Petition 2026 Briarwood Mall.pdf
Mall At Briarwood LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Ann Arbor Respondent · 26-000490-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 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Mall at Briarwood, LLC, Petitioner, v. MTT Docket No. 26-______ Parcel ID 09-12-08-100-071 City of Ann Arbor, Respondent. ______________________________________________________________________________ PETITION Mall at Briarwood, LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys Eva Cantarella at the law firm Hertz Schram PC and David Suess, Brent Auberry, and Benjamin Blair at the law firm Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, petitions this Tribunal as follows: 1. Petitioner is a limited liability company whose principal business address is 225 W. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204-3438. 2. The Subject Property is a regional shopping mall known as the Briarwood Mall, located at 100 Briarwood Circle, Ann Arbor, and further identified by Parcel ID No. 09-12-08-100- 071. 3. The Subject Property was built in 1973 and has 362,578 square feet of gross leaseable area (GLA). 4. Petitioner is the party in interest, as Petitioner is responsible for paying the property taxes on the Subject Property. 5. Respondent City of Ann Arbor levies and collects the property taxes on the Subject Property. 1
Page 2
6. The Subject Property is classified Commercial and was designed for its current use as a regional shopping mall. 7. The Subject Property is located in Washtenaw County and is in the Ann Arbor Public Schools school district. 8. This Petition concerns issues relating to (a) valuation, (b) assessment, and (c) taxable value. 9. For the 2026 year, Respondent determined the following assessed, state-equalized, and taxable values for the Subject Property: Respondent’s 2026 Value Contentions Assessed Value State-Equalized Value Taxable Value Parcel ID 09-12-08- 100-071 $44,423,900 $44,423,900 $44,423,900 10. Petitioner did not protest Respondent’s value contentions to the Board of Review. 11. Based on Respondent’s contention of Assessed Value, Respondent determined that the Subject Property has a true cash value of $88,847,800. 12. Respondent’s determination of true cash value equates to approximately $245.04 per GLA square foot for the Subject Property. 13. Petitioner contends that Respondent has markedly over-valued the Subject Property. 14. The Subject Property is 53 years old and in need of renovation. 15. Further, the Subject Property’s parking areas need resurfacing and general maintenance. 16. Additionally, like all malls across the country, the Subject Property has been challenged since at least 2009 when there was a major real-estate market correction, and, later, due to the COVID-19 downturn. 2
Page 3
17. Retail has yet to recover and continues to struggle, as more and more people are doing their shopping on-line. 18. The impact on older shopping malls in need of renovation has been particularly devastating, as evidenced by the fact that owners of such malls have been unable to sell them at hardly any price. 19. Indeed, a recent Costar search revealed sales of relatively similar malls in Michigan and adjacent states averaging less than $100 per square foot. 20. In light of the foregoing, Petitioner contends that the 2026 assessed, state-equalized, and taxable values imposed on the Subject Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful because– (a) The assessed, state-equalized, and taxable values exceed the amounts permitted under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; (b) The assessed and state-equalized values exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; and (c) The assessed, state-equalized and taxable values are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of the Subject Property. 21. Petitioner contends that the true cash value of the Subject Property is $60,000,000. 22. Therefore, the 2026 assessed, state-equalized, and taxable values of the Subject Property should be as follows: Petitioner’s 2026 Value Contentions Assessed Value State-Equalized Value Taxable Value Parcel ID 09-12-08- 100-071 $30,000,000 $30,000,000 $30,000,000 3
Page 4
23. Petitioner is unaware of any dispute concerning the value of a statutory “addition” or “loss” in determining the Subject Property’s taxable value. 24. Should Petitioner hereafter become aware of any such dispute, Petitioner reserves the right to amend this Petition to reflect the dispute. 25. Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order (i) reducing the 2026 assessed, state-equalized and taxable values of the Subject Property to the amounts contended by Petitioner, and (ii) requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner any refunds attributable to such reductions, plus allowable interest and costs. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Eva T. Cantarella Eva T. Cantarella (P51917) Hertz Schram PC 1760 S. Telegraph Road Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0183 off. (248) 335-5000; fax. (248) 335-3346 ecantarella@hertzschram.com /s/ David Suess David Suess /s/ Brent Auberry Brent Auberry /s/ Benjamin Blair Benjamin Blair Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 300 N. Meridian Street, Ste 2500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 o. 317-684-5112 david.suess@faegredrinker.com brent.auberry@faegredrinker.com benjamin.blair@faegredrinker.com Attorneys for Petitioner 4