Land v. City of Grandville

• Decision Date: 12 April 1966
• Docket Number: No. 3,No. 740,740,3
• Citation: 141 N.W.2d 370,2 Mich. App. 681
• Parties: , 64 P.U.R.3d 182 Robert G. LAND, Paul Land, Henry Land and Jennie Land, a partnership, d/b/a Henry Land & Sons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF GRANDVILLE, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Cal
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 370

141 N.W.2d 370

2 Mich.App. 681, 64 P.U.R.3d 182

Robert G. LAND, Paul Land, Henry Land and Jennie Land, a partnership, d/b/a Henry Land & Sons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.CITY OF GRANDVILLE, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Cal. No. 740.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3.

April 12, 1966.

Walter B. Freihofer, Vander Veen, Freihofer & Cook, Grand Rapids, for appellants.

Richard M. Van Orden, Bergstrom, Slykhouse & Van Orden, Grand Rapids, for appellee.

Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and HOLBROOK and KAVANAGH, JJ.

HOLBROOK, Judge.

Plaintiffs-appellants are the owners of a 150 unit mobile trailer park and a 15 unit motel with a manager's apartment in connection situated in the defendant-appelleecity of Grandville, a municipal corporation located in Kent County.

Plaintiffs brought suit in circuit court for declaratory judgment declaring defendant's 'sewer ordinances' invalid, claiming the rates applicable to plaintiffs' motel and trailer home park were unreasonable and arbitrary, and also for an accounting.After presenting testimony December 10, 1964, the parties signed an agreed statement of facts February 3, 1965, filed briefs, and submitted the case for decision.The trial judge ruled March 18, 1965, against plaintiffs' contentions and dismissed their complaint.From this judgment of dismissal, plaintiffs appeal.

A single question is presented by plaintiffs in their brief on appeal to-wit:

Does the sewer charge ordinance of the city of Grandville create an arbitrary and discriminatory classification of persons required to pay the quarterly 'minimum fee,' sewer use fee, contrary to the equal protection clauses of the Michigan Constitutionand14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution?

The pertinent facts necessary for decision appear in the record to be as follows:

Upon petition of the State of Michigan in April, 1962, the Kent County circuit court enjoined the city of Grandville from disposing of its sewage in Grand River, and the city thus became obligated to build a sewage disposal plant.Construction of the plant was commenced in 1963, and completed in late 1964.

Plaintiffs' trailer park and motel are hooked into and are customers of defendant water and sewer systems.The trailer park and motel each have a single water meter.

On August 28, 1961, defendant city adopted OrdinanceNo. 110 pertaining to charges for sewer services.On December 23, 1963, defendant city adopted OrdinanceNo. 110--B which raised the minimum rates from $3 to $5 per quarter.On May 25, 1964, defendant city adopted 'sewer OrdinanceNo. 121.'Art. 8 of the ordinance imposes the same sewer rates as set forth under OrdinanceNo. 110--B and the pertinent parts of said ordinance are as follows:

'Sec. 803(a).The rates and charges for each quarter shall be determined by each user's quarterly water use, the billing for which includes the month of January, and which said rates shall be as follows:

             Sewage Service Rates
                           Quarterly Billing Period
                Quantity of Water Used           Rate
                ----------------------  ----------------------
                First 15,000 gallons    $5.00 (minimum charge)
                Next 85,000 gallons       .25 per 1000 gallons
                Next 200,000 gallons      .22 per 1000 gallons
                Next 200,000 gallons      .20 per 1000 gallons
                Over 500,000 gallons      .10 per 1000 gallons
                

'(c).In the event two or more lots, parcels of real estate, residences, dwelling units, or buildings discharging sanitary sewage, water, or other liquids into the sanitary sewage system of the city either directly or indirectly, are users of water and the quantity of water is measured by a single water meter, then, in each case for billing purposes, the minimum charge for sewer rates and charges shall be multiplied by the number of lots, parcels of real estate, residences, dwelling units, or buildings served through the single water meter.'

It is the application of sub-paragraph (c) quoted above (which is identical in OrdinanceNo. 110andOrdinanceNo. 110--B) to the property of the plaintiffs that forms the basis for the controversy in these proceedings.The sewer lateral and interceptor system located within the property lines of the plaintiffs and servicing the trailer park were installed by them at their expense the same as required by the defendant city of all developers of any plat or subdivision.

Plaintiffs could have had separate meters installed for each of the 150 trailer units and each of the 16 motel units upon payment of connection charges as provided in said ordinance.

The power of the defendant city to own and operate a sanitary sewer system and by ordinance to impose charges, rentals or rates for such service is not questioned by plaintiffs.

The trailers using the park are typically equipped with a toilet, bathing accommodations, and kitchen sinks.These trailers are not transit, but usually stay six months or longer.Plaintiffs restricted the number of children per trailer to two.The average occupancy per trailer is about 2.1 persons.Each trailer is connected by sewage lateral to a gathering system of interceptors running throughout the trailer park, which interceptor system then connects into the trunk sewer of the city at plaintiffs' property line.The trailer park has a near 100% Occupancy.

Each unit of the motel has a toilet, shower, and sink and sleeping accommodations and contributes a daily laundry of toweling and linen.The motel has a 65--70% Occupancy rate.

By reason of the ordinance the trailer park has been charged a minimum quarterly sewage rental of $5 per quarter for those trailer spaces actually occupied by trailers during each billing period.The motel has been charged for 16 units each quarter on a minimum charge basis.

The trailer park has not paid more than a minimum rental as the water used per unit for the winter control period has been about 10,000 gallons, however, their maximum use of water per quarter in the summer has approached 50,000 gallons of water per trailer.This is also true for the charges of the motel units, as its winter average has been about 5,000 gallons of water per unit with the summer quarter approaching 40,000 gallons of water used per unit.

The sewage plant of defendant city was designed to accommodate the entire population of the city, but at the time of this law suit, only about 1/3 of the area was so serviced.The income from rental or charges for services of the sewer system were not enough to defray the cost of operations and the city has imposed a 3 mill ad valorem tax against all of the property of the city to supplement the sewer systems income.

All of the multiple dwelling unit properties in defendant city are charged the minimum rate for sewer services on a perunit basis the same as plaintiffs' property.These include two other motels and four separate multiple dwelling complexes of apartment buildings.

Billings by defendant city for sewer service to plaintiffs for the trailer park and motel is by way of one bill for each quarter.The meter is read and then the gallonage divided by the number of units occupied to ascertain the gallonage used by each unit.Always the minimum has been charged per unit.The cost of meter reading and billing is no greater for the trailer park than for a factory or business building.The cost of processing the sewage is no greater from the trailer park than a like amount from a business or commercial plant, however, under certain conditions, sewage from the commercial plants must be processed before being placed in the sewer system.

The basis upon which defendant city justifies the minimum charge to dwelling units is contained in the testimony of Mr. Raymond Bruggink, consulting engineer to the city of Grandville.His testimony is to the effect that the design and construction of the sewage disposal system for the city was the population unit.The capacity of the sewage plant was predicated upon the average amount of contribution by the average individual residing in the community.That the presence in the community of business or commercial operations such as laundromats, schools and businesses was of little significance and had relatively little bearing on considerations of capacity or maintenance for the disposal system because as stated in his words:

'A.Because we have made our design on the basis of the population equivalent which includes the kitchen waste, sanitary waste from the individual, and also the laundry waste, whether it is done at home or at a laundromat would not affect our load on the sewage materially.'

The domestic unit composed of individuals according to Mr. Bruggink was the reason for the classification for rate charges for use of the sewer system contained in the defendant city ordinance authorizing minimum charges for each individual residence or dwelling unit, whether it be a house, a trailer home, an apartment, or motel room or rooms.In the city of Grandville, the average family unit was 3.5 persons.

Plaintiffs maintained that their motel and trailer home park constitute businesses or commercial enterprises and by reason of their using only one water meter for each business, should be treated the same as a laundromat, factory or other business in the city with one minimum rate plus charges for excess use of water at the reduced rate.If plaintiffs' position is tenable, its sewer rentals would be about 1/3 the fees computed under the said ordinance.

The rule governing a municipality's right to regulate rates for its public utilities is dealt with in the early case of Preston v. Board of Water Commissioners of Detroit(1898), 117 Mich. 589, p. 598, 76 N.W. 92, p. 96, wherein it is stated:

'It is true, if he is in the water district, he is entitled to the use of the water by complying with the regulations of the water board.It is also true these regulations must be reasonable; but it is not true they must be uniform, or that they must be based upon the value of the...