Challenges to permit fees charged to owners of commercial & multiunit residential real property by a city; Alleged violation of § 31 of the Headlee Amendment; Unjust enrichment; Violation of MCL 141.91; Bolt v City of Lansing; Fees that benefit the general public; Westlake Transp, Inc v Public Serv Comm’n; Alleged violations of the city charter & ordinances; Retroactive approval of the charges by the city council; “Issuance”; “Permit”; Equal protection; Rational basis review; Assumpsit; Fisher Sand & Gravel Co v Neal A Sweebe, Inc

[This opinion was previously released as an unpublished opinion on 03/09/2023.] Rejecting appellant’s multiple challenges to the legality of certain charges imposed by defendant-City of Detroit on owners of commercial and multitenant residential real property, the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the charges are legal. Counts I, IV, and V of appellant’s complaint alleged “violations of § 31 of the Headlee Amendment and MCL 141.91.” The court noted there was no fact question that the charges “here were for the acquisition of permits, not inspections.” Applying the Bolt factors, it concluded as to the first factor (whether the charge serves a regulatory purpose rather than a revenue-raising one) that this case was analogous to Westlake – appellant here received “a benefit by being allowed to operate its business in Detroit. Thus, appellant received ‘a direct benefit’ from paying the charge. The fact that the general public also benefits from the Fire Protection Program does not negate the charge’s regulatory nature.” Next, the court determined that the charge appeared “to be proportionate to the necessary costs of the service” the City was providing. As to the third factor, whether the charge was voluntary, the trial court assumed that it was not, and the court agreed. After weighing the three factors, “the trial court ruled the charge was a fee, not a tax.” The court agreed with its analysis and found that it did not err. The court noted that the fact the charge was involuntary by itself was insufficient “to overcome the other two factors that appellant received a benefit and that the fee is proportional. Because the charge at issue is a fee, not a tax, appellant” could not succeed “on its claims alleging violations of the Headlee Amendment and MCL 141.91.” The court further held that the trial court did not err in finding no cause of action for the “claims related to the violation of the city charter and ordinances.” Among other things, it rejected appellant’s argument that the city council’s retroactive approval of the charges was a nullity, and it concluded that the city “ordinance allows for the recovery of the costs of the Fire Prevention Program in the issuance of the permits.” Finally, as to appellant’s equal protection claim, the court applied rational basis review in determining that the trial court did not err in finding no cause of action for this claim.