Opinion ID: 1913171
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: authority to assess user charges

Text: Michigan's Drain Code enabled Southgate to legally assess user charges. The Drain Code is the comprehensive authority for drain systems operating in Michigan. As explained in Toth v Waterford Twp, 87 Mich App 173, 176; 274 NW2d 7 (1978), The statute represents the Legislature's attempt to codify all laws regarding drains and to provide for detailed, specific and exclusive procedures to be followed in proceedings to construct and maintain drains.... Absent fraud, all matters pertaining to the locating, constructing, cleaning, extending, etc., of drains are to be determined according to the procedures set forth in the Drain Code. The SWDD is an intracounty drain system governed by chapter 20 of the Drain Code. Section 490 of chapter 20 unreservedly authorizes public corporations, such as Southgate, to collect service charges from property owners who utilize public drains. In place of or in addition to levying special assessments, the public corporation, under the same conditions and for the same purpose, may exact connection, readiness to serve, availability, or service charges to be paid by owners of land directly or indirectly connected with the drain project, or a combination of projects.... [MCL 280.490(4); MSA 11.1490(4).] The plaintiffs argue that Southgate lacked the authority to assess user fees in 1988 because, by that time, the drain project had already been completed. Plaintiffs rely upon § 489a to support this assertion. Section 489a sets forth various prerequisites regarding assessments that must be followed before the construction of a drain project. [9] Plaintiffs contend that none of these requirements were met by 1988, and, therefore, any attempt to assess in 1988, or thereafter, violates the Drain Code. The plaintiffs' reliance upon § 489a in this context is improper. Section 489a amended § 490, and went into effect in 1980. By 1980, the construction of Southgate's new drain system was finished. Consequently, it would not have been possible for Southgate to ever have complied with § 489a's requirements. Clearly, the Legislature intended that § 489a would have only prospective effect. Thus, we agree with the trial judge's conclusion that 489a is without meaning in this case. Further, we conclude that Southgate had valid authority to levy user fees under the appropriate Drain Code sections. In addition, the Southgate City Council's own resolution, passed unanimously in 1975, empowered Southgate to collect user charges. In effect, the resolution obligated Southgate to make users pay the operation and maintenance costs for the new drain system. On these bases, this Court holds that Southgate had the legal authority to assess user charges in 1987 and thereafter.