Attachment to Appeal 17-015-550-124-00 and 124-50.pdf
Neil J Master, Petitioner V Township Of Trout Lake, Respondent · 25-002746-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
AƩachment – Basis of Appeal for Parcels 17-015-550-124-50 & 17-015-550-124-00 PeƟƟoner respecƞully requests a reducƟon in the assessed and taxable values for the above parcels located in the Birch Shores Subdivision, abuƫng LiƩle Trout Lake in Trout Lake Township. The current assessments significantly exceed market value based on recent sales and raise concerns regarding both valuaƟon accuracy and procedural irregulariƟes. 1. Comparable Sales Analysis (Lakefront Frontage ValuaƟon) The primary valuaƟon method for these parcels is price per lake frontage foot. Based on the following 2024 sales of comparable parcels within the same subdivision: Parcel ID Sale Date Sale Price Frontage (Ō) $/Front Ft 17-015-550-124-50 1/5/2024 $30,000 100 $300 17-015-550-124-00 8/13/2024 $59,000 208.4 $283 17-015-550-121-00 8/21/2024 $37,000 100 $370 The average is $308/front foot, suggesƟng that current assessment rates of $422/foot are significantly above market value. A reasonable and well-supported valuaƟon based on market data would support assessed values of: Parcel 124-50: 100 Ō × $308 = $30,800 (AV = $15,400) Parcel 124-00: 208.4 Ō × $308 = $64,987 (AV = $32,500) 2. Prior Sales Support a Lower Value AddiƟonal relevant sales from 2021–2022 show even lower per-foot values: Parcel ID Sale Date Sale Price Frontage (Ō) $/Front Ft 17-015-550-112-50 9/1/2021 $13,756 112 $123 17-015-550-112-00 9/1/2021 $13,756 108.3 $127 17-015-550-110/111/113/114 9/3/2021 $55,025 547.2 $100 3. Procedural Concerns with March 2025 Board of Review
Page 2
The minutes of the March 14, 2025 Board of Review raise significant concerns: On page 19, the decision for Parcel 124-00 shows that a moƟon was seconded by "Jess," who is the Township Assessor. On page 24, for Parcel 124-50, it appears there was no moƟon made, only a second — which does not follow proper procedure. The Michigan General Property Tax Act prohibits assessors from siƫng as voƟng members of the Board of Review (MCL 211.28). The parƟcipaƟon of the Assessor in moƟons or seconds could render the Board’s decision procedurally invalid. Conclusion: PeƟƟoner respecƞully requests that the Tribunal reduce the assessed values to reflect market rates based on credible, recent, and arm’s-length transacƟons. In the alternaƟve, PeƟƟoner asks the Tribunal to void the Board of Review acƟon and set fair assessments based on the provided evidence.