Coho (efile error (4-16-26).pdf
Coho Drive Mfd LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of East Bay, Respondent · 26-000687-TT
Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR Coho Drive MFD LLC , MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner(s) v MTT Docket No. East Bay Charter Township Respondent(s) ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION Ts Property Parcel No: 03-218-014-10 (If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Petition Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 2. The property identified above is _X real ___ personal. 3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous? ___Yes ___ No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each non- contiguous parcel.) 4, Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? ___Yes ___No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under appeal.) 5, If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): N/A
Page 2
MTT Docket No. Page 2 of 4 8. If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): N/A 9. If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): N/A 10. The property or properties at issue are located in Grand Traverse County. The property or properties’ address is: 3172 Coho Dr, Traverse City, MI 49686 11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable local governmental unit): East Bay Charter Township 12. Petitioner's legal residence or principal office address is: 1435 Fulton Ave, FL 2, Grand Haven, MI 49417-1518 13. This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable): X the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values the property or properties’ taxable value only
Page 3
MTT Docket No. Page 3 of 4 15. If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior tax year or years (attach additional page if necessary): N/A 16. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent's Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 5,514,800 2,757,400 2,757,400 17. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 3,415,000 1,708,000 1,708,000 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 2,099,800 1,049,400 1,049,400 19. Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): Petitioner requests that the tribunal reduce the assessed and state equalized value from $2,757,400 to $1,708,000 and the taxable value from $2,757,400 to $1,708,000
Page 4
MTT Docket No. Page 4 of 4 Signatu itioner's Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: ~ ce < Bled Printed Name of Petitioner's Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: Scott Knowlton Email Address: scott@westwind.build Mailing Address: 1435 Fulton St, Ste C Grand Haven, MI 49417 Telephone Number: 616.607.2532 Date: Ap! (lo) RoR(s
Page 5
Coho Drive MFD, LLC Parcel Number 03-218-014-10 East Bay Township Real Property Tax April 2026 This report has been assembled to refute the taxable value assessed by East Bay Township and to respecƞully request that it be reassessed based on the arguments outlined below. The Cost Approach and its Reliance on an Economic CondiƟon Factor (ECF) is Unreliable The Cost Approach uses Marshall & SwiŌ cost manuals which gather data from across the country and produce costs which are much higher than one would reasonably expect. Furthermore, using an Economic CondiƟon Factor (ECF) to adjust these naƟonal costs to a local market can oŌenƟmes be erraƟc and inaccurate. Developing a reliable ECF depends heavily on having sufficient comparable property sale transacƟons in the area to create an accurate raƟo of sales values to their underlying cost valuaƟons. East Bay Township (and its surrounding area) does not have sufficient comparable mulƟ-family sales data to properly calculate an ECF that can be relied upon for an accurate valuaƟon. In this instance, the assessor calculated an ECF of 1.696 based on three comparable commercial property sales: 1) Single-family home, 2) Small family office building, and 3) Gas staƟon. A good example of the current year East Bay Township ECF overstatement can be found by comparing it to another mulƟ-family property affiliated with the owners of Coho Drive MFD. Located just three miles away, it was assessed for the 2025 tax year using an ECF of 1.166. Even so, the final Board of Review decision was to shiŌ to an income-based valuaƟon approach. As another example, a mulƟ-family property located in Pavilion Township (also affiliated with the owners of Coho Drive MFD), was assessed using an ECF of 0.855, much lower than the 1.696 ECF used by East Bay Township. An Income CapitalizaƟon Approach Should be Used to Accurately Assess the Value A mulƟ-family development is an income producing property and is more fairly valued using the Income CapitalizaƟon approach. Therefore, the Income CapitalizaƟon approach is the most reliable and accurate valuaƟon method to use. Although this project is in the lease-up
Page 6
stage of operaƟons with very liƩle track record of rents and operaƟng expenses, we can esƟmate income and expenses for the project with a high level of certainty. UlƟmately greatly improving the accuracy of the project’s valuaƟon when compared to the cost approach. In closing, the higher assessed value makes it more difficult to provide affordable housing to the local community. The resulƟng increased property taxes places an unfair burden on community tenants as they absorb the costs via higher rents. The aƩached Income CapitalizaƟon Approach worksheet and commentary outline a more fair valuaƟon for this project. It compares the current subject property with Hammond Investment ProperƟes LLC, another mulƟ-family property affiliated with the Coho Drive MFD owners and located just three miles away in Garfield Township. This comparable property was reviewed and its assessment revised at the Garfield Township 2025 Board of Review. In summary, this property should be properly assessed/valued at $1,708,000 as supported by the Income CapitalizaƟon Approach analysis.
Page 7
Coho Drive MFD, LLC dba Townline Flats Real Property Tax - Income Capitalization Assessment Calculation 2026 Assessment COMPARABLE PROPERTY SUBJECT PROPERTY 2025 Board of Review Results Coho Drive Hammond Investment MFD, LLC Properties, LLC Parcel 03-218-014-10 Parcel 28-05-023-026-55 East Bay Township Garfield Twp Income Capitalization Income Capitalization Analysis Analysis Commentary: Annual Income 583,891 1,883,280 $2.16 psf $1.93 psf Vacancy & Collection Loss (10%) (58,389) (188,328) Effective Gross Income 525,502 1,694,952 Less: Operating Expenses (35%) (183,900) (593,200) Net Operating Income 341,602 1,101,752 Capitalization Rate 10.00% 10.24% Income Capitalized Value 3,416,000 10,756,800 True Cash Value 3,416,000 10,756,800 Assessed Value % 50% 50% Taxable Value 1,708,000 5,378,400 The subject property is currently seeking $1,440 per unit per month but is not gaining market traction, and will likely need to pivot to additional concessions and a lower rental rate of $1,340 per unit per month ($2.16 psf). Even so, this would still be far higher than the $1,196 per unit per month ($1.93 psf) approved by the Garfield Township 2025 Board of Review. Furthermore, in order to attain the current cost-based assessment of $2,757,400, rent would need to be $2,182 per unit per month ($3.52 psf), 82% higher than the Garfield Board of Review decision. The subject property is using the same vacancy and operating expense ratio assumptions as the comparable property. Additionally, the subject property is using a lower capitalization rate assumption as the comparable property, primarily due to slighly lower borrowing rates. This results in a higher valuation.
Page 8
fo. 4 Outlook Payment Confirmation From noreply@fiserv.com <noreply@fiserv.com> Date Thu 4/16/2026 12:17 PM To Chad Achterhof <cachterhof@westwind.build> [You don't often get email from noreply@fiserv.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] Thank you for your recent payment to Michigan Tax Tribunal. If you have questions please contact the Michigan Tax Tribunal at 517-335-9760. Payment Application: Michigan Tax Tribunal Payment Status: Payment completed successfully. Confirmation Number: 26041681302619 Payment Date: 04/16/2026 Billing Address: Westwind Construction 1435 Fulton Ave Suite C Grand Haven, MI 49417 Card Type: MC Card Number: x8687 Payment Amount: 600.00 USD Total Amount: 600.00 USD DO NOT REPLY DIRECTLY TO THIS EMAIL. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.