(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
First, MCL 41.725; MSA 5.2770(55) provides in pertinent part:
"After the hearing provided for in the preceding section, if the township board then desires to proceed *819with the improvement, it shall by resolution determine to make the same and shall approve the plans and estimate of cost as originally presented or as revised, corrected, amended or changed, and shall also determine the sufficiency of the petition for the improvement * * *.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In my view, this language mandates a formal finding by the board that the petition is sufficient. This determination must be made at the same time as, or prior to, the final resolution approving the project.
In this case, the township board’s final resolution did contain a clause to the effect that such a determination had been made. Nevertheless, a mere conclusory recitation that the petition has been found adequate is insufficient where the board has no reasonable basis for making such a finding. The board must at least base its decision on evidence that the petition is sufficient. That is, the board must ground its decision on a computation that owners of at least 51% of the land constituting the finally approved project signed the petition.
The policy embodied in MCL 41.725; MSA 5.2770(55), is to forestall unnecessary legal challenges by landowners to the sufficiency of a petition after the board has resolved to go ahead with the improvement. The statute accomplishes this goal by requiring the board to determine the sufficiency of the petition based on adequate evidence. This goal is not achieved, however, when the board merely recites that the petition is sufficient. This action will not satisfy a landowner who believes that the petition is not sufficient. The aggrieved landowner may, then, choose to vindicate his belief in court.
The appellants in the present case alleged in *820their complaint that the petition failed to meet the 51% requirement. In its motion for summary judgment, the defendant presented an affidavit that owners of 58% of the land involved signed the petition. I agree with the majority that there was no genuine issue as to whether the petition was sufficient. However, a genuine issue did exist as to whether the board determined the sufficiency of the petition on adequate evidence. The appellants should have been given a chance to show that the board had failed in its responsibility to make such a determination.
I favor a prophylactic rule that, whenever a township board fails to base its determination of the sufficiency of the petition on adequate evidence, the trial court should remand for such a determination. In addition, I believe that a plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees when he secures such a remand, because the purpose of the statute is to avoid this kind of court challenge.
Second, the record suggests that the township board did not follow the statutory procedure in another respect. MCL 41.725; MSA 5.2770(55) indicates that the board is to perform three functions in the following order: (1) the board determines the boundaries of the assessment district; (2) the board determines the sufficiency of the petition; and (3) the board orders the preparation of an assessment roll. In the present case, the board apparently ordered the preparation of the assessment roll before determining the boundaries of the assessment district.
In conclusion, I note that the issues to which I have devoted my dissent were not raised by appellants. Nevertheless, I believe that this Court needs to address these issues because the appellants are proceeding in propria persona and this Court *821should enforce the procedure set forth in the statute.
I would remand this case to the trial court to determine whether the township board followed the statutory procedure.