Charter Twp. of Lansing v. Ingham Cnty. Drain Comm'r

• Decision Date: 02 December 2014
• Docket Number: No. 318446,No. 316870,316870,318446
• Parties: CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF LANSING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER, Defendant-Appellee, and GROESBECK PARK DRAIN BOARD OF REVIEW, Defendant. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF LANSING, Plaintiff/Petitioner-Appellant, v. INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER, Defendant/Respondent-Appellee, and DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Intervenor, and GRANGER WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Intervenor-Appellee, and GROESBECK PARK DRAIN BOARD OF REVIEW, Intervenor, and LANSING BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT, Intervenor/Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF LANSING, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER, Defendant-Appellee,
and
GROESBECK PARK DRAIN BOARD OF REVIEW, Defendant.

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF LANSING, Plaintiff/Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER, Defendant/Respondent-Appellee,
and
DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Intervenor,
and
GRANGER WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Intervenor-Appellee,
and
GROESBECK PARK DRAIN BOARD OF REVIEW, Intervenor,
and
LANSING BOARD OF WATER AND LIGHT, Intervenor/Respondent-Appellee.

No. 316870
No. 318446

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

December 2, 2014

UNPUBLISHED

Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 13-000388-CE

Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 13-000732-AS

Page 2

Before: RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J., and WILDER and STEPHENS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal, the Charter Township of Lansing, plaintiff and/or petitioner in the two consolidated cases, appeals by right two separate orders denying it relief regarding a very expensive drain project for which the Township was assessed a substantial portion of responsibility. Generally, the Township contends that it should not be apportioned such a great portion of the project. In LC No. 13-000388-CE/Docket No. 316870, the trial court dismissed for a want of subject-matter jurisdiction the Township's claim that the apportionment constituted a deprivation of property without due process. In LC No. 13-000732-AS/Docket No. 318446, the trial court denied the Township's petition for certiorari review of the Drainage Board of Review's final determination upholding the apportionment. Because the Township has not articulated a legal basis for relief, we must nevertheless affirm.

The Township is essentially the irregularly-shaped, piecemeal, and noncontiguous remains of the northwest corner township of Ingham County left after the City of Lansing began annexing land after its incorporation in 1859. According to the 2012 United States Census, the Township consisted at that time of only 4.93 square miles of land and had a population of 8,126. A portion of the Township lies north of Bancroft Park/Groesbeck Golf Course in the City of Lansing and encompasses a length of Lake Lansing Road, including the Eastwood Towne Center strip-mall next to US-127. The Lansing Board of Water and Light (LBWL) owns property, which it used as a fly ash landfill from 1979 to 1997, within the portion of the Township that lies within the Groesbeck Park Drain district. Granger Waste Management Company (Granger) runs a refuse and recycling operation that is partly located within the portion of the Township that lies within the Groesbeck Park Drain District. The Drain District covers approximately 295 acres, of which 222.77 acres are within the geographical boundaries of Lansing Township, representing approximately 6.6% of the Township's total land area.

The drain at issue, the Groesbeck Park Drain (the Drain), was established by the Ingham County Drain Commissioner in 1985. In 1990, the Township petitioned the Ingham County Drain Commissioner to improve the Drain. In 1999, the Ingham County Road Commission (the

Page 3

Road Commission) petitioned the Ingham County Drain Commissioner to further improve the Drain. Ultimately, the Drain Commissioner held a "day of review" on March 18, 2013, regarding the Drain project. The Drain's estimated cost would be $12.595 million, of which the Township would be apportioned 62%. However, a few days later, the Township's apportionment was reduced to 49.5%. The Township believes that the approximately $6.234 million for which it would be liable under the Drain assessment is excessive and improper. The Township filed objections on March 28, 2013, and a Board of Review was convened and held over the course of four days in April of 2013.

During the pendency of the Board of Review, the Township filed its initial complaint in LC No 13-000388-CE, which in part sought preliminary injunctive relief. The trial court initially issued an ex parte temporary restraining order against the Drainage Board and the Drain Commissioner, precluding them from taking any further action on the Drain project, which interrupted the Board of Review proceedings for a few days until the restraining order was dissolved. The Township filed an amended complaint in LC No 13-000388-CE, asserting violations of its constitutional rights, including, inter alia, that the drain petition filed by the Road Commission had been ultra vires, so the Drain Commission lacked jurisdiction and the assessment constituted a deprivation of property without due process. On May 3, 2013, the Township voluntarily dismissed all of its claims in LC No 13-000388-CE except for the noted claim of deprivation of due process based on the allegedly ultra vires drain petition.

Meanwhile, on April 24, 2013, the Board of Review, among other minor alterations, reduced the Township's apportionment to 23.5% and increased LBWL's apportionment from 30.00% to 56.0846%. LBWL petitioned the Ingham County Circuit Court for a writ of certiorari to appeal the Board of Review's decision, asserting that it had not received notice of the Board of Review and therefore did not have an opportunity to participate, and the Board of Review had increased LBWL's apportionment on the basis of improper considerations. The trial court agreed and ordered the matter remanded to the Board of Review "because the Board of Review's decision was not based on substantial, material and competent evidence on the entire record." The trial court particularly emphasized that the Board of Review had impermissibly considered LBWL's "responsibility" for having created a fly ash pit and LBWL's relative ability to absorb the cost of the Drain, which the trial court noted were "considerations neither relevant nor consequential to the issue of 'benefits derived' from the drain project, as required by the Michigan Drain Code . . . "

On June 4, 2013, the trial court issued an opinion and order in LC No 13-000388-CE, nominally prompted by a motion for reconsideration by the Township regarding the dissolution of the temporary restraining order. The trial court determined that the Township had failed to bring the proper kind of review permitted by the Drain Code after the Drain board's final order of determination, and therefore the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the Township's deprivation of due process claim. The trial court recognized that it might have equitable jurisdiction in the event of fraud or a constitutional challenge, and that a deprivation of property without due process was such a challenge. However, the trial court concluded that although the Road Commission's petition did not itself specifically reference highways, the resolution that it incorporated by reference did state a need to provide for drainage involving Lake Lansing Road, so there was no complete lack of authority. The trial court therefore dismissed the Township's amended complaint and closed the case. The appeal in Docket No. 316870 followed.

Page 4

Thereafter, the Board of Review reconvened for four more days. At the conclusion of the reconvened hearings, the Board of Review reinstated the 49.5% apportionment to the Township and 30.0846% to the LBWL. Thereafter, the Township filed its petition for certiorari in LC No 13-000732-AS. The trial court issued a written opinion and order on August 15, 2013, denying the writ. The trial court noted that it could not substitute its judgment for that of the Board of Review, and the Board of Review's decision appeared to be authorized by law and supported by sufficient evidence. It declined to consider the Township's constitutional arguments because "those claims were previously addressed in Case No. 13-000388-CE and are now pending before the Court of Appeals." The appeal in Docket No. 318446 followed.

Our Supreme Court has recently set forth the relevant standard of review in drain proceeding appeal cases as follows:

We review de novo a trial court's decision to grant or deny summary disposition. Debano-Griffin v Lake Co, 493 Mich 167, 175, 828 NW2d 634 (2013). Whether due process has been afforded is a constitutional issue that is reviewed de novo. People v Wilder, 485 Mich 35, 40, 780 NW2d 265 (2010). Likewise, whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. Lapeer Co Clerk v. Lapeer Circuit Judges, 465 Mich 559, 566, 640 NW2d 567 (2002). Questions of statutory interpretation are also reviewed de novo. Detroit v Ambassador Bridge Co, 481 Mich 29, 35, 748 NW2d 221 (2008). Though our review of the issues presented is thus de novo, we are also mindful of our previous declaration that, in general, "[w]e ... are not inclined to reverse [drain] proceedings ... absent [a] showing of very substantial faults." In re Fitch Drain No 129, 346 Mich 639, 647, 78 NW2d 600 (1956). [Elba Twp v Gratiot Co Drain Comm'r, 493 Mich 265, 277-278; 831 NW2d 204 (2013).]

Additionally, the board of a county road commission is an administrative board established by law. See MCL 224.9. Consequently, it necessarily exercises some quasi-legislative and quasi-executive powers. See People ex rel Attorney General v Common Council of Detroit, 29 Mich 108, 113 (1874); In re Macomb Drain Comm'r, 369 Mich 641, 647; 120 NW2d 789 (1963). Civil Service Comm v Dep't of Labor, 424 Mich 571, 631; 384 NW2d 728 (1986). Giving the maximum benefit of the doubt to the Township, and thereby presuming the road commission's petition...