Crampton v. City of Royal Oak, s. 60-64

• Decision Date: 01 October 1960
• Docket Number: Nos. 60-64,s. 60-64
• Citation: 362 Mich. 503,108 N.W.2d 16
• Parties: Anna B. CRAMPTON, individually and d/b/a Griswold Realty Co., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF ROYAL OAK, a Michigan Municipal Corporation, Defendant and Appellee. ACORN VETERANS MEMORIAL HOME ASSOCIATION, a Michigan Non-Profit Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF ROYAL OAK, a Municipal Corporation; The Honorable William Hayward, Mayor of the City of Royal Oak; Harold J. Remer, City Assessor, Defendants and Appellees. Thorvald TROELSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF ROYAL OAK, a Michigan Municipal Corporation, Defendant and Appellee. LAWSON ESTATES, INC., a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF ROYAL OAK, a Michigan Municipal Corporation, Defendant and Appellee. OAK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF ROYAL OAK, a Michigan Municipal Corporation, Defendant and Appellee. ,
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 16

108 N.W.2d 16

362 Mich. 503

Anna B. CRAMPTON, individually and d/b/a Griswold Realty

Co., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF ROYAL OAK, a Michigan Municipal Corporation,

Defendant and Appellee.

ACORN VETERANS MEMORIAL HOME ASSOCIATION, a Michigan

Non-Profit Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF ROYAL OAK, a Municipal Corporation; The Honorable

William Hayward, Mayor of the City of Royal Oak;

Harold J. Remer, City Assessor,

Defendants and Appellees.

Thorvald TROELSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF ROYAL OAK, a Michigan Municipal Corporation,

Defendant and Appellee.

LAWSON ESTATES, INC., a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF ROYAL OAK, a Michigan Municipal Corporation,

Defendant and Appellee.

OAK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF ROYAL OAK, a Michigan Municipal Corporation,

Defendant and Appellee.

Nos. 60-64, Oct. Term, 1960.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 28, 1961.

Davis & Thorburn and Gilbert H. Davis, Royal Oak, for plaintiffs-appellants Crampton, Troelsen and Lawson Estates.

Clarence A. Bradford, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant Acorn Veterans Memorial Home Ass'n.

Howard I. Bond and Thomas J. Dillon, Pontiac, for plaintiff-appellant Oak Const. Co.

Allan G. Hertler, City Atty., Royal Oak, Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, Detroit, (Stratton S. Brown and Robert Hammell, Detroit, of counsel), for defendant-appellee City of Royal Oak.

Before the Entire Bench.

CARR, Justice.

This case had resulted from an attempt on the part of the defendant city to improve its central business district. The project, as planned, included the improvement and enlargement of automobile parking facilities, the retiring of outstanding parking revenue bonds, the widening of certain streets, the opening of a new street, and the development of a pedestrian mall and plazas. The total cost was estimated at the sum of $2,803,657.40. The resolution of the city commission provided for the establishment of a special assessment district comprising the property on which there was directed to be assessed, according to benefits, the sum of $2,660,526.04. The balance of $143,131.36 was directed to be apportioned to the city at large.

The area involved in the project is approximately six city blocks from east to west, and seven blocks from north to south. Embraced therein is the central business district of Royal Oak. The various improvements sought to be combined to accomplish the desired result are claimed by defendant city as severally necessary to carry out the purpose of the project. It is, in other words, asserted that the entire project involved a single objective with specific changes incorporated therein as essential to the plan.

Following approval of the project, the city commission by appropriate resolution directed the city assessor to prepare a special assessment roll for said improvement, assessing to the district specified, according to benefits, the amount of the total cost apportioned thereto. In accordance with said direction the assessor prepared the roll, charging each parcel of land within the district with the amount considered by him to be its proper share of the burden. Said roll was then submitted to the city commission and was approved by that body.

The plaintiffs are severally the owners of lands within the assessment district created by action of the commission. They instituted separate suits, each claiming in substance that the special assessment was illegal and invalid and not properly imposed on the property subject thereto, that the project of the city was not a public improvement within the meaning of the statutes of the State and the charter of the city, that the defendant lacked authority to levy such assessment, that the burden imposed on each plaintiff's real estate was not commensurate with the benefits that would accrue thereto as the result of the improvement, and that the assessments within the district were not properly levied. Defendant filed answers in substance denying the claims made with reference to the validity of the proceeding. The cases instituted by the property owners were heard together in circuit court and disposed of on the issues raised and the proofs received in open court. The circuit judge hearing the matter concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief sought by them, which relief involved a determination of the rights of the parties under the facts and the law. A decree was accordingly entered dismissing each bill of complaint, and plaintiffs have appealed.

No claim is made that the defendant city is not empowered by provisions of the Constitution and pertinent legislative enactments to engage in public improvements, nor is the right challenged to raise part or all of the necessary cost thereof by special assessments levied on property within a district created by authorized legislative procedure. The legality of assessments on property especially benefited from the improvement of streets and highways has been repeatedly recognized by this Court. Loomis v. Rogers, 197 Mich. 265, 281, 163 N.W. 1018. As above noted, the project in question here involves improvements of such nature. The contemplated mall and plazas are apparently designed for pedestrian traffic with the thought in mind of contributing to the safety of such traffic and to the use and enjoyment of the business facilities in the central district of the city. The furnishing of reasonable and adequate parking facilities as a part of the general traffic problem is not now open to question. Wayne Village President v. Wayne Village Clerk, 323 Mich. 592, 36 N.W.2d 157, 8 A.L.R.2d 357, cited and followed in Stolorow v. City of Pontiac, 339 Mich. 199, 205, 63 N.W.2d 611. The matter of retiring outstanding parking revenue bonds is specifically covered by P.A.1933, No. 94 ¹, as amended by P.A.1959, No. 78, which added a new section to said act designated as section 20c thereof, as follows:

'When a borrower has outstanding any parking revenue bonds issue under the provisions of this act, it may thereafter levy special assessments against properties specially benefited by the parking facilities originally financed by the bonds, but no assessment shall be made at large, and may issue special assessment bonds therefor in anticipation of the payment of the special assessments for the purpose of providing for the retirement of the outstanding bonds in whole or in part. The special assessment bonds may pledge the full faith and credit of the public corporation issuing them, as determined by the governing body of the public corporation. The special assessment bonds may be issued to include the amount of any premium to be paid upon the calling of the parking revenue bonds to be refunded or if such bonds are not callable, any premium necessary to be paid in order to secure the surrender of the bonds to be refunded; but the amount of the premium so included shall not exceed 5% of the principal amount of the bonds to be refunded. The procedures for levying the special assessments and for issuing the special assessment bonds shall be the same as that provided by charter or other applicable law. Nothing in this section shall be construed as providing for the refunding of noncallable unmatured bonds without the consent of the holders thereof.'

Said amendment was given immediate effect and was approved June 29, 1959. The charter of the City of Royal Oak, as amended, is in accord with the statutory provisions quoted. Controlling provisions of said charter are found in Chapter Twelve thereof which relates to special assessments. The following provisions are pertinent to the questions raised in the instant case.

'Section 1. The Commission shall have power to provide for the payment of all or any part of the cost of construction, reconstruction, repair, operation or maintenance of any structure or work in the nature of public improvement, by levying and collecting special assessments upon property specially benefited. Any special assessment levied pursuant to the provisions of this chapter may be made payable in yearly installments for a period not exceeding twenty (20) years.

'Section 1A. The Commission shall have the power to levy and collect special assessments upon property specially benefited by existing public improvements originally financed by revenue bonds, for the purpose of providing for the retirement of any such outstanding revenue bonds in whole or in part. Any such special assessment may include the amount of any premium to be paid upon the calling of the bonds to be retired.

* * *

* * *

'Section 3. When the Commission shall determine to make any public improvement, or repairs, alterations or additions to any public improvement, and defray the whole or any part of the cost and expenses thereof by special assessment, they shall so declare by resolution stating the nature of the improvement and what portion of the cost and expenses thereof shall be paid by special assessment, and what portion, if any, shall be borne by the City, and shall designate the district or lands and premises upon which the special assessments shall be levied.

'Section 4. Before ordering any public improvements or repairs, any part of the expenses of which is to be defrayed by special assessment, the Commission shall cause estimates of the expenses thereof, to be made, and also plats and diagrams, when practicable, of the work and of the locality to be improved, and deposit the same with the Clerk for public examination; and they shall give notice therof and of the proposed improvements, and of the district to be assessed, and of the time and place when the commission will meet and consider any objections thereto, by publication once at least five days prior to such meeting in a newspaper published and circulating in the City.

'Section 5. When any special assessment is to be made pro rata upon the lots and premises in any...