket Number: 26-002687

Is this case currently pending in the Small Claims Division? No

Party Filing Document 

Petitioner

Files

Document Type: Exhibits (Proposed) for Hearing

Attachment File Name: PDF_2_Exhibits_1-5

Document Type: Exhibits (Proposed) for Hearing

Attachment File Name: PDF_3_Exhibits_6-10

Document Type: Exhibits (Proposed) for Hearing

Attachment File Name: PDF_4_Exhibits_11-15

Fee Information

Filing Fee: $ 0.00

Payment Information

Payment: $ 0.00

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

PDF_1_Entire_Tribunal_Petition_and_Attachments_A-F.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

________________________________________________________________

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

GOVERNOR

DIRECTOR

LANSING

_____________________________,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Petitioner(s)

MTT Docket No.

_____________________________,

Respondent(s)

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PETITION

Property Parcel No: ________________________________________________

The property identified above is ___real ___personal.

The special assessment levied is for ___________________________________

The taxing authority levying the special assessment is

The action that prompted this appeal is _________________________________

The hearing held to confirm the special assessment was held on

Petitioner ______ (did/did not) protest the special assessment at this hearing. If a

protest was not made, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner

relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the special assessment at issue

(attach additional page if necessary):

The special assessment is to be levied for ________________years.

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

CLETIS KENDRICK

CITY OF DETROIT

Sherwood Forest SAD SMS/SWF Charge:

Snow Removal, Mosquito Abatement, Security Patrol.

02004962.001

City of Detroit

Disputed — Detroit appears to rely on November 21, 2023.

did not

Petitioner did not protest at a lawful Sherwood Forest roll-confirmation hearing because Detroit

has not produced evidence that such a hearing was lawfully noticed, conducted, or supported by

a Clerk-filed tentative assessment roll and confirmed Sherwood Forest special assessment roll.

Petitioner relies on the attached Petition, Attachments A-F, and Exhibits 1-15 to invoke the

Tribunal's authority over the current 2026 special assessment charge.

7 (purported; disputed)

The 2026 Detroit Summer Property Tax Bill imposing

the $300 Sherwood Forest SMS/SWF special assessment charge against Parcel No. 02004962.001.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 

Page 2 of 2 

9. 

The total amount levied against the subject parcel is $300.00 

10. 

Petitioner contends that the total amount levied should be $0.00 

11. 

The amount in dispute is $300.00 plus derivative refund and correction relief. 

12. 

Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): 

See attached "Supplement to ET Special Assessment Petition — Relief Requested.” 

13. 

List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the 

relief requested (attach additional page if necessary): 

See attached "Supplement to ET Special Assessment Petition — Separate and Specific Facts." 

Signature of ORE Ae 

ebe 

ntative or, if none, Petitioner: 

Printed Name of Petitioner's Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

Cletis Kendrick 

Email Address: cbkendrick@att.net 

Mailing 

Add 

; 

ailing 

AAAI®SS: 19130 Parkside 

Detroit, MI 48221 

Telephone Number: 

(313) 244-7249 

Date: 

67/14/2024