STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND CITY OF WALLED LAKE, a Michigan municipal corporation, Plaintiff, Case No, “vs Hon. WALLED LAKE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. SECREST WARDLE, P.C. ‘Vaban C, Vanerian (P48196) Attorney for Plaintiff 2600 Troy Center Drive, P.O. Box 5025 ‘Troy, MI 48007-5025 248- 851-9500; fax: 248-538-1224 cvanerian@secrestwardle.com; jones@secrestwardle.com ‘There is no other pending or resulting civil action arising out of the transaction or occurrence alleged in this Complaint. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE, AND EQUITABLE RELD NOW COMES Plaintiff, CITY OF WALLED LAKE, by and through its attomeys, SECREST WARDLE, by Vahan C. Vanerian, and for its Complaint against Defendant, WALLED LAKE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff states as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. That Plaintiff, City of Walled Lake (hereinafter “City”) is @ Michigan municipal corporation located in the County of Oakland, State of Michigan. 2, ‘That the claims and causes of action alleged herein arise out of the Defendant's proposed demolition of the Walled Lake Community Education Center (“CEC”), a long standing educationalSecrest WARDLE institution built in 1922 that is located in the heart of the City of Walled Lake and considered by many members of the community to have historical, cultural and economic significance. 3. That Defendant, Walled Lake Consolidated School District (“School District”) is a state agency doing business in the City of Walled Lake, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, and owns and operates the CEC. 4. That at the March 2, 2017 Board of Education meeting for Defendant School District, the School Board approved the closing and demolition of the CEC for purposes of selling the property for future private development (Exhibit 1). 5. That many members of the public attended the March 2, 2017 School Board meeting and spoke out against the closure and demolition of the CEC to no aveil. (Exhibit I) 6. That members of the community continue to appear at School Board meetings and continue to voice their objections to the closure and demolition of the CEC, however, the Board has taken no action to reconsider its March 2, 2017 decision to close, demolish and sell the CEC property. (Exhibit 2) 7. That on May 16, 2017, the City Council for the City of Walled Lake ("Council") adopted resolution 2017-42 recognizing the local historical significance of the CEC and resolved to make an effort to preserve the historic building known as the Walled Lake Community Education Center. (Exhibit 3). 8 That the Council further resolved to request a delay of the proposed demolition to allow for planning/re-zoning and determining potential future uses of the CEC building and for the further purpose of acquiring a right of first refusal. (Exhibits 3), 9. That following the adoption of the May 16, 2017 Council resolution, City of Walled Lake officials met with School District officials (“meeting”) for purposes of discussing the pending demolition of the CEC and for the purpose of presenting the City’s proposal to recoi demolishingthe CEC and re-purposing the CEC strueture for private commercial use. No quorum of either the Board or Couneil was present at the meeting 10, During the meeting, Schoo! District officials represented that te School Board intends to move forward with the previously approved demolition of the CEC due to Board concerns that the CEC might be used as a Charter Schoo! if the property was sold with the buildings intact, an outcome deemed undesirable by the Board, and that the Board could not legally place deed or other use restrictions on the future use of the property as « Charter School 11. During the meeting, School District officials further indicated that the Board intends to fund the demolition of the CEC with Bond and/or sinking fund revenue as opposed to General Fund revenue, 12, That the Board intends to simply demolish CEC structures and then sell the land to private investors for some undetermined future commercial development and use. 13, ‘That following the pending demolition of the CEC, no new, remodeled or repaired educational facilities will be built or maintained by Defendant nor will the demolished site be used for any educational purpose by Defendant. 14, That upon information and belief, the cost to demolish the CEC structures will exceed any resulting inerease in value of the remaining vacent land thereby resulting in a wasteful and unreasonable expenditure of tax payer dollars undertaken for the improper purpose of preventing a Charter School from opening on the CEC property. 15. That as alleged more particularly herein and below, funding the demolition of the CEC with bond and/or sinking fund revenue violates state law. 16, That as alleged more particularly herein, the City is likely to prevail on the merits of the City’s Claims.SECREST WARDLE 17, demolished, the unique and irreplaceable historical value and significance of the building will be lost forever thereby resulting in irreparable harm to the City and community at large. Therefore issuance of an injunction enjoining demolition of the CEC represents the only adequate remedy at law and/or equity, 18 That enjoining Defendant from illegally and improperly demolishing the eurrent CEC building without required City permits and approvals will sult in no harrn to the public interest, 19, That, as stated and set forth more particularly herein, Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits of the instant action to enjoin Defendant from demolishing the curent CEC building by using improper funding and for an improper purpose and without required City permits and approvals 20. That as olleged, stated and set forth herein, demolition of the CEC building ereates immediate and imeparable harm to Plaintiff and the general public that outweighs any harm to the Defendant as a result of being enjoined and restrained from demolishing the CEC building by using improper funding and for an improper purpose without required City permits and approvals. 21, That as alleged more particularly herein, demolition of the current CEC building and changing the current community service use to a commercial use requires City issued building permits, planning approvals and rezoning the CEC property to accommodate demolition and/or any change in use. 22. That despite having approved the demolition and sale of the CEC property in early March, 2017, Defendant has not applied for any of the required City permits and approvals required by applicable City codes and ordinances to implement the demolition and change in use approved by Defendant. 23. That the subject school facility is located within the City of Walled Lake, County of Oakland, State of Michigan and this Court therefore has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to MCL. 600.2940.COUNT IMPROPER FUNDING 24. Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth, in the General Allegations. 25. That as alleged herein and above, Defendant has indicated that it intends to fund the cost of demolishing the CEC structures with bond and/or sinking fund revenue as opposed to General Fund revenue. 26. That the pending demolition of the CEC structures does not involve or included building a new facility; nor repair, replacement, remolding, refuumishing, equipping an existing facility; nor acquiring, preparing, developing, or improving sites, or parts of or addition to sites for school buildings or other facilities 27. That the pending demolition of the CEC as approved by Defendant is limited to demolishing the CEC structures and then selling the vacant land for private commercial development. 28, That pursuant to MCL 380, 131.5a, a school district may borrow money and issue bonds only for the capital expenditures therein enumerated including the following: Sec, 1351a, (1) Beginning with bonds issued after May 1, 1994, a school district, including, but not limited to, a school district that is a community district or a qualifying school district, shall riot borrow money and issue bonds of the distriet under section 1351(1).* However, a school district, including, but not limited to, a school district that is a community district, may borrow money and issue bonds of the district to defray all or a part of the cost of purchasing, erecting, completing, remodeling, or equipping or reequipping, except for equipping or reequipping for technology, school buildings, including library buildings, structures, athletic fields, playgrounds, or other facilities, or parts of or additions to those facilities; furnishing or refurnishing new or remodeled school buildings; aequizing, preparing, developing, or improving sites, or parts of or additions to sites, for school buildings, including library buildings, structures, athletic fields, playgrounds, or other facilities; purchasing school buses; acquiring, installing, or equipping or reequipping schoo! buildings for technology; or aecomplishing a combination of the purposes set forth in this subsection. 29. That pursuant to MCL 380.135.a, proceeds from bonds shall not be used for maintenance costs.30. That as alleged herein, the pending demolition of CEC structures do not constitute a permissible capital improvernent under MCL 380,1351a and instead constitute impermissible property maintenance costs for which bond proceeds may not be used. 31. That at the November 6, 2012 General lection, voters approved a ballot proposal allowing Defendant to continue levying a building and site sinking fund mileage. 32. That pursuant to the ballot proposal language, the expenditure of the sinking fund mileage proceeds cannot be used for maintenance and/or other operating expenses. 33. That pursuant to MCL 380.1272, expenditure of sinking fund taxes ate limited to the purchase of real estate for siting, and for the construction or repair of school buildings. 34, That as alleged herein, the pending demolition of the CEC structure does not fall within the scope of permissible expenditure of sinking fund taxes as the approved demolition is for the purposes of clearing the land and selling the vacant site for private commercial development. 35, That as alleged herein, the pending demolition of the CEC constitutes a maintenance and/or operational expense that cannot be funded with sinking fund taxes according to the express and unambiguous ballot proposal Janguage that prohibits use of sinking fund taxes for maintenance and/or operational expenses. 36, That pursuant to MCL. 380.1216, money raised by tax shall not be used for a purpose ‘ther than that for which it was raised without the consent of a majority of the school electors of the district voting on the question at a regular or special election, 37. That as alleged herein, funding the CEC demolition project with bond proceeds or sinking fund taxes violates state law and is therefore subject to enjoinment by this court as set forth in the prayer for relief, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, City of Walled Lake, respectfully requests that this honorable court grant the declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief set forth in the prayer for relief.COUNT II: ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE ABUSE OF DISCRETION VIOLATING PUBLIC POLICY. 38. Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in the General Allegations and Count I 39. That judicial review and injunetion is an appropriate remedy where a state officer or agency has acted arbitrarily or unreasonably, Heirs v Brownell, 376 Mich 225 (1965). 40. That where a school board abuses its discretionary power, the court has a duty to issue injunctive restraint, Id. 41, That es alleged herein, funding the pending CEC demolition project with sinking fund taxes or bond proceeds violates state law and therefore constitutes an abuse of discretionary power by the Defendant Schoo! District subject to injunctive restraint by this honorable court, 42. That the well settled educational policy of this state is to incorporate and facilitate the establishment of Charter Schools as an educational option for parents and students. 43, That this policy is embodied in various statutes that prohibit disctimination against SECREST WARDLE Charter Schools by traditional public school districts, said statutes including, but not limited to, MCL. 380.1260 which expressly prohibits a school board or intermediate school board from imposing any deed restriction prohibiting property sold or transferred by the school board from being used for any awful public education purpose. 44, That as alleged herein, the purpose and intent of the pending demolition of the CEC is to prevent a Charter School from potentially opening on the site, a potentially viable option if the property was sold with the current school building and facilities intact 45. That on information and belief, the cost to demolish the CEC will exceed any corresponding increase in value of the land without the structures and therefore the demolition will cost more than any potential monetary gain resulting from the demolition,46, That the pending demolition of the CEC constitutes an arbitrary and unreasonable abuse of discretion by the Defendant subject to court abatement as the purpose is improper and violates public educational policy, the funding mechanism violates state lav, and itis otherwise economically wasteful here the cost of demolition exceeds any resulting inerease in property value WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, City of Walled Lake, respectfully requests that this honorable court grant the declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief set forth in the prayer for relief. COUNT IIT: ZONING REQUIREMENTS 47. Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in the General Allegations, Counts I and II as though fully stated and re-alleged herein, 48. That the subject property is zoned CS "Community Service" pursuant to the City's zoning ordinance. 49, ‘That permitted uses in a CS zoning district are limited to community service related uses such as schools, parks, municipal and other governmental/public uses and structures. 50, That Defendant seeks to demolish and sell the CEC property for purposes of private development and establishment of a commercial or other use that would be incompatible and ‘unpermitted under the current CS zoning, 51. That the CEC property is centrally located within the City of Walled Lake and therefore any re-development and/or change in use requires careful and measured planning studies consistent with the City's Master Plan and Future Land Use objectives which necessarily involve evaluating options and opportunities to repurpose the existing historical structures and thereby preserve a potential asset to the community. 52. Any re-development and/or change in use of the CEC property significantly impacts the City’s planning and land use related objectives and further requires appropriate rezoning of the property consistent with future land objectives for the site and City as a whole,SECREST WARDLE 53. That the planning and rezoning process for the CEC site requires a collaborative and cooperative effort between the parties as opposed to Defendant's current unilateral course of action to demolish a unique and irreplaceable historical structure without involving the City in appropriate planning and rezoning studies that necessarily include evaluating potential repurposing of the current historical structure for some other future use. 54. That in the absence of appropriate planning and rezoning, any use other than a use permnitted under the current CS Community Service zoning of the CEC property would be unpermitted and constitute a violation of the City's zoning ordinance. 55. That Defendant intends to demolish the CEC and sell the property for re-development and establishment of a use that would not be permitted under the current zoning for the CEC property. 56. That pursuant to Section 22.05(d) of the City of Walled Lake Zoning Ordinance, no building or structure, or pact thereof, shall hereafter be erected, razed, altered, moved, or repaired unless a building permit shall have been first issued for such work. The terms “altered and repaired” include any changes in structural parts, stairways, type of construction, type, class, or kind of occupancy or means of egress and ingress 57. That since approving demolition of the CEC on March 2, 2017, Defendant has not applied for nor inquired about obtaining a building permit to demolish the current historical structure as required by section 22.05(d) of the City’s zoning ordinance 58. That demolishing the historie CEC structure without a building permit issued by the City would violate of Scction 22.05 of the City of Walled Lake Zoning Ordinance due to failure to obtain required building permits. 59, That upon information and belief, the Board's approval of the demolition of the CEC and the lack of any effort to apply for the required building permit in particular, there is cause to believe that Defendant may commence demolition of the CEC without the required City issued building permit60, That as alleged herein and above, any change in use of the CEC property from its current community service use to a commercial use would violate Section 22.06 of the City of Walled Lake Zoning Ordinance due to the lack of the requited certificate of occupancy for any change in use. 61. That pursuant to Section 27.01 of the City of Walled Lake Zoning Ordinance, any person, firm or corporation, or anyone acting on behalf of said person fim or corporation, who should violate the provisions of the zoning ordinance shall be subject to the penalties, sanctions, and provedures set forth in Article 27.00 of the City of Walled Lake Zoning Ordinance. 62. Thatasalleged herein and above, there is cause to believe that Defendant may commence demolition without the required building pem contrary to the aforementioned provisions of the City of Walled Lake Zoning Ordinance which are punishable by the penalties, sanctions, and procedures set forth in Article 27.00 of the City of Walled Lake Zoning Ordinance. 63. That pursuant to Section 27.01(b) of the City of Walled Lake Zoning Ordinance, uses of land, and dwellings, buildings, or structures, used, altered, rezed, or converted in violation of any provision of the City Zoning Ordinance constitute a nuisance per se subject to court ordered equitable SeeREST WARDLE and/or injunctive relief necessary to enforce or enjoin violations of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. That pursuant to Section 27.02 of the City of Walled Lake Zoning Ordinance, any building or structure that is erected, altered or converted, or any use of premises or land that is begun or changed in violation of any of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance constitutes a public nuisance per se and may be enjoined by any order of any court of competent jurisdiction, 65. That pursuant to the aforementioned provisions of the City of Walled Lake Zoning Ordinance, demolishing the CEC without the required city issued building permit constitutes a public nuisance per se subject to court ordered enjoinment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, City of Walled Lake, respectfully requests that this honorable court grant the declaratory, equitable and injunetive relief set forth in the prayer for relief. 10scree warn COUNT IV: VIOLATION OF STATE NUISANCE STATUTE, MCL125.3407 66. Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the General Allegations and Count I, Il, Il as though filly stated and re-alleged herein. 67. That as alleged herein and above, the demolition of the CEC without required City building permit violates the aforementioned provisions of the City of Walled Lake Zoning Ordinance 68. That pursuant to MCL 125.3407, use of land, or a dwelling, building, or structure used, erected, altered, razed, or converted in violation of a local zoning ordinance or regulation constitutes an abatable nuisance per se. 69. Pursuant to MCL 125.3407 the Court shall order the nuisence abated and hold the owner or agent in charge of the dwelling, building, structure, or land liable for maintaining the nuisance per se. 70. That the uses, conditions and structures maintained by Defendants upon the subject property, as alleged more particularly herein and above, violste the aforementioned provisions of the City of Walled Lake Zoning Ordinance and therefore constitute a nuisance per se subject to enjoinment by this honorable Court pursuant to MCL 125.3407. WHEREFORE, Plaintifl, City of Walled Lake, respectfully requests that this honorable court grant the declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief set forth in the prayer for relief. COUNTV: STATE CO! STRUCTION CODE ACT VIOLATIONS 71. Plaintif’ hereby adopts and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in the general allegations, factual allegations, Counts I, Il, Il, 1V as though fully stated and re-alleged herein, 72. That Plaintiff, City of Walled Lake, by authority granted under the State Construction Code Act, MCL 125.1501, et seq., has an adopted an ordinance, Section 14-26 of the City of Walled Lake Code of Ordinances, assuming responsibility for the administration and enforcement within the uCity of the State Construction Code Act, MCL 125.1501, et seq, as amended, and the building, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical codes promulgated thereunder, as amended. 73. That pursuant to Section 11 of the State Construction Code Act, MCL 125.1511(1), the construction or alteration of a building or structure shall not be commenced until a building permit has been issued 74, That pursuant to Section 105 of the Michigan Building Code, a building or structure shall not be demolished and the plumbing, electrical, heating and mechanical systems shall not be removed until a building permit has been issued in accordance with the State Construction Code Act. 75, That demolishing the CEC without a City issued building permit violates the aforementioned provisions of the State Construction Code Act and the Michigan Building Code due to the lack of required building permits as alleged more particulaly herein and above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, City of Walled Lake, respectfully requests that this honorable court grant the declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief set forth in the prayer for relief, PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, City of Walled Lake, respectfully requests this honorable Court enter a judgment in Plaintiff's favor against Defendant, School Distriet, granting the following declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief: (a) Declare that the use of bond proceeds and/or sinking, fund taxes to fund the pending CEC demolition violates state law and abate and enjoin the use of bond proceeds and/or sinking fund taxes for the project; (b) Declare that the purposes of the pending CEC demolition are improper, illegal and violate educational public policy and that the Defendant's decision to demolish the CEC was arbitrary, unreasonable and constituted an abuse of discretion; (©) Declare that the demolition of the CEC is fiscally unsound, a wasteful expenditure of District resources and an abuse of discretion by Defendant; 12SECREST WARDLE @ ® (b) @ © Grant temporary and permanent injunetive relief enjoining demolition of the CEC; Declare that the subject property, including the conditions, uses, activities, and structures existing thereon, undertaken or maintained in violation of City codes and ordinances, as alleged herein and above, constitute a public nuisance and/or nuisance per se; Declare that Defendants’ subject property, including any conditions, uses, or structures maintained thereon must comply with current zoning ordinance requirements, limitations, regulations, and restrictions; Declare that any demolition of the CEC building and/or change in use is unlavéul, illegal, and unpermitted until required building permits, certificates of occupancy and rezoning have been issued for the subject property, including the structures located thereon; Declare that use, maintenance, and occupancy of the subject property for any use other than a use permitted in a CS community service zoning district violates the aforementioned provisions and requirements under state lew and local ordinance; Grant preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief enjoining unpermitted demolition of the CEC pending issuance of the required City issued building permit(s) and/or other local permits and approvals as may be required by applicable codes, ordinances and laws; Grant preliminary and impermanent injunctive relief enjoining and abating all unpermitted uses, occupancies, and structures maintained on Defendant's subject property; Grant preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief enjoining any further work, alterations, modifications, or change in use upon the subject property until all required building, planning, zoning and permitting requirements and approvals have been satisfied and obtained; Grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining and abating any change in use or occupancy of the subject property until issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new or different use. BSECREST WARDLE Dated: August 2017 1452942 (m) — Grant preliminary injunctive relief requiting Defendants to meet and confer with the City regarding future uses and repurposing of the CEC and to properly apply for all required building and use permits, planning approvals, rezoning requests (0) Issue an order to appear and showeause why preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief requested herein should not be granted; (©) Grant such other relief as consistent with the facts and law presented as justice and equity may so require Respectfully submitted, SECREST WARDLE BY: VAHAN C. VANERIAN (P48196) Attorney for Plaintif 2600 Troy Center Drive, P.O, Box 5025 Troy, MI 48007-5025 248-851-9500 14