PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Act 188 of 1954
41.725 Approval or determination by township board; levy of special assessment.
Sec. 5.
(1) If, after the hearing provided for in section 4, the township board desires to proceed with the improvement, the township board shall approve or determine by resolution all of the following:
(a) The completion of the improvement.
(b) The plans and estimate of cost as originally presented or as revised, corrected, amended, or changed.
(c) The sufficiency of the petition for the improvement if a petition is required. After this determination, the sufficiency of the petition is not subject to attack except in an action brought in a court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days after the adoption of the resolution determining the sufficiency of the petition.
(d) The special assessment district including the term of the special assessment district's existence. If the nature of the improvement to be made is such that a periodic redetermination of cost will be necessary without a change in the special assessment district boundaries, the township board shall state that in the resolution and shall set the dates when the redeterminations shall be made. After finally determining the special assessment district, the township board shall direct the supervisor to make a special assessment roll in which are entered and described all the parcels of land to be assessed, with the names of the respective record owners of each parcel, if known, and the total amount to be assessed against each parcel of land, which amount shall be the relative portion of the whole sum to be levied against all parcels of land in the special assessment district as the benefit to the parcel of land bears to the total benefit to all parcels of land in the special assessment district. When the supervisor completes the assessment roll, the supervisor shall affix to the roll his or her certificate stating that the roll was made pursuant to a resolution of the township board adopted on a specified date, and that in making the assessment roll the supervisor, according to his or her best judgment, has conformed in all respects to the directions contained in the resolution and the statutes of this state.
(2) After December 31, 1998, an ad valorem special assessment levied under this act shall be levied on the taxable value of the property assessed.
(3) If the levy of an ad valorem special assessment on the property's taxable value is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the levy of the ad valorem special assessment shall be levied on the property's state equalized value.
(4) As used in this section and section 15b, "taxable value" means that value determined under section 27a of the general property tax act, 1893 PA 206, MCL 211.27a.
History: 1954, Act 188, Imd. Eff. May 5, 1954 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 143, Imd. Eff. June 5, 1974 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 180, Imd. Eff. July 8, 1986 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 544, Imd. Eff. Jan. 20, 1999
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2023 · leading case:
Wikman v. City of Novi, 322 N.W.2d 103 (Mich. 1982).
Wikman v. City of Novi, 322 N.W.2d 103 (Mich. 1982).
· cites it 2× “, does not inaccurately describe an ad valorem tax as a special assessment, but authorizes the raising of revenue by both special assessments, MCL 41.725; MSA 5.2770(55), and by pledging the full faith and credit of the township, MCL 41.”
Niles Twp. v. Berrien Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 683 N.W.2d 148 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“[I]f the township board, or township boards acting jointly, determine to create a special assessment district, they shall determine the boundaries by resolution, determine the amount of the special assessment levy, and direct the supervisor or supervisors to spread the…”
Niles Twp. v. Berrien Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 683 N.W.2d 148 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“[I]f the township board, or township boards acting jointly, determine to create a special assessment district, they shall determine the boundaries by resolution, determine the amount of the special assessment levy, and direct the supervisor or supervisors to spread the…”
Ashley Ann Arbor, LLC v. Pittsfield Charter Twp., 829 N.W.2d 299 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“Ashley complained in part that “[t]he improvement does not specially benefit the subject property,” “[t]he special assessment is not proportional to the benefit, if any, to the subject property,” and the lack of proportionality violated MCL 41.725(1)(d) of the public…”
Highland-Howell Dev. Co., LLC v. Twp. of Marion, 733 N.W.2d 761 (Mich. 2007).
“The tribunal dismissed petitioner's challenge of the 2004 resolution on the basis of res judicata, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the basis of collateral estoppel. Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued January 31, 2006 (Docket No.”
Rusak v. Acme Twp., 336 N.W.2d 771 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 14× “MCL 41.725; MSA 5.2770(55). The special assessment roll is then filed in the office of the township clerk.”
Spear v. Twp. of Fenton, 170 N.W.2d 312 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 2× “The sole attack on the legality of the assessments on plaintiffs’ properties is that the supervisor in preparing and the township board in confirming the assessment roll failed to comply with § 5 of Act 188, MCLA § 41.725 (Stat Ann 1958, Rev § 5.2770[55]).”
Highland-Howell Dev. Co., LLC v. Twp. of Marion, 716 N.W.2d 267 (Mich. 2006).
“t oral argument: (1) the manner in which a property owner subject to special assessment for a planned improvement may seek relief when there is a subsequent change to the plan that materially affects the benefit to the owner's property, and (2) whether respondent's May 13, 2004…”
Evangelos Gianakos v. Indep. Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“In light of this conclusion, it is also unnecessary to address the Township’s additional argument that a challenge to the formation of the special assessment district in this case could only be brought within the time frame provided in MCL 41.725(1)(c), which provides that after…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 41.725(1)(b) — 1 case
Highland-Howell Dev. Co., LLC v. Twp. of Marion, 716 N.W.2d 267 (Mich. 2006).
“t oral argument: (1) the manner in which a property owner subject to special assessment for a planned improvement may seek relief when there is a subsequent change to the plan that materially affects the benefit to the owner's property, and (2) whether respondent's May 13, 2004…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 41.725(1)(c) — 1 case
Evangelos Gianakos v. Indep. Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“In light of this conclusion, it is also unnecessary to address the Township’s additional argument that a challenge to the formation of the special assessment district in this case could only be brought within the time frame provided in MCL 41.725(1)(c), which provides that after…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 41.725(1)(d) — 2 cases
Ashley Ann Arbor, LLC v. Pittsfield Charter Twp., 829 N.W.2d 299 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“Ashley complained in part that “[t]he improvement does not specially benefit the subject property,” “[t]he special assessment is not proportional to the benefit, if any, to the subject property,” and the lack of proportionality violated MCL 41.725(1)(d) of the public…”
Highland-Howell Dev. Co., LLC v. Twp. of Marion, 733 N.W.2d 761 (Mich. 2007).
“The tribunal dismissed petitioner's challenge of the 2004 resolution on the basis of res judicata, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the basis of collateral estoppel. Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued January 31, 2006 (Docket No.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.