Challenge to the validity of a municipal “special assessment” on a property owner; The property tax cap restriction of the Headlee Amendment; Const 1963, art 9, §§ 6, 25-34; MCL 600.308a(1); Tax Tribunal (TT) jurisdiction over the review of special assessments & proceedings for a tax refund under MCL 205.731(a) & 205.731(b); Comparing Michigan’s Adventure, Inc v Dalton Twp

The court held that the trial court erred by granting plaintiff-business partial summary disposition as to its claim challenging the validity of special assessments levied on its property by defendant-township. Defendant levied the special assessments on property, including plaintiff’s property, to fund the departments involved in fire protection, disposal, street and lighting, parks and recreation, new building, and water infrastructure. Plaintiff alleged defendant was illegally levying taxes for general governmental funding in the guise of special assessments in violation of the Headlee Amendment. The trial court granted partial summary disposition for plaintiff, but denied its request for a permanent injunction, finding it “had an adequate remedy of law for relief from any future illegal special assessments.” On appeal, the court found the trial court erred by determining it had jurisdiction of plaintiff’s claims that the special assessments amounted to an unconstitutional property tax in violation of the Headlee Amendment. When it levied the assessments, defendant “identified their purpose as defrayment of specific costs” rather than raising revenue for general governmental purposes. “With this designation, along with statutory authority to make assessments for these purposes, defendant’s assessments are not ‘so clearly a tax . . . that jurisdiction was conferred on the [trial] court under the Headlee provisions.’” Before any question of a Headlee Amendment violation can be considered, “the underlying question of the validity of the special assessment must be addressed. The questions of assessment validity—whether the assessments: (1) conferred a specific benefit on the property owners assessed, (2) had some legal source of authority, or (3) were enacted following the required statutory procedures for levying special assessments—are questions which the []TT must consider under its grant of exclusive and original jurisdiction under MCL 203.371.” By this mechanism, the Headlee Amendment “is not rendered meaningless, as plaintiff contends, but rather is supported by utilizing the expertise of the []TT in the assessment of any alleged attempts to circumvent it.” Reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting defendant summary disposition.