01/06/2025
It’s about time we got some good news….
Here is a summary from the Courts regarding the HCA Suit.
The document linked is a legal opinion from the Michigan Court of Appeals regarding the case of Heron Cove Association v. Midland County Board of Commissioners, Gladwin County Board of Commissioners, and the Four Lakes Task Force (FLTF). The case involves the implementation of special assessments levied on property owners to fund the restoration and maintenance of the Four Lakes system after catastrophic dam failures in 2020. These lakes include Wixom, Sanford, Smallwood, and Secord Lakes.
Key Points:
1. Background:
• The FLTF was designated as the “delegated authority” for overseeing lake maintenance in 2018.
• After dam failures caused severe flooding in 2020, restoration costs were estimated at $399.7 million.
• More than half of the funding (~$217.7 million) was planned to come from special assessments levied over 40 years on property owners within the Four Lakes Special Assessment District.
2. Appeal by Heron Cove Association:
• Property owners argued that the assessments were unlawful, disproportionate, and did not provide sufficient individual benefit to their properties.
• They claimed that the assessments constituted an unconstitutional taking of property without due process or just compensation.
3. Court’s Findings:
• The court upheld the legality of the assessment process under Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), finding it aligned with statutory requirements.
• The appellants failed to demonstrate disproportionality or provide evidence that the assessments were excessive relative to property value benefits.
• The court emphasized that fluctuations in property values could not definitively prove the assessments’ invalidity or lack of proportionality.
4. Conclusion:
• The appeal was denied, affirming the lower court’s decision that the special assessments were valid and procedurally compliant.
• Property owners must contribute to the restoration and maintenance costs as determined by the FLTF and approved by the counties.
This case highlights the complexities of balancing public infrastructure needs with individual property rights in large-scale community projects.