Eric D. Williams (P33359) | 524 North State Street | Big Rapids, MI 49307 | 231-796-8945 | [email protected]

Gaylord’s water connection ordinance is authorized by state law. It is not necessary to rely on a specific enabling statute describing mandatory connection to a public water utility to uphold the ordinance, because of the broad powers of a home
rule city. The Home Rule City Act authorizes each city to provide in its charter “[f]or the installation and connection of sewers and waterworks on and to property within the
city. MCL 117.4b. The absence of a statute mandating connection to a public water utility does not detract from the police power of Gaylord as a home rule city to enact such a
local regulation in the first instance. The presence of a statute mandating connection to a public sewer system does nothing to detract from the police power of Gaylord as a home rule city to enact an ordinance compelling connection to the public water utility. The City of Gaylord need not wait until private water supplies fail, become contaminated, or become inadequate to meet demand, before constructing and
operating its public water utility system. To do so would be illogical and foolhardy. Municipalities are the primary source of public water and sewer facilities in Michigan. The threshold standard for requiring connection to the Gaylord water utility is for the City of Gaylord to determine, not individual property owners or local courts.

Pursuant to its general police power, the City has the authority to enact regulations that regulate public safety, public health, morality, and law and order. Requiring property owners to connect to a municipal water supply is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of promoting the public health by ensuring a safe and pure water supply. Therefore, the ordinances do not offend the limitations imposed by substantive due process. Further, the ordinances do not deprive defendants of economically viable use of their properties. Thus, the ordinances do not effect an unconstitutional taking. Finally, the charges imposed by the ordinances are properly considered user fees rather than taxes. Accordingly, the requirements of the Headlee Amendment are inapplicable to them. Because the ordinances are valid and enforceable, the trial court did not err when it determined that summary disposition in favor of the City was appropriate.
Affirmed.

Defendants all own property formerly located in Bagley Township in Otsego County. Between 1993 and 1996, the City annexed territory encompassing the defendants’ parcels. Prior to the City’s annexation, defendants’ properties were each served by private wells and septic systems. After some time, the City notified defendants that, pursuant to these City ordinances and an ordinance requiring connection to the City’s sewage system, defendants would have to connect to the City’s water and sewage system and cease using their wells. Although defendants connected to or agreed to connect to the City’s sewage system, defendants refused to connect to the City’s water system and cease using their wells.