The plaintiffs are
property owners in Detroit who are being charged for their impervious acreage, i.e.,
hard surfaces that limit the ability of storm water to soak into the ground. The plaintiffs filed an original action in
the Court of Appeals to challenge the drainage charge on the basis that it
constitutes a tax for which voter approval has not been obtained as required by
the Headlee Amendment, Const 1963, art 9, § 31.
The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, upheld the drainage
charge as a “fee” rather than a “tax,” thus obviating the application of the
Headlee Amendment’s voter approval requirement.
The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to
address whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Bolt v City of Lansing, 459 Mich 152,
164 (1998), is distinguishable from this case on the basis that Detroit’s sewer
system is a combined system rather than a separate storm and sanitary sewer system.