Whether a charge imposed by a city is a tax or a user fee is a question of law that we review de novo. Bolt v. Lansing , 459 Mich. 152, 158, 587 N.W.2d 264 (1998). B. HEADLEE AMENDMENT CLAIMS
Saginaw Co v John Sexton Corp of Michigan, 232 Mich. App. 202, 209; 591 N.W.2d 52 (1998). As with the fee/tax distinction addressed by the Supreme Court in Bolt v Lansing, 459 Mich. 152; 587 N.W.2d 264 (1998), there is also no bright-line test for distinguishing between a connection/use fee and a special assessment. "Generally, a `fee' is `exchanged for a service rendered or a benefit conferred, and some reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the fee and the value of the service or benefit.'"
The Jackson City Council adopted Ordinance No.2011.02, pursuant to which the city created a storm water utility and imposed a storm water management charge on all property owners within the city to generate revenue to pay for the services provided by the utility, which include, among others, street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, and leaf pickup and mulching. The question posed by these actions is whether the city, by shifting the method of funding certain preexisting government activities from tax revenues to a utility charge, ran afoul of § 31 of the Headlee Amendment, Const. 1963, art. 9, § 31, as construed and applied in Bolt v. City of Lansing, 459 Mich. 152, 587 N.W.2d 264 (1998). We answer this question in the affirmative and hold that the city's storm water management charge is a tax, the imposition of which violates the Headlee Amendment because the city did not submit Ordinance 2011.02 to a vote of the qualified electors of the city.
. Applying the three-factor test from Bolt v City of Lansing, 459 Mich. 152; 587 N.W.2d 264 (1998), we conclude that the disputed rates did not constitute a tax. We accordingly reverse the trial court's order granting plaintiff's motion for summary disposition and remand for the trial court to enter an order granting summary disposition in favor of the Village.
Whether a charge is a tax or a user fee is a question of law that is also reviewed de novo. Bolt v City of Lansing, 459 Mich 152, 158; 587 NW2d 264 (1998). 1. THE HEADLEE AMENDMENT AND THE BOLT FACTORS
See Const 1963, art 9, § 31 ("Units of Local Government are hereby prohibited from levying any tax not authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified or from increasing the rate of an existing tax above that rate authorized by law or charter when this section is ratified, without the approval of a majority of the qualified electors of that unit of Local Government voting thereon.") (emphasis added); Bolt v Lansing, 459 Mich. 152, 159 (1998) ("[I]f the charge is a user fee . . ., the charge is not affected by the Headlee Amendment."); MCL 141.91 ("Except as otherwise provided by law and notwithstanding any provision of its charter, a city or village shall not impose, levy or collect a tax, other than an ad valorem property tax, on any subject of taxation, unless the tax was being imposed by the city or village on January 1, 1964.")
First, plaintiff argues that several of the defense experts offered improper opinions regarding questions of law-in particular, the ultimate legal question of whether the disputed charges in this case qualify as proper user fees, rather than unlawful taxes, under the test enumerated in Bolt v City of Lansing, 459 Mich. 152; 587 N.W.2d 264 (1998). We agree with plaintiff that, to the extent that defendant's experts offered testimony or reports directly opining on legal questions, such as whether the disputed charges are disguised taxes under Headlee § 31 or what a municipality must do to satisfy the demands of Bolt, such evidence must be disregarded
The court ruled in favor of the Township with regard to plaintiff's claims pursued under § 31 of the Headlee Amendment, entering a judgment of no cause of action with respect to those claims. Generally, the court reasoned that, under the test set forth in Bolt v. Lansing , 459 Mich. 152, 587 N.W.2d 264 (1998), plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the disputed charges in this case constituted unlawful tax exactions. It appears that the trial court had prepared some sort of written decision, which it read into the record rather than issuing a written opinion.
Const 1963, art 9, §§ 25-34.Bolt v. City of Lansing, 459 Mich 152, 154, 158-159; 587 NW2d 264 (1998). I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. THE CREATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW SOLID WASTE INSPECTION FEE
Whether a charge is a user fee or a tax is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Bolt v. City of Lansing, 459 Mich. 152, 158, 587 N.W.2d 264 (1998). The Headlee Amendment prohibits units of local government from levying any tax not authorized by law or charter without voter approval.