24-003727.pdf

Aaron C Jones, Petitioner V Township Of Lake, Respondent · 24-003727-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

RECEIVED 

24-0051 

N25 20s 

I hear-by assign the rite of representation 

MICH] 

for parcel #43-13-019-001-31 

GAN TAX TRIguNa, 

(which is within Lake Township of Lake County MI) to 

: 

Roger D. Jones 

for the purpose of presenting and defending a petition to the 

Michigan State Tax Tribunal for the years of 2024 through 2026 

Signed 

Cece Bowe 

Date 

_ 

gel fq

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Aaron C Jones, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

v 

MTT Docket No.: 24-003727 

Township Of Lake, 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF IN-PERSON HEARING 

The Tribunal has scheduled a hearing to be conducted in-person as follows. Hearings 

are generally 30 minutes in length. 

HEARING DATE: 

| July 13,2026 

10:00 AM EST 

HEARING TIME: 

Oceana County Bldg. 

. 

| Commissioners Conference Room, Main Flr, 

HEARING LOCATION: 

100 S. State St. 

Hart, Ml 49420 

This is an important legal document. Please have someone transiate the document. 

Este es un documento legal importante. Por favor, haga traducir este documento. 

af 

9%fE sve 

Rf fe, SAT FE (6 

EbEE Sam FE 

ARE pa ST paid dll oa Ada A 

glE Aig oa 12a

Mi Tribunal reply 2025 

— AARON 

In response to our 2024 spring Board of Review request being denied I find it necessary thus to appeal 

to the M.T.T for assistence. 

I have the following issues of contention via property tax values for the below property in Lake 

Township of Lake County Michigan..... 

Parcel 43-13-019-001-31 

Per my Tribunal request I have the following issues concerning the 2024 — 2026 property taxes levied: 

1). Hiegally charging a “lake frontage” cost. 

2). A miss-classification of building construction classification 

3). Miscalculations on the building value 3/17/2023, 10/23/24, 3/03/25 + 2/26/2026 property 

cards provided via FOIA 

4). Incorrect adjustments for depreciation of cabin + tool shed. 

5). Incorrect application of ECF per well and septic system. 

Furthermore, the following items are of concern to petitioner as to arriving at a “fair” TCV (market 

value): 

1) An adjustment (LOSS) for Unskilled Labor deduction per low quality owner built, recreational, 

farm cabin 

2) An adjustment (LOSS) for the neglect of the Tax Assessor in adjusting the land valuation based 

on the highly used easement road running through the center of the entire 20 acres. 

I used the following abbreaviations within this request: 

COA — Court of Appeals 

MSC — Michigan Supreme Court 

G.B.A. -- Michigan State Tax Comm. "Guide to Basic Assessing" 

T.A. -- Tax Assessor 

M.AM. -- Michigan Assessor's Manual's (2014 ed. (with 2024 updates) for 2024) (2025 ed for 2025 

and 2026) 

B.O.R. -- Township Board of Review 

S.T.C 

-- Michigan State Tax Comm.

ISSUE #1 (charging “Lake Frontage” values) 

per M.A M. Volume ITI (published 2018 page 11) 

“When real estate is transacted, it is the legal description that uniquely describes and identifies the 

property involved in the transaction, It is not sufficient to rely merely on an address or property 

identification number for this purpose. Your property ownership is “legally” identified by the legal 

description on your deed.” 

per online search “Michigan property assessments and taxes rely on several distinct rules” 

i.e... “Direct Ownership: You are only taxed on the specific parcel of land defined by your official 

property deed and legal boundaries. If the pond is entirely on your neighbor's land, its assessed value 

remains with their parcel.” 

Per legal titles this property (Parcel 43-13-019-001-31) does NOT own any part of the property which 

contains Gillians Springs thus it has NO pond (lake) frontage. This property abuts another owners 

property which includes an approx 17acre man made pond. 

According to documents held at the Lake 

Township Register of Deeds office the 17 acres which comprise Gillians Springs was part of a 160 acre 

propety which was sold in 1978 to a private individual(s). That owner then, in late1978, proceeded to 

survey and sell off certain sections of the 160 acres for the next few yrs. He held ... AND continues to 

hold... ownership of the 17 acres under the man made artificial pond called “Gillians Springs” (or 

Mobhlers Pond). (Per County records at R.O.Deeds office) Our registered deeds clearly show the 

surveyed lines of each parcel. None of them include land under the body of water as that land was, and 

remains, in private hands. Lake County records continue to show that this 17.39 acres has a clear 

unbroken line of ownership since 1961 when Dale Mohler purchased several properties and combined 

them into one parcel. At that time there was NO body of water and Gillians Springs is listed on the 

1961 MSU water lands of Lake County as being only wetlands springs of one tenth of an acre. 

In 1964 

Mr. Mohler built an unlicensed artificial farm pond dam (known locally as Mohlers Pond) and created 

what is currently known as Gillians Springs for use in his farm operations. 

Upon later becoming ill Mr. Mohler sold the deeded property (as recorded at the Lake County Register 

of Deeds) in it's entirety (which included all land around and beneath Gillians Springs). 

As Gillians Springs (Mohlers Pond) was a man-made artificial pond built in the early 60's none of 

the land owners surrounding the privitally owned land (UNDER GILLIANS SPRINGS) containing 

said pond hold Ripiarian rights within the pond as per multiple Mich case summery's 

: 

COA 2014 No. 308454 Oakland Circuit Court, LC No. 2011-121522-CH

COA 2010 Persell v. Wertz, 287 Mich App IE: 

“A “riparian proprietor” is a person who is in possession of riparian lands or who owns an estate 

therein. 4 Restatement, Torts, § 844, p 331. 

See also Little v. Kin5 which adopted Thompson's definition of “riparian land” being land bounded by 

a natural water course. 

While the above alone would make it clear that an artificial pond does not create riparian lands with 

riparian rights, the Court went on to make the point even clearer: 

Artificial water courses are waterways that owe their origin to acts of man....... 4 Restatement, Torts, § 

841, subd h, p 321. 

Land abutting on an artificial water course has no riparian rights. 

“it is clear under Michigan law that no riparian rights arise from an artificial body of water « 

Parsons v. Whittaker (1996) Michigan Court of Appeals case (COA 170274) 

: 

“The general common law rule is that land abutting on an artificial watercourse has no riparian rights. 

The rationale for this rule is that: The natural corporeal right in question is possessed by riparian 

owners of land on natural channels of water courses only. Such right does not exist in the water flowing 

in an artificial channel. The right of those owning land bordering upon or through which artificial 

channels pass, to the use of the water flowing therein, is not a natural right, nor a corporeal right, 

but an incorporeal right, which can be acquired only by grant, express or implied, or by 

prescription.” (Emphasis in original.) 

MSC 1967 Thompson v. Enz (379 Mich. 667, 1967 

/ 385 Mich. 103, 1971) 

“a landmark Michigan Supreme Court case that established key precedents for riparian rights and 

water law” 

AS being fact that the 17+ acre parcel which encompases Gillians Springs remains in private 

ownership... the surrounding parcels do not inherit nor posess rights of use or ownership PER LEGAL 

DESCRIPTION. Our deeds do NOT specificy such. Any of the surrounding properties being re-sold 

would therefore NOT legally be able to claim either pond usage nor rapiarian rights. 

Those of us who have purchased those parcels of land which were sold all have deeds which show by 

survey that such land descriptions END at the edge of the man made artificial pond commonly known 

as Gillians Springs or Mohlers Pond. All our deeds clearly show that property lines do NOT extend 

into the 17 acres covered by Gillians Springs. 

Ownership of that 17+ acres continues to date to be held 

by a private individual as per county records. Repeated attempts have been made over the past 45+ yrs

surrounding this parcel of water) does NOT include that land which comprises the 17.39 acres 

commonly known as “Gillians Springs”. Two earlier B.O.R. 's (for another property parcel around 

Gillian Springs) also agreed that it was wrong for the T.A. To access “Lake Frontage” for properties 

surrounding Gillian Springs (ie: parcel #43-13-018-014-16) as this parcel held NO Ripiarian Rights. 

These being the 2000 + 2002 Lake Township Board of Review's ... and again... the 2026 B.O.R.'s for 

both parcels (#43-13-018-014-16 AND #43-13-019-001-31) agreed that a “lake frontage” assessment 

was not viable. Both property assessments were reduced. 

As it is clearly shown above the T.A. .and Lake Township have erred in adjudicating a just cause for 

attaching “lake frontage” costs to the properties surrounding Gillians Springs...including thusly the 

property per this Tribunal ie: Parcel 43-13-019-001-31 

Furthermore, the so called “lake frontage” per this property (Parcel 43-13-019-001-31) exists nearly 90 

feet below the existing cabin. The high bluff acts as a predominate barrier of any access. Per Real 

Estate professionals the topography of a property—its elevation and slope—can influence not only the 

view but also the utility of the land and thus highly effects valuation. When I (Roger Jones) purchased 

this property in 2014 and the T.A. exacerbated the T.C.V. I went before the B.O.R. Explaining the 

legality of “Lake Access” charges, the negative impact of the bluff and the nearly 1/2 mile “two-track” 

easement access along with other key issues which then brought forth an adjustment by the B.O.R. To 

reduce the 20 acre (combined from 2 - 10 acre lots) property's A.V. By 56% (91,800 down to 51,500) 

however, the T.A. Did not remove the “lake frontage” factor from the property cards. The T.A. 

Continues to assign a “lake frontage” valuation to this property even after directed by the B.O.R.'s not 

to do so. This led to multiple B.O.R. Reports trying to fix that “lake frontage” issue. Finally, per the 

2026 B.O.R., This LACK of “lake frontage” was again reaffirmed which led to a reduction of A.V. And 

the removal of the “lake frontage” charges on the 4/20/2026 property card for this 20 acres. But the 

T.A. Did NOT remove the “lake frontage” itimization from the “factors” area of the 4/20/2026 property 

card report. We should not have to fight this issue over and over and over. 

Any compentent land sale lender would require a property appraiser to research the ripiarian rights to 

this parcel of land PRIOR to purchase. An examination of the deed and a knowledge of Mich law 

would clearly show that NO inherit right of pond usage could be legally constructed in a purchase 

agreeement or deed. 

Per the fact that this property does NOT acquire ripiarian rights to the pond water, and due to the land 

construct features, any and all attempts to attach “lake frontage” charges should be seen as excessive 

and the T.A. Should be clarified on such. Charging this property.... “values”... that relate to another 

privately held property seems and is.... wrong.

this parcel per the 2024 + 2025 property tax payments and adhere to the 2026 B.O.R. Decision that 

deletes this “lake frontage” charge from the 2026 property card land valuation .... and future property 

cards. 

ISSUE #2 — A MISS-CLASSIFICATION OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION STYLE 

We feel that, per the information within the M.A.M. 2014 Tax Assessor's Manual (2024 updated), that 

the low cost owner built cabin upon this parcel (built by the owner using reject, re-purposed and cheap 

materials from their respective workplaces and other avenues and without benefit of a building permit 

nor instruction from any qualified builder or carpenter) qualifies it most closely to the definition of a 

Class D construction per the manual. 

It has been, and is, currently classified as 

a CD. 

Per the manual explainations of Class style: 

Class D economy constructed with cost as the primary determining factor. Materials and workmanship 

may or may not meet Federal or local building codes. In the Michigan Assessors Manual, these 

structures are defined as basic, lower-cost wood-framed houses with minimal architectural details. 

Class CD Tract Type Constructed with materials and workmanship meeting minimum Federal and local 

building codes 

(this cabin has only a 60 amp electrical system) 

Generally, a Michigan Class C home represents standard, average-quality brick veneer, concrete 

block, or masonry construction, while a Class D home represents standard wood-framed 

construction with wood, vinyl, or aluminum siding. A Class CD home often blends elements of 

both... 

(this cabin uses only wood-framed with vinyl siding NO block, brick nor masonry) 

Ken Devriss built this low cost recreational cabin over the period of 2 summers as he gathered 

materials that were damaged from his company worksite. Along with that his son in law Ron brought 

up windows and doors and other items that were rejects (from defects) from the door and window 

company at which he was a salesman. They did all the work on the cabin themselves over a period of 

“vacations”... learning as they went. Being that this was Ken's “second home” and really just a 

glorified “deer camp” cabin, he tried as much as he could to keep the costs of the entire project very 

low and within his limited budget. His wife was NOT on board with the project so that also limited his 

funding... This was the ONE and ONLY cabin that Ken Devriss ever built! 

This cabin is a small one floor with a loft. A simple rectangular building with NO extras or “flash”. 

Cheap vinyl siding with the entrance deck laid on the ground with no elevation footings. 

His only intent was to use the cabin for their 2 week “deer camp” in the fall and for a yearly week or

ARN 

(og 

| 

Ge) 

ran 

| 

he 

Jl 

| 

Kis 

‘| 

Ble 

vE 

4 

J 

oR 

wale 

2 

20 

A 

il 

5 

| 

4 

hE 

wr 

a 

dk 2 

[= 

{ 

4 

i? 

= 

sii ® gE 

5 

8 

be 

i 

» 

Bp 

bil 

=i 

i 

dm 

| 

HL Se 

| 

= 

2) 

| 

= 

Ee 

=a 

~& 

EE 

— 

TAS 

= 

NN 

)'é 

« 

ae 

x 

Ta 

TL 

yp 

S 

\\ 

nh 

yr 

pL ENN 

Be 

4 

4) 

“, N 

2 

Ay 

AL 

$Y 

% 

Jz 

4 

& 

(7 3 

he 

0 

V 

opt 

id 

w 

5 

ph 

\, 

Wi, 

= 

V5 

sn 

0 

hE 

~~) 

| —~— 

7) 

oi) 

= 

4 

ed 

fd 

~~ 

el 

La 

ww 

ta 

Sl ~= 

ath 

— 

— 

7 

a) 

ely 

a 

a 

he 

ee —1 

£3.54 

a4 

" 

— 

a 

—— 

Wi 

i 

aay, 

a a 

we 

Ba

ISSUE OF CONCERN #1 — UNSKILLED LABOR REDUCTION FOR LOW COST FARM 

CABIN 

The low-cost recreation cabin which sits on this parcel was owner built without skilled supervision and 

without benefit of a building permit. Per M.A.M. “Low cost cabins are usually seasonally used 

structures which are frequently construced with less than average workmanship and with just enough 

extras to yield a marginally habitable building.” The builders were owner Ken De Vris and son-in-law 

Jack. Neither were skilled builders being as such that Ken was a Logistical operations manager for a 

Trucking company and Jack was a salesman for a Door manufacturer. Nevertheless they took on the 

task of trying to build a low cost recreational cabin to use for vacations and deer hunting. 

It took them 

2 summers of hard work. They made MANY 

mistakes and took MANY 

shortcuts and in the end never 

did quite finish the cabin prior to selling it too me in 2014. Using salvage material from both their jobs 

they did indeed succeed in at least getting a workable cabin to use for two weeks of deer hunting each 

fall. That was their main goal. Get the cabin livable enough to keep them warm inside after a days 

hunt. T helped them with my farm equipment and my hammer whenever they asked. They supplied the 

beer. 

Working on their own with a simple layout plan is not easy and thus many mistakes were made. Some 

of them include: An off kilter slab foundation: 

= 

x

They decided that a foundation wall under the slab was “not all the important” ??? So they decided to 

just use old cement blocks at the corners underneath the slab which has since then began to crumble 

and crack. With no foundation wall the “frost heave” has begun to break down/crack the concrete slab 

upon which the entire cabin rests. 

The cabin plans they bought had the option of either a metal roof or a cheaper asphalt shingle roof. 

Ken decided to go with the asphalt roof which as it turns out is a bad choice for this deep woods 

heavily wooded lot. And to make matters worse he choose to use undersize OSB (1/2” instead of the 

normal 3/4”)board for his roofing underlay which, also, in high humidity environment's (aka: heavily 

wooded lots) begin to decay and warp very quickly. The present roof shows a “wavy” aspect as the 

OSB board sheets continue to warp..which has caused a great deal of issues with water leakage and ice 

buildup during the winters. Also, due to the use of the asphalt shingles the roof gets heavily coated 

with moss. We have since found out that insurance companies will not insure cabins with “mossy” 

roofs. We've tried multiplie methods to kill the moss but as of yet we've found no solution and thus... 

have no insurance. This would be highly influential to a potential buyer.

Prior to and while building the recreational cabin Ken had used a travel trailer to camp in. They 

brought in electrical service to the small travel trailer. And when the cabin was finally livable he 

decided to continue to use the 60 amp sevice to supply electrical to the cabin. 

For a single family home Under the Michigan Residential Code, primary residential services require 

a minimum of 100-amp service. 

Insurance Denials: Many insurance companies will refuse to write a policy for a home with only 60- 

amp service. Because the buyer needs insurance to secure a mortgage, the deal can easily fall through. 

Price Negotiations: Buyers and Realtor are highly likely to request a substantial price reduction— 

often covering the cost of a full electrical upgrade—to compensate for the outdated system. 

Safety Concerns: If the 60-amp panel features obsolete equipment (like old fuse boxes or recalled 

brands like Zinsco or Stab-Lok), underwriters may flag them as high risks. 

Not only did Ken decide to use the existing 60 amp 3 breaker system but he also failed to complete 

many of the electrical hookups in the cabin. Many of the electical outlets are not working, as well the 

ceiling fan and lights. 

Prior to being able to sell this cabin it would require a major electrical overhaul to bring it up to code 

and in order to secure a mortgage. ANY credibile lender inspection would not fail to note this flaw. 

There are many other incomplete or flawed aspects to this owner built cabin the are highly prejudicial

Ken's placement of the cabin was not good. His decision was based on aesthetics rather than good 

building practice methods. 

The cabin was built far too close to an eroding 90 foot high sand + gravel 

bluff and will eventually need special needs to fix. And, he choose NOT to cut the many old and 

degraded trees surrounding the cabin (again for aesthetic reasons) and this also will highly effect the 

ability and value of the cabin when sold. 

Some of these issues I knew about (because I did help him during the building process many times) 

prior to my purchase of the properties. Some I did not. Plus, as I am also not an experienced builder 

there were many that 1 was unaware of until they were pointing out to me by insurance attempts or 

visits by real estate agent friends. The farm cabin was not a huge factor in my purchase needs as I was 

buying the 20 acres more the future potential for my Maple Syrup farming and for the firewood 

availability for use in the Maple Syrup production on the farm. We had never even intended to use the 

recreational cabin other than for seasonal guests until my son and his family needed a temporary home 

(he is the present homesteader as they build a nest egg for a future home). 

ALSO 

The TA has set the “function ability” of the cabin at 100% which we believe is incorrect. I would 

consider the “function-ability” of this cabin to be at least 30-35% impaired and that this should be 

noted upon the property card and duly factored in when setting valuation. 

Having presented all this information my reasoning is to request from the M.T.T. a deduction allowance 

per the 2025 Assessor's Manual Volume I (Residential and Agricultural) section 12 page 2 ...ie: 

“Farm or ranch-built buildings must be graded according to the quality of workmanship and 

sometimes the value of the labor is very low, bringing the end costs below those listed. For buildings 

constructed by the owner, often using some secondhand material, 15%-30% may be deducted to reflect 

proper wage rates and lack of job supervision relative to the quality of the work.” 

We think that a deduction is warranted in the range of 15-20% with the 15% being minimal.

ISSUE OF CONCERN 2 

--- A neglect of the Tax Assessor in adjusting the land valuation 

based on the highly used easement road running in the center of the entire 20 acres. 

Per M.A.M. Edition 2017 page 16 “211.7e ..... (2) The value of land over the surface of which is 

located a public right of way shall not be considered when the real property is being assessed.” While 

our easement is not considered a public road we have no real ability to reduce the traffice from both the 

back lot landowners and their many many many friends and guests! The precedent above per public 

roads should be used by the T.A. when costing the parcel with this easement! 

However this factor is continuely overlooking by the Township Assessor when valuing the property and 

he has never offered any sort of adjustment via the un-improved, dirt road, highly used, easement... 

(extensively used by the other property owners and their multiple guests) running smack dab down the 

middle of the entire 20 acres! The easement road is deeded to the lands. From the main road entrance 

to the cabin on this property is approx. 1/2 mile of sand + gravel two track easement. There is NO 

maintance agreement deeded to the various properties it runs thru. 

I am the only one who keeps it 

clean.. and snowplowed in the winter. Without my work this cabin would be a “seasonal” cabin only. 

Anyone wishing to purchase this property would have to factor in the cost of maintainance and 

accessability. Obviously it would be much less desirable than a “main road cabin”. 

Online law firm content...“In Michigan, ..... Assessors generally factor these access roads into your 

taxes using a market value approach, treating the easement as a partial restriction ....” 

“A private access road restricts how you can use that specific slice of land. Assessors and appraisers use 

the "before and after” method to evaluate partial takings. They compare the total market value of your 

property without the easement against the value with the easement in place. Because an easement 

encumbers the land, it generally lowers the overall fair market value of the burdened property.” 

According to Real Estate professionals “Easements that restrict your use or aesthetics can devalue a 

property, typically by 5% to 50%, depending on how invasive they are “ 

The Parcel included an easement clause within the deed. 

It remains in effect in perpetuity 

. 

The easement is a 66 foot wide approx 1/2 mile long dirt track sand/gravel easement driveway, which is 

shared with other property owners and their multiple guests and is un-maintained or improved (unless I 

do it), from the main gravel road (South Branch Rd) to this parcel. 

The easement is highly used by the other property owners and is almost always in disrepair.

MCL. 211.10e indicates: 

All assessing officials, whose duty it is to assess real or personal property on which real or personal 

property taxes are levied by any taxing unit of the state, shall use only the official Assessor's Manual or 

any Manual approved by the state tax commission, consistent with the official assessor's Manual, with 

their latest supplements, as prepared or approved by the state tax commission as a guide in preparing 

assessments. 

And the Mich Assessor's manual clearly states that such "de-valuations" (as per easements) should be 

held as an adjustment of value when determining the Assessed Value and thereby the T.A. should set 

the S.E.V. at the current value adjusted with negative aspects to each property... clearly an easement 

road running thru the middle would be such! 

As seen in B.S. 

A photo...the easement goes right thru the center of the entire 20 acres. 

In doing so it 

effectively disallows the useage (for any other reasons) of a huge swath of this property. This would 

subtract the “usuage value” of the 20 acres by approx 15%. Which is clearly a “negative” aspect to the 

value. 

For that result alone there should be an adjustment in value for this 20 acre property. 

In addition, having an un-maintained (i.e.: no county snowplowing, grading, or repair) easement has, 

according to numerous real estate companies and professionals, 

a HUGE impact in the value and 

sellability of a parcel of land. 

A short quick search of info on the net revealed the following about "negative" value of an road 

easement and property value. 

"The impact of an esement on the property value will depend on the degree of interference permitted by 

the easement, said David Reischer,Esq., real estate attorney and CEO of Legal Advice.com......For 

instance, an easement that permits regular and steady traffic across a parcel and that interferes 

significanlty with the enjoyment of the property by the owner (of said property) might have a 

significant negative effect on the value of the property." 

(MoneyTips.com) 

The right of way easement is one of the most common types of easements. Easements can affect a 

property in several ways. When there is an easement on a property, the owner may be prohibited from 

building structures within a defined area. For example, an owner will likely not be allowed to erect a 

fence or plant trees that obstruct access or block the use of an easement.

Resale values might be impacted by structures, wires, pipes, etc. placed by utility companies, especially 

if they are unsightly or prevent owners from developing the land for personal purposes. 

Buyers might not like the idea of others “trespassing” on their land, even if being done legally. 

(legalzoom.com) 

Whether you're the dominant or servient property of an easement, having an easement can sometimes 

negatively affect the value of your property. Not everyone wants to buy property with an easement on 

it, so the property with the easement may take longer to sell. 

(quora.com) 

An easement is an encumbrance on a property. No matter what type of easement or the terms, any 

property burdened by an easement will have a diminished value in comparison to the same property 

without that burden. 

private roads may be a result of several property owners sharing common access with maintenance 

cost shared by the owners. There is an upkeep factor that may not be as desirable as being on a public 

road, ..... Also if there isn't a written maintenance agreement filed in public records between the owners 

on the private road, some lenders will not loan on such properties which could affect values. 

(antonlegal.com) 

Determining the value of a piece of property with an easement on it can be difficult. However, the type 

of easement on the property will greatly affect the price. Additionally, “the size of the easement 

compared to the overall size of the property will play a role”. 

(civilstuff.com) 

“An easement will generally devalue a property by an amount proportional to the size and impact on 

surface area.” 

When appraising a property that has an easement on it, you (the T.A.) should initially value the 

property as if the easement was not present. By valuing the property as you normally would, you 

can find a fair purchase price and then lower or raise the price depending on the type of and how 

invasive the easement is on the property. 

(eweb.irwaonline.org)

This unimproved dirt track easement, with NO written maintenance agreement filed (I am the ONLY 

person who attempts to keep the easement passable) assigned to this parcel, across nearly the center of 

both, has a very high negative impact on the value of the entire 20 acre property. A "negative" value 

that our Township Assessor has not and will not address within the valuation of our properties. With 

15% of the total 20 acres tied up in an deeded easement there HAS to be some sort of land valuation 

adjustment. 

It's only common sense. While an entrance drive is needed to get into a purchased 

property I wanted to point out that usually an “easement” road goes TOO a property and stops... or in 

the case of a multiply parcel easement... it is usually found along the edge or many times even deeded 

as a seperate piece of land as an easement for all the parcels. This is the most common way I've seen 

easements approached via the BSA land maps for Lake County. 

Sadly, the terrian of the parcels that rely on our easement drive did not make it possible to build it “out 

of the way”... most of the land involved is extremely hilly or covered with swamps and water. So the 

developer did not have much choice in “Where” to put the easement. 

It runs pretty much right in the 

middle of all the parcels it accessess. And thus, it creates a huge factor in “liveability” for the owners. 

And the “potential” owners when pricing it for “Market Value”. By taking up wide swaths of land it 

reduces availability and resource for the landowner. And it's VERY evident right away as the easement 

is “right in your face”. Any potential buyer would immediately realize the impact it causes. So, yes, the 

easement “gets me to my home” ...but... it also brings with it tremoudous imposition and loss of 

privacy. These are VERY undersirable when it comes to selling ones property!!! 

There are long standing examples of the T.A. Adjusting “land values” based on conditions of use. Even 

his own family farm across the street was de-valued for many many yrs under the basis that the farm 

land was “not farmable” which produced a land valuation of $1,600 while the surrounding farm lands 

(per parcel #'s 43-13-01 8-004-01... #43-13-019-002-00...#43-13-0 TFB} Sere valued at $1,800 to 

$2,000 during the same tax years. This 20% reduction in value and the reason was listed on the 

property cards of parcel #43-13-017-005-00 per FOIA'ed cards from 2023, 2024,2025,2026 (and many 

prior yrs) as “swampy non farm” showing thus... that the T.A. Has adjusted land valuations based upon 

“conditional use of the land” 

Parcel Huber: 

43-13-017-005-00 

Jurisdiction: 

LAKE TCRUSHIP 

County: Lake 

printed on 

03/31/2023 

Grantor 

‘Grantee 

Sale 

sale 

Inst. 

Terms of Sale 

Liber 

Verified 

Brent, 

H 

Price! 

Date 

Type 

& Page 

By 

Trans, 

Class: AGRICULTURAL-IMPROZoning: 

Date 

Huzher 

Status 

Property Address 

Building Pernit{s}

Just as he devalued his own acreage because it was not “useable” one would expect a devaluing of 

land taken from useage per an easement. 

Another example of the T.A. Adjusting land value based upon conditions of use can be seen where he 

has lowered assessed values for those properties which do not have road access. A good example is the 

farm abutting ours... which the T.A.'s cousin owns... a 40 acre farmland parcel (#43-13-019-002-00).... 

In 2022 when surrounding ag properties with road access were being valued higher this property was 

valued at only $1,800 per acre and 1 was informed by the B.O.R. It was because of having NO road 

access. This parcel has had no land value increase per FIOA'd property cards of 2023,2024,2025. 

Again this shows that the current T.A. Has acknowleded a devaluing of land... based upon access 

conditions and useage. 

If there is a value adjustment for NO access then there should be a value 

adjustment for INCREASED access via a deeded easement. 

pa 

Parcel Surber: 

43-13-019-002-00 

Jurisdiction: 

LAKE TCANSHIP 

County: 

Lake 

printed on 

83/03/2023 

antor 

CT 

EERE 

{ 

Saiel 

Se 

TERED 

[Ferme of Fale 

Tiber 

erred 

[Eien 

SEFTE ROBERT 

joshi 

rE ROBERT 

¢ ride HARE 

6] 0372075613 [itp 

[ama iiaTH 

; 

[PROBENKY TRNUSFER| 

8.0 

i 

j 

i 

I 

i 

: 

i 

i 

! 

1 

| 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

H 

5 

J 

: 

ol 

| 

(| 

i 

“0 

— 

] 

H 

MASON COUNTY CRNTRAL 

55 

| 

TTIB0Y 04/04/1954 Gus 

Ag) 

i 

i 

i 

; 

i 

| 

| 

wets Hane/Addrasa 

¢ 

| 

i 

i 

CORRETTE GENIAL 

2035 Est TCV 88,400] 

Public 

er 

Factovs 

H 

ACREAGE TABLE 

'A* 

40.000 Acres 

2,000 

100 

80,000 

Tax Description 

40.00 Total Acres 

Total 

Est. 

Land Value 

w 

80,000 

Cermmnts/ 

int iuences 

{standard Utilities 

{Underground Utils. 

Tepoaraphy of 

site 

ina 

[Het 

in 

ear) 

andl 

Butiaing 

Resessud] 

Board of] RiABIA31T] 

Taxable 

1 

| 

vatvel 

Valus 

valus! 

Review 

other] 

value 

iio 

wiben 

2075 

4a; 000; 

5) 

Frys 

13, 506¢ 

IR 6573073610 

5 

I 

10,600] 

0 

40, bod) 

12, 832¢ 

The Equalizer. 

Copyright 

tc} 

1999 

© 2009. 

pos 08/24/1998 

SPECTED 

| 5, 

I 

6, a0] 

o 

10,060] 

i 

1%, 

3126 

LiGensed Toi Township of Lake, County of 

[BOR 06/36/7002 GATA RULER [Don 

hii 

al 

se a0] 

Ton 

ae 

bake, Michigan 

i 

622

Another example of easement roads effecting valuations can be seen using the original pricing 

structure of the developer who sold the various parcels affected by the easment in question above. Per 

the original map used by my parents when scouting a potential land purchase in 1978 (the parcel 

valuations were penciled in to help my folks decide wither to purchase or not) and Lake County B.S.A. 

Records ... the selling prices, per acre, starting per the main road parcels (S.Branch Rd) and continuing 

down the easement, went from a high of $8,100 per acre down to $425 per acre as you go further back 

along the approx. mile long easement known as Clear Lake Circle. 

13-018-014-25 --- $8,100/acre 

13-018-014-50 --- $6,560/acre 

13-018-014-35 --- $4, 423/acre 

13-018-014-45 --- $3,125/acre 

13-018-014-40 --- $1,850/acre 

13-019-001-70 --- $1,590/acre 

13-019-001-55 --- $1,400/acre 

13-019-001-51 --- $1,200/acre 

. 

13-019-001-75 --- $425/acre 

10. 13-019-001-85 --- $425/acre 

I 

A 

Clearly this shows the devaluation that comes with the longer and longer easement as being less and 

less sellable in the eyes of the original devolper. Even if the two highest are kicked out (they being right 

on the main road) and the two lowest (they being at the very furthermost away from the main road) 

there is still nearly a 400% diff. And if one takes #5 thru 8 (which are all 10 acre parcels) one can see a 

35% decrease as the easement gets longer + longer. 

Based upon the T.A. Practice of lower “land values” based on conditional use and the actual real 

estate valuations per length of easement, we think that a 20% decrease in “Assessed Value” is not 

out of line. 

Therefore I request that the M.T.T. Require the T.A. To adjust the “Assessed Value” for this parcel 

showing the 20% as a loss in value based on the above and to show that loss on the property card as a 

“loss deduction” in the “Factors” table.

ISSSUE #2 -- Miscalculations of Depreciated Value 10/23/24 + 2/26/2026 property cards provided 

via FOIA 

I have FOIA'd the property cards for this property each year for 2023/2024/2025/2026. 

Starting with the 3/17/2023 Property Card it is seen that the T.A. Noted a effective age of 45 yrs thus 

making the depreciation at 55% 

With the 10/23/2024 property card the effective age was not adjusted but stayed at 45yr thus the correct 

depreciation of 54% was not used. 

With the 3/03/205 property card the effective age was adjusted DOWARD to 44 yrs thus the correct 

depreciation of 53% was not used. 

With the 2/26/26 property card the effective age remained at 44 yr instead of the correct value which 

should have been 48 yrs and thus the correct depreciation of 52% WAS NOT used in the calculations 

- 

Jacuzzi 

Tub 

Jacuzzi repl. Tub 

Oven 

Microwave 

Glass: 

€D 

Effec,. 

Age: 

Standard 

Range 

jel Clean 

Range 

fauna 

rash 

Compactor 

fentral 

Vacuum 

Eloor 

Area: 

Total 

Base 

N 

Total 

Depr 

Cost: 

74 

Estimated 

T.C.V: 

71, 00) 

ecurity 

System 

Esti 

for 

Res. 

Bldgs: 

2 

Single 

Family 

RES 

Heating 

System: 

Forced Air 

w/ 

Ducts 

ad Area 

i=912. 

9F 

Floor 

Area 

= 

1368 

Sk. 

ib. Phy/Func/Econ/Comb. 

% 

Good=55/100/100/100/55 

Dichwacher 

Garbage 

Disposal 

Bath Heatex 

Vent 

tan 

Hot 

Tub 

Unvented Hood 

Vented Hood 

Intercom

bage Disposal 

| 

Heater 

Wented Hood 

Intercom 

Jacuzzi Tub 

Jacuzzi repl.Tub 

Direct-Vented 

Wen 

li 

i 

Class: 

CD 

icrowave 

: 

/ 

tandard Range 

Effec, 

Age: 

\ 

s1f Clean Range 

Floor Area: 

1,36 

: 

I Total Base New 

: 

145,801 

E.C.F. 

una 

150 

Total Depr Cost: 

81,649 

X 

1.259 

ash Compactor 

i 

J 

Carport 

atral Vacuum 

CS T.C.V: 

102,796 

- 

mrity System 

, 

0 

cis ch 

1 

st. 

for Res. 

Bldg: 

1 

“Single Family 

RES 

inted 

Hood 

tercom 

cuzzi 

Tub 

tuzzi 

rep 

in 

rowave 

naard Range 

FiClean 

Rande

Based on the info started with the 2023 property card we ask the Tax Tribunal to rectify and 

correct the percentage to meet the guidelines within the M.A. M. 

Issue with valuation of wood shed per “Land Improvement Cost” 

The shed in question has been sitting on the ground (no footings or foundation only a plywood floor on 

ground) for over 45 yrs (it was the 1* building put up after purchase of the land by Ked D. for use to 

store his tools and equipment while building). According to the M.A.M.'s from 2014-2025 and per the 

“Farm Building Depreciation Schedule” the “remaining condition” value for this farm shed is based 

upon the “effective age”. Per the property cards FOIA'd from 2023-2026 this shed looks to have been 

rated at a pricing per sq foot in the BC classification when clearly it is and has been (at a minimum) a 

class D construction 

Per Act 206 of 1893 Page 135 section 217 subsection 27 

: 

“(2) The assessor shall not consider the increase in true cash value that is a result of expenditures for 

normal repairs, replacement, and maintenance in determining the true cash value of property for

condition” per the Farm Building Depr. Sched should have been set at 35% and then the following 3 

yrs should have been reduced each yr. Ending up with a 2026 “effective age” of 48 and a corresponding 

“remaining good” %. 

As this shed is priced via “Land Improvements” section I do not think it is enlarged by the county 

multipliers nor the ECF but instead is a flat rate based on “Effective Age” and “Remaining Good” per 

the correct building classification of “D”. However, to be sure I am using the assigned County 

Multipliers in an abundance of caution. 

Using the M.A.M.'s approx for the yr in question the following cash values should have been assigned. 

Per 2017 manual value per sq ft “D” is assigned at $15.78 (halfway between the 100 and 200 sf 

costs) 

2023 ... 144 sfx $15.78 = $2,272 x farm C.M. 1.37 = $3,113 

x 35% (45 yrs) = $1,090 

2024 ... 144 sfx $15.78 = $2,272 x farm C.M. 1.38 = $3,135 

x 34% (46 yrs) = $1,067 

Per 2025 manual value per sq ft “D” is assigned at $22.68 (halfway between the 100 and 200 sf 

costs) 

2025 ... 144 sfx $22.68 = $3,266 x farm CM. 

.98 = $3,201 x 33% (47 yrs) = $1,056 

2026 ... 144 sfx $22.68 = $3,266 x farm C.M. 1.02 = $3,331 x 32% (48 yrs) = $1,066 

ISSUE WITH MULTIPLING THE WATER WELL AND SEPTIC BY THE E.C.F. 

The current T.A. For Lake Township (Lake county) has utilized a viewpoint in which he applies the 

E.C.F value to the water wells and septic systems located on the parcel. We have pointed out at various 

times that this does not seem to align with the approved Michigan calculation of T.C.V. 

“No, a Michigan tax assessor should not multiply the value of a septic system or a water well by 

the Economic Condition Factor (ECF). 

Under State Tax Commission guidelines, the cost-approach valuation process strictly separates 

building components from land improvements. The calculation requires specific handling of these 

utilities. 

garages, sheds) on the property. 

Exclusion of Utilities: Septic systems and water wells are categorized as land improvements or site 

utilities rather than above-ground building structures. 

The Math: To find the True Cash Value (TCV), the assessor adds the flat, depreciated cost of the well 

and septic affer the ECF has already been applied to the home.” 

It seems that our property cards are being recorded and valued differing to this opinion. 

The calculations of this parcels T.C.V. For the years 2024, 2025 + 2026 (plus the previous 40+ yrs) are 

effected by this method and we would ask that the proper corrections be applied by the Michigan Tax

THUS 

Section 27 (1) of the General Property Tax Act defines “true cash value” as “...the usual 

selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied is at the time of 

assessment, being the price that could be obtained for the property at private sale.... 

Also... 

In Michigan, the True Cash Value (TCV) of a property is determined each year based on the 

property's condition and market status as of December 31% of the preceding year... 

In order to arrive at a fair and just “True Cash Value” of parcel 43-13-019-001-31 we ask that the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal firstly approve the complete discharge and abandoment of the illegal “Lake 

Frontage” charge on each of the Tax years in question (2024 + 2025 + 2026). We furthermore ask that 

the Building Classification be changed to “D” construction and that mathematical errors found within 

the listed prices upon the property cards for the years in question be repaired to show the proper 

building classification of construction and the correct attritiable depreciations charged for each year. 

In addition, we ask that our moderate and fair deduction percentage, due to issues relating to 

craftsmanship and quality of construction... 

per M.A M. Rules ( per 2025 Assessor's Manual Volume I (Residential and Agricultural) section 12 

page 2) 

be allowed at a 15% application deduction from the depreciated cost of construction of the cabin. 

(see M.T.T. Final judgement of October 18, 2024 - Docket No. 23-003171) 

Per Presiding Judge Patricia L. Halm 

“The Tribunal also agrees that the adjustment ... due to issues relating to craftsmanship and quality of 

construction .... shall be applied to the depreciated cost .” 

Along with these corrections we ask that our request for a reasonable amount of “Assessed Value” 

reduction, in the amount of 20%, be approved due to the decreased valuation of the property due to 

the missplaced and intrusive deeded easement. 

Based on experience with this T.A. We also ask that the court mandate that these last two deductions be 

shown on the property card for each year as a “Loss” under the “Factors” area and be dually deducted

PROPERTY VALUATIONS FOR YEAR 2024 (USING 2017 M.A.M. Manual ) 

1.5 stories 

ClassD 

912sq ft 

Buildings valuation 

912 s.f X $105.02 = $95,778.00 

Deck 259 s.f£X $15.79 = $3678.00 

total = $99,456.00 

CM. 1.38 X = $137,249.00 

X 46 yr Depr. @ 54% = $74,114.00 

Less adjustment for unskilled labor @ 15% = (-11,117.00) 

Leaving $62,997.00 

X the E.CF. Of 1.157 = $72,888.00 as Building T.C.V. 

Land inprovements 

Shed 144 s.f. X $15.79 = $2,274.00 

X CM. 1.38 =$3,138.00 

X Depr. Of %good of 34% = $1,067.00 

Septic = $3,120.00 

Well = $1860.00 

totalling $4,980.00 

X C.M. 1.38 = $6872.00 

X Depr @ 54% = $3,711.00 

Depr costs of land improvements = $4,778 

Combined total valuations = $77,666

PROPERTY VALUATIONS FOR YEAR 2025 (USING 2025 M.A.M. Manual ) 

1.5 stories ClassD 

912sq ft 

Buildings valuation 

912 s.£ X $105.02 = $123,403.00 

Deck 259 s.£X $18.52 = $4,797.00 

total = $128,200.00 

CM. 98 X = $125,636.00 

X 47 yr Depr. 

@ 53% = $66,587.00 

Less adjustment for unskilled labor @ 15% = (-9,998.00) 

Leaving $56,589.00 

X the E.C.F. Of 1.259 = $71,246.00 as Building T.C.V. 

Land inprovements 

Shed 144 s.f. 

X $22.68 = $3,266.00 

XCM. .98=183,201.00 

X Depr. Of %good of 33% = $1,056.00 

Septic = $2,425.00 

Well = $4,068.00 

totalling $6,493.00 

X CM. .98 = $6,363.00 

X Depr @ 53% = $3,372.00 

Depr costs of land improvements = $4,428.00 

Combined total valuations = $75,674.00

PROPERTY VALUATIONS FOR YEAR 2026 (USING 2025 M.A.M. Manual ) 

1.5 stories 

Class D 

912 sq ft 

Buildings valuation 

912 s.f. X $105.02 = $123,403.00 

Deck 259 5.fX $18.52 = $4,797.00 

total = $128,200.00 

CM. 1.02 X = $130,764.00 

X 48 yr Depr. 

@ 52% = $67,998.00 

Less adjustment for unskilled labor @ 15% = (-10,198.00) 

Leaving $57,800.00 

X the ECF. Of 1.260 = $72,828.00 as Building T.C.V. 

Land inprovements 

Shed 144 s.f. X $22.68 = $3,266.00 

X CM. 1.02 =$3,331.00 

X Depr. Of %good of 32% = $1,066.00 

Septic = $2,425.00 

Well = $4,068.00 

totalling $6,493.00 

X CM. 1.02 = $6,623.00 

X Depr @ 52% = $3,444.00 

Depr costs of land improvements = $4510.00 

Combined total valuations = $77,338.00

Parcel Number: 

43-13-019-001-31 

Jurisdiction: 

LAKE TOWNSHIP 

County: 

Lake 

{ erintea on 

10/23/2025) 

{Grantor 

{Grantee 

; 

Sale, 

Sale 

iInst. 

{Terns 

of Sale 

Liber 

Verified 

| Prent. 

: 

H 

: 

Price! 

Date 

{Type 

; 

Page 

{By 

| Trans. 

[Property Address 

Class: AGRICULTURAL 

THPRG Eon ing: 

iBu 

ing Permit (s) 

| 

Date 

{Number 

Status 

{11374 

W CLEAR LAKE CIR 

/School: MASON COUNTY CENTRAL 8D 

| 

: 

| 

BR.E. 100% 11/01/2015 Gual. Ag. 

: 

: 

i 

[Owner's Name/Address 

AD 

F- 

: 

i} 

{JONES AARON C SM 

2025 Est TCV 137,617 TCV/TFA: 100.80 

111374 

W CLEAR LAKE CIRCLE 

. 

i 

Land Value Estimates 

for Land Table AG.AGRICULTURAL 

{BRANCH MI 49402 

| 

X Improved 

= 

Vacant 

| 

i 

Public 

* Factors 

* 

Improvements 

{ 

Description 

Frontage 

Depth 

Front 

Depth 

Rate 

%Adj. 

Reason 

Value 

. 

— 

TTT Rend 

INLAND LAKE 

10.00 

0.00 1.0000 1.0000 

199 

100 

1,990 

[Tax Description 

‘Gravel 

Road 

| INLAND LAKE 

120.00 

0.00 1.0000 0.0000 

199 

100% 

0 

[PRR "H" 

- PT OF NE 1/4 DESC AS BEG 

€ PT 

| 

|p oof pod 

| ACREAGE TABLE 

'A’ 

20.000 Acres 

2,000 

100 

40,000 

ION EAST 

& WEST 

1/4 

LN 

OF SEC THAT 

IS 

i 

Storm Sewer 

* denotes 

lines 

that 

do 

not contribute 

to 

the 

total acreage calculation. 

[NB6°51'57"W ALG 

SD EAST 

& WEST 

1/4 

LN 

A 

i 

130 Actual 

Front Feet, 

20.00 

Total Acres 

Total 

Est. 

Land Value 

= 

41,990 

{DISTANCE 

CF 

395' 

FROM EAST 

1/4 

COR OF 

SEC; 

TE N86°51'S7"W ALG 

SD EAST 

& WEST 

11/4 

LN 

340'; 

TE N6°10'06"E 

A DISTANCE 

OF 

{ Land Improvement Cost Estimates 

{ 

i Description 

Rate 

Size 

% Good 

Cash Value 

| 

i1977.10' 

TO SHORE OF CLEAR LAKE; 

TE 

{S15°56'45“E ALG SD SHORE A DISTANCE O 

F 

| 

| Wood Frame 

23.32 

144 

44 

1,478 

$100'; 

TH S3£°09'42"E ALG SD SHORE 170.7%; 

| 

|Street Lights 

Total Estimated Land Improvements True Cash Value 

= 

1,478 

(TH S0°08'01"E A DISTANCE OF 1747.37' 

TO 

| 

|standard Utilities 

'POB. 

AND PAR "I" 

- PTOF NE 1/4 DESC AS 

‘Underground Utils. 

/BEG 

@ PT ON EAST 

& WEST 1/4 LN OF SEC 

i 

{THAT ISN86°S1'57"W ALG SD EAST 

& WEST 1/4 

| 

Topography of 

/LN 733' 

FROM EAST 1/4 COR OF SEC; 

TH 

| 

Site 

|N86°51'57"W ALG SD EAST 

& WEST 1/4 

IN A 

| 

Lavel 

[DISTANCE OF 235‘; 

TH N7°33'01"E A 

| 

Rolling 

{DISTANCE OF 1760.86"; 

TH N17°11'55"E 

a 

| 

Low 

DISTANCE OF 553.03' 

TO SHORE OF CLEAR 

© 

High 

LAKE; 

TH S$32°56'07"E ALG SD SHORE A 

| 

Landscaped 

(DISTANCE OF 110'; 

TH $30°40742"W ALG SD 

| 

Swamp 

|SHORE A DISTANCE OF 96.53"; 

TH 

| 

Wooded 

[***BALANCE OF DESCRIPTION ON FILE*** 

[Pond 

{Comments/Influences 

{ 

Waterfront 

'8pIit/Comb. 

on 06/13/2022 completed 

| 

[Ravine 

06/13/2022 BSA 

4 

/ 

ean 

in 

Year 

| 

Land 

Building 

Assessed! 

Board of 

Tribunal/ 

Taxable 

Torent forcelis): 

13-019-001-30, 

Loe 

- 

| 

| 

Value 

Value! 

Value 

Review: 

Other 

Value: 

Child Parc 

. 

‘Who 

When 

What 

12025 

21,000 

47,800, 

68,800 

| 

: 

62,840C: 

——— 

MJB 05/30/2010 INSPECTED 

2024 

| 

37,000] 

47,800, 

84,800] 

84, 800M 

© 

62,840C 

[The Equalizer. 

Copyright 

(c) 1958-2005. Gp 

08/12/1993 INSPECTED 2023 

31,700, 

36,300, 

8,000 

€8, 000M 

53, 848C 

iLicensed 

To: 

Township 

of Lake, 

County 

of 

BOB 08/07/1999 

DATA ENTER 

| 

: 

; 

: 

H 

: 

|Lake, Michigan 

: 

12022 

0 

o 

0 

| 

: 

9 

*** 

Information 

herein deemed reliable but not guaranteed***

ys 

/ 

~ 

Residential Building 

1 

of 

1 

Parcel Number: 

43-13-018-~001-31 

Printed on 

10/23/2024 

| Building Type 

(3) 

Roof 

{cont.) 

(11) 

Heating/Cooling 

(15) 

Built-ins 

(15) 

Fireplaces 

{18) 

Porches/Decks 

(17) 

Garage 

{Eavestrough 

Insulation 

0 Front Overhang 

00ther Overhang 

Town 

Zome 

Oil 

|X Gas 

H 

: 

Coal: 

(Wood 

‘Elec. | 

{Steam | 

i 

Forced Air w/c Ducts 

| 

X {Forced Air w/ Ducts 

{Forced Hot Water 

{Appliance Allow. 

{Interior 

1 Story Area 

Cook Top 

Type 

Year Built: 

{Interior 

2 Story 

355 

i2nd/Same Stack 

Two Sided 

{Exterior 

1 Story 

Dishwasher 

{ 

Garbage Disposal 

Bath Heater 

Treated Wood 

Car Capacity: 

{Class: 

Exterior: 

‘Brick Ven.: 

: 

i 

[EE 

. 

Vent Fan 

{Exterior 

2 

Story 

| 

Stone Ven.: 

X 

‘Wood 

Frame 

4 

Interior 

i 

(Electric Baseboard 

Hot 

Tub 

‘Prefab 

1 

Story 

¥ 

{Common Wall: 

Drywall 

|Plastex 

; 

\Elec. 

Ceil. 

Radiant 

Unvented Hood 

{Prefab 

2 Story 

Foundation: 

TBoiiding style: 

iPaneled 

| 

Wood T&G 

{Radiant 

(in-floor) 

Vented Hood 

|Heat Circulator 

{Finished 

? 

RES 

TERED 

: 

{Electric Wall Heat 

Intercom 

[Raised Hearth 

Auto. Doors: 

ee 

& 

Decoration 

; 

[Space Heater 

Jacuzzi Tub 

[Wood Stove 

Mech. 

Doors: 

emocdeled 

Tp xJord 

Min 

mall/Floor Furnace 

Jacuzzi repl.Tub 

| 

| Direct-Vented Gas 

|Area: 

[A 

I 

Ld 

| 

[Forced 

Hea 

| 

| 

| 

ry 

i 

Oven 

l 

PAI aaa 

% Good: 

Good 

{Size of Closets 

| 

[Heat Pump 

. 

Microwave 

Class: 

CD 

‘Storage Area: 

rd 

"mail, 

No Heating/Cooling 

Standard Range 

(Effec. 

Age: 

45 

‘No Conc. 

Floor: 

_- 

Central 

Air 

Self Clean Range 

Floor Area: 

1,368 

i 

Solid 

X H.C. 

Hood Furnace 

Sauna 

° 

otal Base New 

: 

145,801 

E.C.F. 

Bsmnt Garage: 

. 

: 

. 

* 

‘Total 

Cost: 

L157 

| 

{5) 

Floors 

= 

= 

T 

Trash Compactor 

| Toma 

Depx 

Cost: 

80,191 

x 

1.157 

Carport Area: 

{1st Floor 

{12) 

Electric 

Central Vacuum 

| Estimated T.C.V: 

92,781 

Ic 

£o 

ea: 

12nd Floor 

. Kitchen: 

0'Amps Service 

: 

Security System 

| 

(Reol: 

| Bedrooms 

| Other: 

No./Gual. 

of Fixt 

i 

i 

1 

- 

Other: 

: 

-/Qual. 

of 

Fixtures 

| Cost Est. 

for Res. 

Bidg: 

1 

Single Family 

RES 

Cls CD 

Blt 

0 

(1) 

Exterior 

Bx. 

| X.0zd. 

| 

Min 

: 

(11) 

Heating System: Forced Air w/ Ducts 

TWood/Shingie 

(6) 

Ceilings 

ep 

—. 

. Ground Area 

= 

812 

SF 

locr Area 

= 1368 

SF. 

|X Alumimun/Vinyl 

| 

a 

(No. 

of Elec. Outlets 

Phy/2b. Phy/Func/Econ/Comb, 

% Good=55/100/100/100/55 

{Brick 

Po 

I. 

Many 

| 

X Ave. 

| 

Few 

| Building Areas 

| 

i 

{. 

+ 

Como 

- 

© Stories 

Exterior 

Foundation 

Size 

Cost New 

Depr. 

Cost 

i 

P 

In 

Insulation 

(23) 

Plumbing 

1.5 Story 

Siding 

Slab 

912 

B 

OE Aaa 

— 

57°F 

Ten 

(Average Fixture (s) 

Total: 

134,206 

73,813 

(2) 

Windows 

: 

xeava 

1}3 

Fixture Bath 

Other Additions/Adjustments 

{Many 

Large 

| Basement: 

0 

S.F. 

12 Fixture Bath 

| Water/Sewer 

! 

Crawl: 

0 

S.F. 

iSoftenex, Auto 

1000 Gal Septic 

1 

4,421 

2,432 

slab: 

912 

S.F. 

(Softener, Manual 

| 

water Well, 

50 Feet 

1 

2,512 

1,382 

Height to Joists: 

0.0 

olar Water Heat 

peck 

‘Metal Sash 

Plumbing 

Treated Wood 

259 

4,662 

2,564 

Vinyl Sash 

{8) 

Basement 

tra Toilet 

Totals: 

145,801 

80,191 

| 

: 

: 

xtra Sink 

Notes: 

{Double Hung 

onc. Block 

|Separate Shower 

ECF (INLAND LAKE) 1.157 => TCV: 

92,781 

Horiz. 

Slide 

{Poured Conc. 

{Ceramic Tile 

Floor 

iCasement 

{Stone 

{Treated Wood 

{Concrete Floor 

‘Double Glass 

{Patio Doors 

eramic Tile Wains 

{Ceramic Tub Alcove 

{Vent 

Fan 

i 

(14) 

Water/Sewer 

‘Storms 

& Screens 

(9) 

Basement Finish 

(3) 

Roof 

{Recreation 

SF 

Living 

SF 

{Walkout Doors 

(B) 

{No Floor 

13 

[X Asphalt Sningle 

(10) 

Floor 

Support 

‘Walkout Doors 

(A): 

{ 

[Public Water 

{ 

[Public Sewer 

| 

1 

Water Well 

000 

Gal 

Septic 

000 

Gal 

Septic 

: 

Joists: 

| 

Unsupported Len: 

__Cotr.Sup: 

imney: Vinyl 

. 

Lump 

Sum Items: 

*** Information herein deemed reliable but 

not guaranteed***

Parcel Number: 

43-13-019-001-31 

Jurisdiction: 

LAKE TOWNSHIP 

County: 

Lake 

| E— on 

03/03/2025 

{Grantor 

{Grantee 

Sale. 

Sale 

jInst. 

{Terms 

of Sale 

{Liber 

Verified 

Prent.| 

| 

] 

! 

Price 

Date 

{Type 

| 

|& Page 

By 

| Trans. 

{Property Address 

iClass: 

AGRICULTURAL~IMPRG Zoning: 

{Building Permit (s) 

; 

Date 

INumbex 

(Status 

111374 

W CLEAR LAKE 

CIR 

School: 

MASON COUNTY CENTRAL 

SD 

| 

i 

{P.R.E. 

100% 11/01/2015 Quai. 

Ag. 

[Owner's Name/Address 

WAP EC 

' 

(JONES AARON C SM 

|_ 

2025 Est TCV 150,714 TCV/TFA: 116.17 

11374 

W CLEAR LAKE CIRCLE 

; 

- 

- 

- 

BRANCE 

MI 

49402 

i 

X Improved 

: 

{Vacant 

+ Land Value Estimates 

for Land Table AG.AGRICULTURAL 

| 

i 

Public 

: 

* Factors 

* 

{ Description 

Frontage 

Depth 

Front 

Depth 

Rate %Adj. Reason 

Value 

- 

or 

H 

| INLAND LAKE 

30.00 

0.00 1.0000 

1.0000 

199 

100 

5,970 

(Tax Description 

. 

Gravel Road 

| INLAND LAKE 

70.00 

0.00 1.0000 0.0000 

199 

1g0* 

0 

|PAR "H" 

- PT OF NE 1/4 DESC AS BEG 

@ BT 

| 

Paved Read 

| ACREAGE TABLE 

'A’ 

20.000 Acres 

2,000 

100 

40,000 

JON EAST 

§& WEST 

1/4 

LN OF SEC THAT 

Is 

‘Storm Sewer 

.* denotes lires 

that 

do not contribute 

to 

the 

total acreage calculation. 

[N86°S1'57"W ALG SD EAST 

& WEST 1/4 LN A 

| 

sidewalk 

| 

100 Actual Front Feet, 

20.00 Total Acres 

Total Est. Land Value 

= 

45,970 

DISTANCE 

OF 

395' 

FROM EAST 

1/4 

COR OF 

| 

iwater 

ji 

(SEC; 

TH N86°51'S7W ALG SD EAST 

& WEST 

| 

Sewer 

/ 

11/4 

LN 340"; 

TH N6°10'06"E 

A DISTANCE OF 

| 

IBlectric 

. Land Improvement Cost Estimates 

: 

1877.10" 

TO SHORE 

OF CLEAR LAKE; 

TH 

| 

gas 

| Description 

Rate 

Size 

% Good 

Cash Value | 

/S15°56'45"Z ALG SD SHORE A DISTANCE O 

F 

| 

lcurb 

| Wood Frame 

23.32 

144 

58 

1,948 

| 

/100'; 

TH S34°09'42"E ALG SD SHORE 170.7; 

Street Lights 

i 

Total Estimated Land Improvements True Cash Value 

= 

1,948 

; 

{TH S0°08'01"E 

A DISTANCE 

OF 1747.37' 

TO 

(POB. 

AND 

PAR 

"I" 

- PTOF NE 

1/4 

DESC as 

‘BEG 

@ 

PT 

ON EAST 

& WEST 

1/4 

LN OF SEC 

| 

THAT ISNB6°51'S7™W ALG 

SD EAST 

& WEST 

1/4 

[LN 

735' 

FROM EAST 

1/4 

COR OF SEC; 

TH 

IN86°51'57 

ALG 

SD EAST 

& WEST 

1/4 

LN 

a 

DISTANCE 

OF 235'; 

TH N7°33'01"E 

A 

{DISTANCE 

OF 1760.86"; 

TH N17°11'55"E 

A 

{DISTANCE 

OF 

553.03' 

TO SHORE 

OF CLEAR 

iStandard Utilities 

nderground Utils. 

Topography 

of 

Site 

{LAKE; 

TH S32°56'07"E ALG 

SD SHORE 

A 

‘Landscaped 

DISTANCE 

OF 110°; 

TH $30°40'42"W ALG 

SD 

© 

Swamp 

{SHORE 

A DISTANCE 

OF 96.53"; 

TH 

{Wooded 

_***BALANCE OF DESCRIPTION 

ON FILE*** 

| 

Pond 

|Comments/Influences 

| 

Waterfront 

'Split/Comb. 

on 06/13/2022 complated 

| 

[Ravine 

; 

106/13/2022 Bsa 

A 

4 

] 

roe 

(Year 

| 

Land, 

Building: 

Assessed 

Board of 

Tribunal/ 

Taxable 

Tarent forests): 

13-019-001~30, 

Pod 

! 

| 

Value, 

Value] 

Value 

Review, 

Other! 

Value 

Child Parcel (s): 

13-019-001~31; 

Who 

When 

What 

[2025 

23,000 

52,400 

75,400) 

; 

| 

64,788C, 

Te 

er 

MJB 05/30/2010 INSPECTED 

2022 

| 

37,000] 

47,800] 

84,800 

84,800M, 

i 

62,840C 

iThe Equalizer, 

Copyright 

(c) 

199% 

- 2009. gp 

08/12/1993 INSPECTED 

12023 

31,700; 

36,300, 

68,000 

68,000M 

i 

59, 848C 

Licensed 

To: 

Township 

of Lake, 

County 

of 

pop 08/07/1399 DATA ENTER 

: 

; 

: 

: 

iLake, 

Michigan 

i 

2022 

[sl 

0 

0: 

H 

0 

*** 

Information herein deemed reliable but 

not guaranteed***

Residential Building 

1 

of 

1 

Parcel Number: 

43-13-019-001-31 

Printed on 

03/03/2025 

| Building Type 

i 

X Single Family 

i 

Mobile Home 

{3) 

Roof 

(cont.) 

| 

1) 

Heating/Cooling 

(15) 

Built-ins 

(15) 

Fireplaces 

(16) 

Porches/Decks 

| 

{17) 

Garage 

own Home 

0;Other Overhang 

i 

{Porced Air w/o Ducts 

X {Forced Air w/ Ducts 

{Forced Hot Water 

{Eavestrough 

Gas 

0il 

| 

(Elec. 

Appliance Allow. 

{Interior 

1 Story 

Area 

{Insulation 

Wood 

Coal: 

Steam: 

Ccok Top 

‘Interior 

2 

Story 3353 

0 Front Overhang 

Lo 

: 

Dishwasher 

2nd/Same Stack 

{Two 

Sided 

Garbage Disposal 

: 

: 

Exterier 

1 

Story: 

Bath Heater 

Type 

Treated Wood 

{Year Built: 

Car Capacity: 

Class: 

(Exterior: 

{Brick Ven.: 

— 

; 

: 

i 

To 

) 

Vent Fan 

Exterior 

2 Stor 

Stone Ven.: 

X Wood 

Frame 

A 

Interior 

: 

{Electric Baseboard 

Hot Tub 

{ 

Prefab 

1 

Story 

Y 

;Common Wall: 

| 

| 

{Drywall 

Plaster 

| 

Elec. 

Ceil. Radiant 

Unvented Hood 

| 

|Prefab 

2 Story 

Foundation: 

Building Style: 

| 

|Paneled 

Wood TsG 

Radiant 

(in-floor) 

Vented Hood 

| 

Heat Circulator 

|Finished 

?: 

| 

RES 

In = 

© Decoration 

: 

{Electric Wall Heat 

Intercom 

; 

‘Raised Hearth 

‘Auto. 

Doors: 

! 

a hi 

i 

{Space Heater 

Jacuzzi Tub 

: 

‘Wood Stove 

Mech. 

Doors: 

| 

Yr Bu 

‘Remodeled ~ 

TH TFET 

Min 

| 

iWall/Floor Furnace 

Jacuzzi repl.Tub 

| 

 Direct-Vented Gas 

Area: 

i 

0 

0 

[I 

I. 

LI.) 

} 

{Forced Heat 

& Cool 

oven 

i 

% Good: 

: 

; 

% 

: 

1Size 

of Closets 

| 

Heat Pump 

A 

Microwave 

Storage Area: 

1g 

| x ord 

"Smaii] 

No Heating/Cooling 

standard Range 

oe 

Ne Conc. 

Floor: 

ee 

- 

TRL 

. 

Central 

Ai 

Self Clean Range 

’ 

Doors: 

|S01id 

X H.C. 

| 

|goncra: BF 

g 

New 

: 145,801 

E.C.F. 

Bemnt Garage: 

: 

: 

PT 

{ 

{Wood Furnace 

Sauna 

Cost: 

81,649 

X 

1.259 

Basement 

(5) 

Floors 

le 

7 

poy 

Trash Compactor 

: 

5 

) 

Carport Area: 

11st Floor 

[S— 

(12) 

Electric 

Central Vacuum 

ed T.C.V: 

102,796 

ores 

i 

‘2nd Floor 

Kitchens 

: 

0iAmps Service 

| 

security System 

© 

i 

er: 

+ 

+ 

H 

. 

;Bedroons 

| Other: 

No./Qual. 

of Fixtures 

| Cost Est. for Res. Bldg: 

1 

Single Family 

RES 

cls CD 

Blt 

0 

(1) 

Exterior 

: 

TERT 

TR T8rd 

TT 

THER 

(11) 

Heating System: Forced Air w/ Ducts 

" 

Wwood/Shingie 

(6) 

Ceilings 

ie 

SF Bice 

Soiists 

- Ground Area 

= 

912 

SF 

Floor Area 

= 1368 

SF. 

| 

X \Aluminun/Vinyl 

; 

io 

- 

Phy/Ab.Phy/Func/Ecen/Comb. 

% Good=56/100/100/100/56 

{Brick 

i 

‘Many 

|X Ave. 

| 

(Few 

: Building Areas 

| 

i 

+ 

Tm 

* 

Stories 

Exterior 

Foundation 

Size 

Cost New 

Depr. 

Cost 

| 

| 

13) 

Pl 

Insulation 

! 

(23) 

Plumbing 

1.5 Story 

Siding 

slab 

912 

Lo 

— 

: 

— 

Average Fixture (s) 

Total: 

134,206 

75,155 

| 

(7) 

Excavation 

13 Fixture Bath 

| Other Additions/Adiustments 

“Basement: 

0 

S.EF. 

2 Fixture Bath 

| Water/Sewer 

Crawl: 

0 

S.F. 

{Softener, Auto 

1000 Gal Septic 

1 

4,421 

2,476 

Slab: 

912 

S.F. 

{Softener, Manual 

Water Well, 

50 Feet 

1 

2,512 

1,407 

Height to Joists: 

0.0 

{Solar Water Heat 

Deck 

{No Plumbing 

Treated Wood 

259 

4,662 

2,611 

(8) 

Basement 

: 

Extra Toilet 

Totals: 

145,801 

81,649 

: 

Zxtra Sink 

| Notes: 

‘Double Hung 

(Cone. Block 

'Separate Shower 

ECF (AGRICULTURAL) 1.259 => TCV: 

102,796 

{Horiz. 

Slide 

{Poured Conc. 

Ceramic Tile Floor 

{Casement 

iStone 

{Double Glass 

{Patio Doors 

iStorms 

& Screens 

{Treated Wood 

{Concrete Floor 

(9) 

Basement Finish 

Ceramic Tile Wains 

{Ceramic Tub Alcove 

{Vent Fan 

(14) 

Water/Sewer 

(3) 

Recof 

Recreation 

SF 

| 

Living 

SE 

‘Walkout Doors 

(B)| 

{No Floor 

SF 

{Walkout Doors 

a) 

| 

{Public Water 

{Public Sewer 

1 Water Well 

{1.1000 Gal Septic 

| 

X Asphalt Shingle 

i 

Chimney: 

Vinyl 

{10) 

Floor Support 

i 

[2000 

Gal 

Septic 

: 

Joists: 

| 

Unsupported Len: 

. 

Lump 

Sum 

Items: 

Corr, Sup: 

***% 

Information herein deemed reliable but not guaranteed***

‘Parcel Number: 

43-13-019-001-31 

Jurisdiction: 

LAKE TOWNSHIP 

County: 

Lake 

[prince on 

02/26/2026 

Grantor 

[Grantee 

i 

Sale; 

Sale 

Inst. 

{Terns of Sale 

Liber 

{Verified 

| Prent. 

{ 

Price 

Date 

{Type 

i 

& Page 

iBy 

{ Trans. 

(Class: AGRICULTURAL-IMPRO Zoning: 

{Building Permit (s) 

| 

Date 

{Number 

[Status 

Property Address 

{ 

{11374 

Ww CLEAR LAKE 

CIR 

[Schools 

MASON COUNTY CENTRAL 

SD 

H 

i 

/P.R.E. 

100% 11/01/2015 Qual. 

Ag. 

] 

Owner's Name/Address 

MAP 

¥: 

ji 

i 

[JONES ARRON 

C SM 

2026 mst TCV 166,961 TCV/TFA: 122.05 

{11374 

W CLEAR LAKE 

CIRCLE 

k 

~ 

- 

~ 

- 

BRANCH MI 

49402 

| X [Improved 

| 

[Vacant 

: Land Value Estimates 

for Land Table AG.AGRICULTURAL 

| 

| 

Public 

i 

* Factors 

* 

Improvements 

{ Description 

Frontage 

Depth 

Front 

Depth 

Rate 

%Adj. 

Reason 

Value 

- 

—— 

INLAND LAKE 

30.00 

0.00 

1.0000 

1.0000 

229 

100 

6,870 

Tax Description 

INLAND LAKE 

70.80 

0.00 1.0000 0.0000 

229 

100% 

0 

{PAR 

"H" 

- 

PT 

OF 

NE 

1/4 

DESC 

AS 

BEG 

@ 

PT 

i 

ACREAGE TABLE 

'A’ 

20.000 Acres 

2,500 

100 

50,000 

{ON EAST 

& WEST 1/4 

LN 

OF SEC THAT 

IS 

* denotes lines 

that 

do not contribute 

to the total acreage calculation. 

IN86°51'57"W ALG 

SD EAST 

& 

WEST 

1/4 

LN 

A 

100 Actual Front Feet, 

20.00 

Total Acres 

Total Est. 

Land Value 

= 

56,870 

/DISTANCE OF 395' 

FROM EAST 1/4 COR OF 

Water 

EC; 

TH N86°51'S57“W ALG SD EAST 

& WEST 

| 

sewer 

| 

[1/4 

LK 340'; 

TH N6°10'06"E 

A DISTANCE OF 

{Electric 

; Land Improvement Cost Estimates 

11977.107 

TO SHORE 

OF CLEAR LAKE; 

TH 

i 

as 

i Description 

Rate 

Size 

% Good 

Cash Value 

| 

iS15°56'45"E ALG 

SD SHORE 

A DISTANCE QF 

ark 

| Wocd Frame 

23.50 

144 

58 

1,963 

(100°; 

TH $34°09'42"E ALG SD SHORE 170.7'; 

treet Lights 

; 

Total Estimated Land Improvements True Cash Value 

= 

1,963 

{TH S0°08'01"E 

A DISTANCE OF 1747.37' 

TO 

tandard Utilities 

; 

'POB. 

AND PAR "I" 

- PTOF NE 1/4 DESC AS 

‘Underground Utils. 

\BEG 

@ 

PT 

ON EAST 

& WEST 

1/4 

IN OF SEC 

J 

(THAT ISNB6°51'57"W BLG 5D EAST 

& WEST 1/4 

| 

Topography of 

(LN 735' 

FROM EAST 1/4 COR OF SEC; 

TH 

| 

Site 

N86°51'57"W ALG 

SD EAST 

& WEST 

1/4 

IN 

A 

i 

iLevel 

{DISTANCE 

OF 235'; 

TH N7°33'01"E 

a 

: 

‘Rolling 

{DISTANCE OF 1760.86"; 

TH N17°11'55"E 

A 

i 

iLow 

(DISTANCE 

OF 

553.03" 

TO SHORE 

OF CLEAR 

{High 

LAXE; 

TH $32°36'07"E ALG SD SHORE 2 

| 

|Landscaped 

DISTANCE OF 110'; 

TH S30°40°'42"W ALG SD 

| 

{ Swamp 

{SHORE 

A DISTANCE 

OF 

96.53"; 

TH 

i 

Wooded 

H 

[¥**BALANCE 

OF DESCRIPTION 

ON FILE#**= 

{Pond 

iComments/Influences 

| 

Waterfront 

[Split/Comb. 

on 06/13/2022 completed 

| 

Ravine 

[06/13/2022 BSA 

: 

| 

[Wetland 

; 

7 

; 

Tate 

7 

of 

TribumalyT 

{ 

‘Flood Plain 

Year 

| 

Land. 

Building, 

Assessed 

Board 

of] 

Tribunal/ 

Taxable 

|Parent Parcel(s): 

13-019-001-30, 

| 

; 

Value 

Value! 

Value 

Review; 

Cther 

Value! 

113-019-001-40; 

Lod 

I 

| 

H 

| 

[Child Parcel 

(s): 13-019-001-31; 

‘Who 

When 

What 

2026 

28,400 

55,100 

83,500 

66,537C 

ee 

mmm 

mma 

MJB 05/30/2010 INSPECTED 

2025 

23,000 

52,400! 

75,400 

75,400M! 

64, 788C! 

The Equalizer. 

Copyright 

(c) 1955 -"2009./cp 

(08/12/1993 INSPECTED 7024 

37,000 

77,800 

84,800 

32,8000 

TT63,840¢ 

icensed 

To: 

Township 

of Lake, 

County 

of 

iBOB 08/07/1999 DATA ENTER . 

. 

‘Lake, 

Michigan 

12023 

31,700 

36,300, 

68,000, 

€8,00CM 

{ 

59,848C; 

*** Information herein deemed reliable but not guaranteed **

rT 

A 

Residential Building 

1 

of 

1 

Parcel Number: 

43-13-019-001-31 

Printed on 

02/26/2026 

{ Building Type 

{3) 

Roof 

({cont.) 

; 

1} 

Heating/Cooling 

(15) 

Built-ins 

(15) 

Fireplaces 

(16) 

Porches/Decks 

(17) 

Garage 

1X {Single Family 

{Eavestrough 

l 

Gas 

oil 

i 

iElec. 

| 

Appliance Allow. 

Interior 

1 

Story 

Area Type 

‘Year Built: 

io 

{Insulation 

Wood 

Coal 

Steam 

Cook Top 

Interior 

2 

Story msrmorm————e—e——iCar Capacity: 

| 

0 Front Overhang 

-l 

- 

v; 

. 

Dishwasher 

i2nd/Same Stack 

| 

258 Treated Wood 

iClass: 

i 

ye 

0i0ther Overhang 

Forced 

Air w/o Ducts 

Garbage Disposal 

Two Sided 

| 

‘Exterior: 

| 

A-Frame 

i 

: 

Forced Atx w/ 

Ducts 

Bath Heater 

{Exterior 

1 Story . 

{Brick Ven.: 

(4) 

Interior 

| 

Forced Hot Water 

Vent Fan 

Exterior 

2 Story 

| 

Stone Ven. : 

X Wood 

Frame 

| 

| 

[Electric Baseboard 

Hot Tub 

‘Prefab 

1 Story 

Common Wall: 

| 

[Drywall 

Plaster 

| 

Elec. Ceil. Radianc 

[Unvented Hood 

Prefab 

2 Story 

|Foundation: 

Building Style: 

(Paneled 

= 

Wood TsG 

Radiant tint oor) 

Vented Hood 

‘Heat Circulator 

IFinisned 2: 

RES 

Trim 

& Decoration 

Electric oa 

Heat 

Intercom 

Raised Hearth 

: 

uto. 

Doors: 

Yr 

Bail 

eTed 

Space Heater 

{Jacuzzi Tub 

| 

{Wood Stove 

i 

(Mech. 

Doors: 

r 

Bui 

emoaele 

Ex 

ord 

Wall/Floor Furnace 

‘Jacuzzi repl.Tub 

| 

{Direct-Vented Gas 

Area: 

[] 

: 

L- 

: 

Forced Heat 

& 

Cool 

i 

iy 

; 

Size 

of Closets 

Heat Pum 

[Oven 

i Class: 

CD 

? Good: 

; Condition: 

Good 

i 

aes Sump 

y 

Ts 

{Microwave 

BFE 

: 

Age: 

44 

torage Area: 

; 

Lg 

|X Ozd 

No 

Heating/Cooling 

‘Standard Range 

Effec. 

age: 

© Conc. 

Floor: 

- 

ee 

Central Air 

{Self Clean Range 

Floor Area: 

1,368 

| 

Room List 

Doors 

Solid 

; 

§ 

| Total Base New 

: 

106,816 

E.C.F. 

'Bsmnt Garage: 

: 

I. 

{Wood Fuznace 

Sauna 

Total 

Depr Cost: 59,817 

X 

1.260 

| 

9 

[Basement 

(8) 

Floors 

+ 

- 

9 

Trash Compactor 

| o-or 

ped 

: 

i 

EY 

1st Floor 

- 

(12) Electric 

Central Vacuum 

| BSTimated T.C.V: 

75,369 

Carport Area: 

‘2nd Floor 

| Kitchen: 

0/Amps Service 

Security System 

(Rees: 

Bedrooms 

| 

Other: 

Io) 

: 

; 

: 

: 

. 

| 

Other: 

No./Qual. 

of Fixtures 

: Cost 

Est. 

for Res. 

Bldg: 

1 

Single 

Family 

RES 

Cls 

CD 

Blt 

© 

(1) 

Exterior 

¥ 

TX 

[Oz 

Mi 

? 

(11) 

Heating System: 

Forced Air 

w/ 

Ducts 

Ex. 

| X(Oxd. 

Min 

aa 

512 

ps 

Ses 

TWood/Shingie 

(6) 

Ceilings 

= 

SB 

: Groun 

rea 

= 

SF 

locr Area 

= 

1 

SF. 

|X Aluminum/Vingl 

No. 

of Elec. Outlets 

| pny/ap phy/Func/Econ/Comb. 

% Good=56/100/100/100/56 

{Brick 

Many 

| X Ave. 

{Few 

| Building Areas 

i 

i 

i 

o 

Chvwow 

| Stories 

Exterior 

Foundation 

Size 

Cost New 

Depr. 

Cost 

: 

! 

13) 

Plumbin 

: 

rnsulation 

Co 

13) 

1 

9 

1.5 Story 

Siding 

slab 

912 

SE RA 

— 

i 

Srcavation 

|Average Fixture (s) 

Total: 

96,973 

54,305 

(2) Windows 

i 

Fixture Bath 

Other Additions/Adjustments 

Many 

Basement: 

0 

S.F. 

\2 Fixture Bath 

| Water/Sewer 

Avg. 

| 

Crawl: 

0 

S.F. 

(Softener, 

Auto 

| 

1000 Gal Septic 

1 

3,195 

1,789 

Few 

| Slab: 

912 

S.F. 

i 

|Softener, Manual 

Water Well, 

50 Feet 

1 

3,278 

1,836 

| 

re mpprar— 

. 

Height 

to Joists: 

0.0. 

Solar Water Heat 

peck 

Wood 

Sash 

: 

at 

feet Soon 

: 

| 

Plumbing 

Treated Wood 

259 

3,370 

1,887 

FI 

- 

(8) Basement 

| 

xtra Toilet 

Totals: 

106,816 

59,817 

Vinyl 

Sash 

tr 

Sink 

: 

| 

Double Hung 

cone. Block 

Separate Shower 

| CTo 

ECF (AGRICULTURAL) 1.260 => TCV: 

75,369 

: 

|Hoxiz. 

Slide 

{Poured Conc. 

Ceramic Tile Floor 

| 

- 

* 

mere 

4 

Casement 

Stone 4 Wood 

; 

eramic Tile Wains 

Dont 

¢ Glass 

jTreated 

Woo 

. 

: 

{Ceramic Tub Alcove | 

EC ot 

vert Fan 

ToxT 

4 

inish 

3 

= 

asemen 

(14) 

Water/Sewer 

R 

; 

i 

; 

. 

(3) 

Reo 

: 

[Recreation 

o 

{Public Water 

Gambrel 

jLiving 

[Public Sewer 

Mansard! 

(Walkout Doors 

(B) 

H 

N 

¥ 

H 

—- 

1 Water Well 

Flat 

No Floor 

SF 

Shed 

: 

11000 

Gal 

Septic 

| 

X Asphalt Shingle 

{2000 

Gal 

Septic 

Lunp 

Sum Items: 

Walkout Doors 

(3) 

(10) 

Floor Support 

+ 

Joists: 

. 

Unsupported Len: 

Corr. Sues 

**x 

Tnformation herein deemed reliable but 

not guaranteed*** 

imney: 

Vinyl

FARM BUILDING DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE 

{Except residences and residential garages) 

REMAINING CONDITION 

Age 

Silos 

Buildings 

REMAINING CONDITION 

31 

.................. 

33% 

49% 

Age 

Silos 

Buildings 

32 

............ 

32% 

48% 

EE 

97% 

98% 

33 

ee 

30% 

47% 

2 

ee 

95% 

96% 

3 

29% 

486% 

3 

92% 

94% 

35 

iis 

27% 

45% 

4 

90% 

929 

% 

2% 

FJ 

26% 

44% 

5 

87% 

90% 

: 

; 

37 

24% 

43% 

6 

85% 

88% 

TE 

23% 

42% 

7 

82% 

86% 

38 

21% 

41% 

8 

80% 

84% 

0 

20% 

40% 

9 

77% 

82% 

39 

10 

75% 

80% 

“1 

% 

42 

38% 

1 

72% 

78% 

A 

37% 

o 

12 

70% 

76% 

4 

5% 

o 

o 

1s 

67% 

4% 

45 

ie 

35% 

14 

65% 

72% 

1B 

62% 

70% 

4B 

34% 

47 

33% 

16 

60% 

68% 

48 

32% 

17 

57% 

66% 

49 

31% 

18 

55% 

64% 

50 

30% 

19 

52% 

62% 

1 

50% 

60% 

[2 

ES 

20% 

" 

2 

5% 

59% 

[2 

28% 

o 

2 

7% 

8% 

[I 

27% 

28 

45% 

57% 

54 

26% 

24 

44% 

56% 

58 

25% 

25 

eee, 

42% 

55% 

56 

errr, 

24% 

26 

41% 

54% 

72 

23% 

27 

39% 

53% 

58 

ei 

22% 

28 

ee 

38% 

52% 

59 

21% 

28 

eee 

36% 

51% 

[+1 

20% 

30 

ee een 

35% 

50% 

Jo 

20% 

Age = Tax Year - date of construction

DEPRECIATION TABLE FOR RESIDENCES 

(All Classes) 

Age 

Remaining Condition 

Age 

Remaining Condition 

1 

99% 

31 

69% 

2 

98% 

32 

68% 

3 

97% 

33 

67% 

4 

96% 

34 

66% 

5 

95% 

35 

65% 

6 

94% 

36 

64% 

7 

93% 

37 

63% 

8 

92% 

38 

62% 

9 

91% 

39 

61% 

10 

90% 

40 

60% 

11 

89% 

41 

59% 

12 

88% 

42 

58% 

13 

87% 

43 

57% 

14 

86% 

44 

56% 

15 

85% 

45 

55% 

16 

84% 

46 

54% 

17 

83% 

47 

53% 

18 

82% 

48 

52% 

19 

81% 

49 

51% 

20 

80% 

50 

50% 

21 

79% 

51 

49% 

22 

78% 

52 

48% 

23 

77% 

53 

47% 

24 

76% 

54 

46% 

25 

75% 

55 

45% 

26 

74% 

Older 

45% 

27 

73% 

28 

72% 

The depreciated condition will be held at 45% as long 

29 

71% 

as the residence is habitable. 

30 

70%

Ground 

Area 

400 

450 

500 

550 

600 

650 

700 

750 

800 

850 

$105.02 

a0 

950 

1000 

1050 

1100 

1150 

1200 

1250 

1300 

1350 

1400 

1450 

1500 

1550 

1600 

1650 

1700 

1750 

1800 

1850 

1800 

1950 

2000 

2050 

2100 

2150 

2200 

2250 

2300 

2350 

2400 

2450 

MAM. 20/4 vedsteo 

CLASS D 

1.1/2 STORY. 

SQUARE FOOT COSTS 

FRAME 

MASONRY 

BASEMENT ADJUSTMENTS 

Siding 

Brick 

Block 

Wood 

Crawl Space 

Slab on 

Veneer 

Walls 

Basement 

Only 

Grade Only 

137.08 

145.96 

137.08 

-2.74 

-13.49 

-17.15 

134.11 

142.55 

134.13 

2.61 

-12.69 

-16.45 

131.50 

139.57 

131.54 

-2.50 

-12.01 

-15.85 

129.19 

136.92 

129.24 

-2.41 

-11.43 

-15.32 

127.42 

134.55 

127.17 

-2,32 

-10.92 

-14.85 

125.24 

132.41 

125.30 

-2.25 

-10.48 

-14.44 

123.52 

130.46 

123.59 

-2.18 

-10.08 

-14.06 

121.94 

128.66 

122.03 

-2.12 

-9.72 

-13.72 

120.49 

127.01 

120.58 

-2.08 

9.40 

-13.41 

119.14 

125.47 

119.23 

-2.01 

9.11 

“13,12 

[117.88) 

124.04 

117.98 

-1.96 

-8.84 

[1286 

16.70 

122.70 

116.80 

-1.92 

-8.60 

“12.62 

115.59 

121.45 

116.70 

-1.88 

-8.37 

-12.39 

114.54 

120.26 

114.66 

-1.84 

-8.16 

-12.17 

113.56 

119.16 

113.68 

-1.81 

-7.98 

-11.98 

112.62 

118.09 

112.74 

-1.77 

-7.78 

-11.79 

111.73 

117.08 

111.86 

-1.74 

-7.61 

-11.81 

110.89 

116.13 

141.02 

“4.71 

-7.45 

-11.44 

110.08 

1156.22 

110.21 

-1.69 

-7.30 

-11.29 

109.31 

114.35 

109.45 

-1.66 

-7.16 

-11.13 

108.57 

113.52 

108.71 

-1.64 

-7.02 

-10.99 

107.86 

112.72 

108.01 

-1.61 

-6.90 

-10.86 

107.18 

111.96 

107.33 

-1.59 

-6.78 

-10.73 

106.53 

111.22 

106.68 

-1.67 

-6.66 

-10.60 

105.91 

110.52 

106.06 

-1.55 

-6.55 

-10.48 

1056.30 

109.84 

105.46 

-1.53 

-6.45 

-10.37 

104.72 

109.18 

104.88 

-1.51 

-6.35 

-10.26 

104.18 

108.55 

104.31 

-1.49 

-6.25 

-10.15 

103.61 

107.94 

103.77 

-1.48 

-6.16 

-10.06 

103.08 

107.34 

103.25 

-1.46 

-6.07 

-9.96 

102.57 

106.77 

102.74 

-1.44 

-5.99 

-8.86 

102.08 

106.22 

102.25 

-1.43 

-5.91 

8.77 

101.60 

105.68 

101.77 

-1.41 

-5.83 

-9.68 

101.13 

105.16 

101.30 

-1.40 

-5.76 

-9.60 

100.68 

104.65 

100.85 

-1.38 

-5.69 

-9.52 

100.24 

104.16 

100.41 

-1.37 

-5.62 

-9.44 

99.81 

103.68 

99.99 

-1.36 

-5.65 

-9.36 

99.40 

103.21 

99.57 

-1.35 

-5.49 

-9.29 

98.99 

102.76 

99.17 

-1.33 

-5.42 

-9.21 

98.59 

102.31 

98.77 

-1.32 

-5.36 

-9.14 

98.21 

101.88 

98.39 

-1.31 

-5.30 

-9.08 

97.83 

101.46 

98.02 

-1.30 

-5.25 

-9.01 

Ground 

Area 

400 

450 

500 

550 

600 

650 

700 

750 

800 

850 

900 

950 

1000 

1050 

1100 

1150 

1200 

1250 

1300 

1350 

1400 

1450 

1500 

1550 

1600 

1650 

1700 

1750 

1800 

1850 

1900 

1950 

2000 

2050 

2100 

2150 

2200 

2250 

2300 

2350 

2400 

2450

MAP 

Zold update np zo24 

LAND IMPROVEMENTS 

D 

cD 

Cc 

BC 

B 

A 

Costs/Sq. Ft. Surface Area 

(including filter, steps and ladder) 

Fiberglass pool, in ground 

Surface area: 200 sq. ft. 

78.15 

82.55 

87.40 

99.20 

106.75 

116.35 

400 sq. ft. 

51.50 

54.60 

58.00 

66.30 

71.55 

78.30 

600 sq. ft. 

40.90 

43.70 

46.80 

54.35 

59.15 

65.20 

800 sq. ft. 

34.05 

36.25 

38.65 

44.55 

48.30 

53.05 

Plastic-lined pool, in ground 

Surface area: 200 sq. ft. 

75.85 

78.35 

81.15 

88.05 

92.60 

98.75 

400 sq. ft. 

49.80 

51.15 

52.65 

56.45 

59.05 

62.55 

600 sq. ft. 

39.70 

40.60 

41.65 

44.35 

46.20 

48.80 

800 sq. ft. 

32.80 

33.50 

34,25 

36.30 

37.76 

39.75 

Pool accessories 

Deduct for lack of filter 

685 

760 

845 

1,055 

1,190 

1,365 

Add for diving board 

635 

715 

805 

1,030 

1,175 

1,365 

Add for heater 

1,410 

1,700 

2,050 

3,000 

3,675 

4,550 

Chiorinator 

126 

200 

310 

775 

1,230 

1,985 

Hydrosweep 

710 

920 

1,195 

2,045 

2,695 

3,610 

Attached whirlpool bath 

(portable type, including hot tubs) 

Separate whirlpool bath, 

{4-10 persons) 

6,950 

7,725 

8,625 

10,900 

12,350 

14,200 

9,425 

11,225 

13,350 

19,200 

23,250 

28,525 

GAZEBOS 

Typical cost each 

(8' to 20" wood units including minimal foundation but excluding floors) 

Standard 

3,500 

4,625 

6126 

10925 

14725 

20,100 

Deluxe 

16,250 

19,260 

23000 

32750 

39,500 

48,500 

BOAT DOCKS 

Costs/Sq. Ft. 

(including fenders and railings) 

Decking, light posts, 2" 

28.88 

30.49 

32.26 

36.55 

39.29 

42.81 

Light piling, 3" 

33.05 

35.54 

38.30 

45,03 

49.31 

54.72 

SHEDS 

Costs/Sq. Ft. 

(excluding permanent foundation or slab and electrical. Includes entry doors with some windows in 

better qualities). Exterior wall height is 8'. For loft/barn (gambrel), add 10 to 15%.

M.A 

2014 with LpROATES 

LAND IMPROVEMENTS 

D 

cD 

Cc 

BC 

B 

A 

DRIVEWAYS AND WALKS 

Costs/Sq. Ft. 

Asphalt paving 

2.01 

2.15 

2.31 

2.69 

2.93 

3.24 

Sealer, two coats 

2.21 

2.39 

2.58 

3.06 

3.36 

3.74 

Concrete, plain, 3-1/2" thick 

4,30 

4.59 

4.90 

5.65 

6.13 

6.74 

4" 

4.51 

4.83 

5.18 

6.07 

6.62 

7.32 

Reinforced, 4" 

4.92 

5.47 

6.09 

7.64 

8.64 

9.91 

5" 

5.33 

5.95 

6.66 

8.45 

9.860 

11.07 

Crushed rock 

1.67 

1.63 

1.69 

1.85 

1.95 

2,09 

TERRACE OR PATIO 

Costs/Sq. Ft. 

Brick 

11.33 

12.32 

13.42 

16.13 

17.85 

20.03 

Concrete patio blocks 

9.75 

10.63 

11.62 

14.05 

16.61 

17.56 

Flagstone 

12.75 

14.11 

15.64 

19.46 

21.92 

25.03 

WOOD DECKS 

Costs/Sq. Ft. 

(includes decking, railings, girder, joists, posts and footings) 

Pressure-treated wood, 12 sq. ft. 

37.55 

38.30 

39.10 

41.35 

42.95 

45.20 

25 sq. ft, 

32.65 

33.30 

34,00 

35.95 

37.35 

39.30 

50 sq. ft. 

24.10 

24.60 

25.20 

26.70 

27.80 

29.30 

100 sq. ft. 

17.45 

17.90 

18.35 

18.50 

20.35 

21.50 

$ 14.2.0 

[200sq. ft. 

14.201 

14.50 

14.85 

15.85 

16.50 

17.40 

500 sq. ft. 

10.35 

10.60 

10.85 

11.50 

12.00 

12.65 

Regular (pine or similar), 12 sq. ft. 

30.00 

30.60 

31.30 

33.10 

34.35 

36.15 

25 sq, ft. 

26.10 

26.60 

27.20 

28.75 

29,90 

31.45 

50 sq. ft. 

18.25 

19.70 

20.15 

21.35 

22.20 

23.40 

| 

100 sq. ft. 

13.95 

14.30 

14.65 

15.60 

16.25 

17.20 

200 sq. ft. 

11.35 

11.60 

11.90 

12.65 

13.20 

13.90 

500 sq. ft. 

8.26 

8.45 

8.65 

9.20 

9.60 

10.15 

Redwood or cedar, 12 sq. ft. 

44,05 

44.95 

46.00 

48.75 

50.65 

53.40 

26 sq. ft. 

35.20 

35.95 

36.80 

39.00 

40.56 

42.70 

50 sq. ft. 

26.75 

27.35 

28.05 

29.90 

31.15 

32.90 

100 sq. ft. 

20.70 

21.20 

21.75 

23.16 

24.15 

25,50 

200 sq. ft. 

17.16 

17.55 

18.06 

19.256 

20.05 

21.20 

500 sq. ft. 

12.80 

13.26 

13.60 

14.55 

16.15 

16.05 

Vinyl, 12 sq. ft. 

46.26 

47.90 

49.80 

54.40 

57.40 

61.40 

25 sq. ft. 

40.50 

41.356 

42.30 

44.85 

46.60 

49.10

M.A. MN. 014 with vpoates 

UNIT-IN-PLACE COSTS 

D 

cD 

C 

BC 

B 

A 

Costs Each 

Kitchen sink, one compartment, white 

590 

650 

720 

885 

990 

1,130 

Colored 

650 

710 

780 

945 

1,055 

1,180 

Steel 

680 

745 

815 

9985 

1,110 

1,256 

Two compartments, white 

720 

835 

965 

1,310 

1,545 

1,850 

Colored 

755 

875 

1,015 

1,385 

1,625 

1,950 

Steel 

655 

785 

940 

1,375 

1,650 

2,050 

Laundry tub, one compartment 

435 

500 

575 

765 

895 

1,060 

Two compartments 

545 

630 

730 

aa5 

1,176 

1.405 

Water heater, gas, 30-gallon 

780 

830 

885 

1,020 

1,110 

1,220 

40-gallon 

820 

880 

945 

1,108 

1,205 

1,338 

50-gallon 

880 

955 

1,035 

1,230 

1,355 

1,610 

Electric, 30-gallon 

700 

745 

795 

920 

995 

1,085 

40-gallon 

740 

795 

850 

995 

1,085 

1,200 

52-gallon 

865 

935 

1,010 

1,205 

1,326 

1,480 

80-gallon 

1,295 

1,378 

1,465 

1,675 

1,825 

2,000 

Solar with 100-gallon tank 

4,800 

5,325 

5,925 

7.400 

8,350 

9,560 

Floor drain 

385 

445 

515 

700 

825 

985 

Rough-In 

405 

445 

495 

610 

690 

785 

Sump pump 

430 

545 

605 

765 

865 

995 

WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL 

Costs Each 

Municipal connections, including trench, 

pipe, tap and fees (40-foot setback) 

1,750 

1,875 

2,225 

2,850 

3,275 

3,800 

{Well system, 50 feet deep 

1,860( 

1,925 

2,000 

2,175 

2,300 

2,450 

100 feet 

4,100 

4,200 

4,325 

4,650 

4,875 

5175 

150 feet 

6,050 

6,225 

6,400 

6,875 

7,200 

7.625 

200 feet 

7,450 

7,725 

8,000 

8,725 

9,200 

9,825 

Septic system, 1000-sq. ft. bed 

[TTO0CT-gaNon tank 

3,420] 

3,330 

3,560 

4,125 

4,475 

4,925 

1500-gallon tank 

4,950 

5,225 

5,525 

6,250 

6,725 

7,300 

2000-gallon tank 

6,275 

6,675 

7,075 

8,100 

8,725 

9,550 

Septic system, mound type, 1000-sq. ft. bed 

1000-gallon tank 

3,425 

3,700 

3,975 

4,675 

5,100 

5,675 

1500-gallon tank 

5,450 

5,800 

6,175 

7,075 

7,675 

8,400 

2000-gallon tank 

6,900 

7,400 

7.900 

9,175 

9,950 

10,975 

Grinder pump system, add 

5,600 

6,450 

7.450 

10,050 

11,800 

14,050 

BUILT-IN UNITS 

Costs as Shown

MAM A035 ED. 

CLASS D 

SQUARE FOOT COSTS 

11/2 STORY. 

FRAME 

MASONRY 

BASEMENT ADJUSTMENTS 

Ground 

Sidin 

Brick 

Block 

Wood 

Crawl Space 

Slab on 

Ground 

Area 

9 

Veneer 

Walls 

Basement 

Only 

Grade Only 

Area 

400 

189.04 

198.79 

194.29 

6.75 

-32.50 

-34.28 

400 

450 

185.16 

194,35 

190.23 

-6.44 

31.50 

-33.28 

450 

500 

181.45 

190.07 

186.32 

-6.13 

-30.50 

-32.28 

500 

550 

177.85 

185.91 

182.54 

-5.81 

-20.50 

-31.28 

550 

600 

174.35 

181.85 

178.85 

-5.50 

-28.50 

-30.28 

600 

650 

172.16 

179.47 

176.66 

-5,36 

~28,00 

29.78 

650 

700 

170.02 

177.15 

174.52 

-5.22 

27.50 

-29.28 

700 

750 

167.93 

174.87 

172.43 

-5.09 

«27.00 

-28.78 

750 

800 

165.87 

172.62 

170.37 

-4.95 

-26.50 

-28.28 

800 

850 

164.24 

170.62 

168.74 

-4.78 

-26.03 

-27.80 

850 

[35.3] 

s00 

[(ezeal 

168.64 

167.14 

-4.60 

25.55 

27.33 

| 

900 

$1363 

so 

161.06 

166.68 

165.56 

-4.43 

-25.08 

-26.85 

950 

1000 

159.49 

164.74 

163.99 

-4.25 

-24.60 

-26.38 

1000 

1050 

158.34 

163.40 

162.85 

-4.18 

-24,34 

-26.11 

1050 

1100 

157.20 

162.07 

161.32 

-4.10 

-24.08 

-25.85 

1100 

1150 

156.07 

160.76 

160.01 

-4.02 

-23.81 

-26.59 

1150 

1200 

154.95 

169.45 

158.70 

-3.95 

-23.55 

26,33 

1200 

1250 

154.40 

158.60 

158.04 

3.89 

-23.36 

26.14 

1250 

1300 

153.26 

157.76 

157.39 

-3.82 

-23,18 

24.95 

1300 

1350 

152.43 

156,93 

156.74 

-3.76 

-22,99 

-24,76 

1350 

1400 

151.60 

156.10 

156.10 

-3.70 

-22.80 

-24.58 

1400 

1450 

150.59 

154.90 

154.90 

-3.64 

-22.61 

-24.39 

1450 

1500 

149.59 

158,71 

153.71 

3.57 

22.43 

24.20 

1500 

1550 

148.59 

152.52 

152,52 

-3.51 

22.24 

-24,01 

1550 

1600 

147.59 

151.34 

151.34 

-3.45 

22.05 

-23.83 

1600 

1650 

146.71 

150.46 

150.46 

-3.43 

-21.98 

23.75 

1650 

1700 

145,83 

149.58 

149.58 

3.40 

-21.90 

-23.68 

1700 

1750 

144.96 

148.71 

148.71 

-3.38 

-21.83 

-23.60 

1750 

1800 

144.09 

147.84 

147.84 

-3.35 

21.75 

23.53 

1800 

1850 

143.40 

146.97 

147.15 

-3.32 

-21,68 

23.45 

1850 

1900 

142.72 

146.10 

146.47 

-3.30 

-21.60 

23.38 

1900 

1950 

142.05 

145.23 

145.80 

-3.28 

-21,53 

-23.30 

1950 

2000 

141.37 

144,37 

145.12 

3.25 

-21.45 

23.23 

2000 

2050 

140.62 

143.62 

144.37 

-3.14 

21.29 

-23.07 

2050 

2100 

139.86 

142.88 

143.61 

-3.04 

-21.14 

22.91 

2100 

2150 

139.11 

142.11 

142.86 

-2.93 

-20.98 

-22.76 

2150 

2200 

138.36 

141.36 

142.11 

2,82 

-20.83 

-22.60 

2200 

2250 

137.62 

140.62 

141.37 

2,72 

20.67 

-22.44 

2250 

2300 

136.87 

139.87 

140,62 

2.61 

-20.51 

22.29 

2300 

2350 

136.12 

139.12 

139.87 

-2.51 

-20.36 

-22.13 

2350 

2400 

135.38 

138.38 

139.13 

-2.40 

-20.20 

-21.98 

2400 

2450 

134.91 

137.72 

138.47 

-2.38 

-20.13 

21.91 

2450

MAM 

2025 ED 

LAND IMPROVEMENTS 

D 

cb 

c 

BC 

B 

A 

Costs/Sq, Ft. Surface Area 

(including filter, steps, and ladder) 

Fiberglass pool, in ground 

Surface area: 200 sq. 

fl... 

. Luu. 

111.80 

118.15 

125.05 

141.95 

162.70 

166.50 

40085q 

flo ooo 

76.65 

80.70 

85.15 

95.80 

102.80 

111.70 

600sq flo... oi 

58.35 

62.40 

66.80 

77.55 

84.40 

93.10 

B00sq 

flu 

ovo 

u te 

48.50 

51.60 

55.05 

63.50 

68.85 

75.60 

Plastic-lined pool, in ground 

Surface area: 200 sq. 

fl... ..... 

. LL... 

108.55 

112.16 

116.10 

125.95 

132.50 

141.256 

4008q. 

fla outils 

71.35 

73.26 

75.40 

80.80 

84.50 

89.50 

800sq. 

fl... a 

56.80 

58.10 

59.60 

63.50 

66.20 

69.90 

800sq fl........ oi 

47.00 

47.95 

49.05 

52.00 

54.05 

56.95 

Pool accessories 

Deduct for lack of filter, 

. 

. ............ 

970 

1,076 

1,197 

1,498 

1,693 

1,938 

Add for diving board. 

. 

. ..........., 

905 

1,015 

1,142 

1,464 

1,673 

1,938 

Add forheater. 

. .. ...... 

aun 

2,000 

2,408 

2,804 

4.279 

5,245 

6,515 

Chlorinator. +... ovo viii vei 

181 

283 

443 

1,099 

1,749 

2,820 

Hydrosweep. 

. ... 

co viii 

1,005 

1,305 

1,697 

2,807 

3,842 

5,147 

Attached whirlpool bath 

(portable type, including hot tubs). 

. ..... 

9,849 

10,982 

12,269 

15,508 

17.606 

20,258 

Separate whirlpool bath, 

(10 persons). 

. .....ovvin venus. 

13,367 

15,906 

18,966 

27,304 

33,083 

40,626 

| GAZEBOS 

Typical cost each 

(8' to 20' wood unlts including minimal foundation but excluding floors) 

Standard. 

. 

. ... Le 

4,950 

6,950 

9,400 

16,100 

20,600 

26,000 

Deluxe. 

. 

. 

o.oo 

iii iia 

23,100 

27,300 

32,300 

45,000 

53,000 

62,750 

[ BOAT DOCKS 

Costs/Sq. Ft. 

(including fenders and railings) 

Decking, light posts, 

2”... .............. 

42.00 

44.25 

48.50 

51.50 

54.00 

56.50 

Lightpiting, 

3°... Lovee 

48.25 

61.50 

55.50 

63.50 

68.00 

73.00 

[ SHEDS 

Costs/Sq. Ft. 

{excluding permanent foundation or slab and electrical. includes entry doors with some windows in 

better qualities). Exterior wall height is 8'. For loft/barn (gambrel), add 10 to 15%. 

Wood frame, 40 sq. ft 

es 

33.28 

37.38 

42.06 

53.93 

61.67 

71.46

A095 

MAM. 

UNIT-IN-PLACE COSTS 

D 

cb 

c 

BC 

B 

A 

Costs Each 

Kitchen sink, one compariment, white... ....... 

845 

930 

1,025 

1,265 

1,420 

1,615 

Colored 

930 

1,015 

1,115 

1,355 

1.510 

1,705 

Steel... 

ee ees 

970 

1,065 

1,165 

1,426 

1,590 

1,795 

Two compartments, white... .......... 

1,035 

1,185 

1,385 

1,880 

2.210 

2,635 

Cofored. 

. «voi ivi 

1,085 

1,256 

1.458 

1,980 

2,330 

2,785 

Steel cua 

940 

1,125 

1,345 

1,955 

2,375 

2,930 

Laundry tub, one compartment. 

.. ........ 

625 

715 

820 

1,100 

1,285 

1,520 

Two compartments. 

. 

. .............. 

780 

9200 

1,045 

1,425 

1,680 

2,005 

Water heater, gas, 30-gafion. 

. 

. ....... 

1,116 

1,190 

1,270 

1,460 

1,585 

1,740 

40-gaflon. 

. LoL. 

i ica ee 

1.175 

1,260 

1,355 

1,580 

1.725 

1,905 

SO-gaflon. ...... oo. 

li iii 

1.255 

1,360 

1,475 

1,755 

1,930 

2,155 

Electric, 30-galion 

RN 

NN 

1,005 

1.070 

1,140 

1,315 

1,425 

1,565 

40galfon. 

. co. ee 

1.060 

1,135 

1,220 

1,420 

1,560 

1,715 

52-gallon. 

. ... vie 

es 

1.230 

1,330 

1,445 

1,720 

1,895 

2,115 

80-gallon., 

....... oii 

ies 

1.845 

1,965 

2,090 

2,405 

2,600 

2,855 

Solar with 100-galfon tank. 

. ........... 

6,885 

7.625 

8.455 

10,540 

11,885 

13,580 

Fioor drain 

oe 

555 

640 

740 

1,005 

1,185 

1.415 

Rough-im. «ooo ivi icici 

&75 

635 

705 

875 

985 

1.130 

SUMP PUMP. 

+ ov cvb een irri cen nner ninens 

700 

780 

865 

1,095 

1,240 

1.425 

| WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL 

Costs Each 

Municipal connections, including trench, 

pipe, tap and fees (40-foot setback). ....... 

2,282 

2,575 

2,901 

3,716 

4,271 

4,956 

[well system, 50 feet deep. 

. 

. 

. LL 

2,425( 

2,510 

2,608 

2,836 

2,999 

3,185 

100fet. oii 

5,346 

5.477 

5,640 

6,064 

6,357 

6,748 

150 feet. 

. 

. 

“. 

7.889 

8,17 

8,346 

8,965 

9,389 

9,943 

200feBt. ovis 

9,716 

10,073 

10,432 

11,377 

11,997 

12,812 

Septic system, 1000-sq, 

ft. had 

1 1000-gation tank. 

. o.oo. 

a008l 

4342 

4642 

5,379 

5,835 

6.422 

+1800-gallon tank. 

+ o.oo aii 

6,455 

6,813 

7.205 

8,150 

8,769 

9,519 

2000-gallon tank. 

. 

. cai 

8,179 

8,704 

9,226 

10,562 

11,377 

12,453 

Septic system, mound type, 1000-sq. ft. bed 

1000-gaflon tank, 

. 

oo voi iii 

5,125 

5475 

5,850 

6,750 

7,325 

8,075 

1500-gaflon tank, 

. .. .... 0 iia 

8,125 

8,575 

9,075 

10,275 

11,050 

12,050 

2000-gallon tank. 

. ........... 

10,325 

10,950 

11,650 

13,300 

14,375 

15,725 

Grinder pump system, add. 

. 

. ............ 

8,600 

9,200 

10,625 

14,350 

16,850 

20,050 

| BUILT-IN UNITS 

Costs as Shown

2025 

1. A.m7 

LAND IMPROVEMENTS 

D 

cD 

c 

BC 

B 

A 

| DRIVEWAYS AND WALKS 

Costs/Sq. Ft. 

Asphalt paving. 

. ... o.oo viii iii 

2.88 

3.08 

3.31 

3.85 

4.20 

4.63 

Sealer, two coats. 

3.18 

3.42 

3.70 

4.37 

4.80 

5.34 

Concrete, plaln, 3-1/2" thick. 

6.24 

6.66 

7.13 

8.27 

8.00 

9.82 

Aa. 

6.43 

8.90 

7.41 

8.66 

9.46 

10.47 

Reinforced, 

4”... 

.... 

oo iii 

7.01 

7.80 

8.69 

10.91 

12.35 

14.17 

Be 

a ee 

7.41 

8.26 

9.24 

11.68 

13.27 

15.28 

Crushed rock 

2.26 

2.34 

243 

2.65 

2.80 

2.98 

[ TERRACE OR PATIO 

Costs/Sq. Ft. 

16.23 

17.62 

19.17 

22.98 

25.41 

28.47 

13.92 

15.18 

16.58 

20.03 

22.24 

25.02 

18.19 

20.11 

22.29 

27.70 

31.19 

35.59 

[wooD DECKS 

Costs/Sq. Ft. 

(includes decking, railings, girder, joists, posts, and footings) 

Pressure-treated wood, 

12 sq. 

ft. 

.. ...... 

48.97 

49.94 

50.99 

53.92 

56,01 

58.94 

42.58 

43.42 

44.34 

46.88 

48.70 

51.25 

31.43 

32.08 

32.86 

34.82 

36.25 

38.21 

22.75 

23.34 

23.93 

25.43 

26.54 

28.04 

18.52 

18.91 

19.36 

20.67 

21.52 

22.68 

13.50 

13.82 

14.15 

15.00 

15.65 

16.50 

39.12 

39.90 

40,82 

43.16 

44.79 

47.14 

34.08 

34.69 

35.47 

37.49 

38.99 

41.01 

25.10 

25.69 

26,28 

27.84 

28.95 

30.51 

18.19 

18.65 

19.10 

20.34 

21.19 

22.43 

14.80 

15.13 

16.52 

16.50 

17.21 

18.13 

10.76 

11.02 

11.28 

12.00 

12.52 

13.24 

57.44 

58.61 

59.08 

63.57 

66.05 

69.63 

45.80 

46.88 

47.99 

50.86 

52.88 

55.68 

34.88 

35.66 

36.58 

38.99 

40.62 

42.80 

26.99 

27.64 

28.36 

30.19 

31.49 

33.25 

22.36 

22.89 

23.54 

25.10 

26.15 

27.64 

16.82 

17.28 

17.73 

18.97 

19.76 

20.93 

60.31 

62.46 

64.94 

70.94 

74.85 

80.07 

52.81 

53,92 

55.16 

58.48 

60.77 

64.03 

40.10 

41.01 

42.42 

44.79 

46.68 

49.36

FolA'O PRINToT PRP CARA 

VALUES ps pep DEC 31 2025 

Printed on 

02/26/2026 

Parcel Number: 

43-13-01%9-001-70 

Jurisdiction: 

LAKE TOWNSHIP 

County: 

Lake 

{Grantor 

{Grantee 

Sale| 

Sale 

Inst. 

Terms 

of Sale 

{Liber 

‘Verified 

Prent. 

{ 

Price; 

Date 

| 

Type 

i& Page 

By 

Trans. | 

| 

a 

| 

{Property Address 

Class: AGRICULTURAL-1MPRO Zoning: 

‘Building Permit(s) 

Date 

Number 

[Status 

1111396 

W CLEAR LAKE 

CIR 

School: 

MASON COUNTY CENTRAL 

SD 

| 

'P.R.E. 

100% 02/14/1994 Qual. 

Ag. 

iOwner’s Name/Address 

MAD 

&: 

| 

(JONES ROGER D 

2026 Esc TCV 148,535 TCV/TFA: 91.01 

: 

111186 

W CLEAR LAKE 

CIRCLE 

- 

- 

i 

, 

9 

IX 

Improved 

iVacan 

i 

Land 

Value Estimates 

for Lan: 

e 

AG. 

BRANCH MI 49402 

TXT 

3 

Vacant 

| 

Lend Value 

Estimates 

for 

Land Table 

AG.AGRICULTURAL 

! 

Public 

H 

* Factors 

* 

Improvements 

| Description 

Frontage 

Depth 

Front 

Depth 

Rate %Adj. 

Reason 

Value 

. 

— 

XBT Road 

" ACREAGE TABLE 

'A’ 

6.600 Acres 

2,500 

100 

16,500 

Tax Description 

IGravel Road 

6.60 Total Acres 

Total Est. 

Land Value 

= 

16,500 

I19-1 PAR L BT NE1/4 BEG AT A POINT ON 

Paved Road 

N1/16 LINE 

THAT 

IS W1267' 

& 

N 1308" 

FROM 

: 

i 

n 

o 

Se 

f 

|Storm Sewer 

Land Improvement Cost Estimates 

E 1/4 COR, 

TH W 

35' 

TO E 1/16 LN, 

N 1308 

|sidewalk 

| 

ST 

. 

; 

: 

TO 

N 

SEC 

LN, 

W 

TO 

SHR CLEAR LAKE, 

§ 

19 

Water 

| Description 

Rate 

Size 

% 

Good 

Cash Value 

| 

DEG, 

56 MIN W 1364’ 

TO POB. SEC 19 T17N 

Sewer 

j Ad-Hoc Unit-In-Place Items 

. 

] 

! 

R14W. 

6.6 A. 

M/L 

Tectric 

| Description 

Rate 

Size 

% Good 

Cash Value ; 

~eCTT 

SHED 

2 

1.00 

240 

100 

240 

Ts/Infl 

|Commencs/ 

vences 

Ses 

Total Estimated land Improvements True Cash Value 

= 

240 

Cuz 

: 

{Street Lights 

{Standard Utilities 

{Underground Utils. 

Topography 

of 

Site 

- 

{Level 

[Rolling 

| 

Low 

1X High 

: 

Landscaped 

{Swamp 

{Wooded 

{Pond 

iWateriront 

[Ravine 

{Wetland 

; 

— 

RE 

. 

Flood Plain 

{Year 

Land 

Building 

Assessed 

Board of 

Tribunal/ 

Taxable 

Cd 

value 

Value; 

Value 

Review, 

Other: 

Value 

{Who 

_ 

When 

What 

12026 

8,300] 

66,000. 

74,300 

l 

48,730C 

: 

‘MJB 05/30/2010 INSPECTED 

2025 

6,600 

62,600 

69,200! 

69,200M 

47,449C 

{ 

N 

izer 

fo) 

1 

= 

ji 

‘The Equalizer. 

Copyright 

(c) 

1995 - 2009. 

gp 

08/10/1993 INSPECTED F557 

15,800 

54,800 

80,600] 

80, 600M 

66,7007, 

48,033C, 

Licensed 

To: 

Township 

of Lake, 

County 

of 

R0B 03/15/2002 

DATA ENTER: 

(Lake, 

Michigan 

12023 

13,500 

49,000; 

62,500; 

62,500M; 

3,100T 

43,832C 

*¥% 

Information herein deemed reliable but not guaranteed***

Chimney: 

Joists: 

Unsupported Len: 

Cntr.Sues 

Lump 

Sum Items: 

Residential Building 

1 

of 

1 

Parcel Number: 

43-13-019~001-70 

Printed 

on 

02/26/2026 

| 

Building Type 

(3) 

Roof 

{cont.) 

© 

(11) 

Heating/Cooling 

(15) 

Built-ins 

(15) 

Fireplaces 

(16) 

Porches/Decks 

(17) 

Garage 

i 

X Single 

Family 

Ravestrough 

PX (Gas 

{Appliance Allow. 

Interior 

1 

Story Area Tvpe 

ear Built: 

| 

Mobile H 

! 

g 

| 

Wood 

Cook 

T 

I 

ier 

2S 

- 

Shi 

c 

Mobile 

Home 

: 

nsulation 

{Hoo 

cok 

Top 

Interior 

Lory ~srrasssrsgrooor 

Car 

Capacity: 

{Town Home 

: 

ront Overhang 

+ 

TH 

5 

. 

Dishwasher 

{ 

i2nd/Same Stack 

| 

280 ey 

5 Sor) 

lass: 

D 

Duplex 

i 

0lother Overhang 

| 

Forced Mr w/o Ducts 

Garbage Disposal 

Two Sided 

[ 

( 

OLY} 

Exterior: 

Pole 

| 

iA-Frame 

: 

: 

[Ra roroed for 

wr Duets 

Bath 

Heater 

} 

Exterior 

1 

Story 

rick ven.: 

0 

Earp 

(4) 

Interior 

H 

oO 

Vent Fan 

{Exterior 

2 Story ; 

‘tone Ven.: 

0 

IR Wood 

Frame 

: 

. 

{Electric Baseboard 

‘Hot 

Tub 

{Prefab 

1 

Story 

ommon Wall: 

Detache! 

i 

_ 

i 

{brywall 

[Plaster 

; 

(Elec. 

Ceil. Radianc 

{Unvented Hood 

‘Prefab 

2 Story 

Foundation: 

18 Inch 

TBuilding Styles 

: 

{Pansled 

| 

[Wood T5G | 

Radiant 

tins oor) 

Vented Hood 

‘Heat Circulator 

inished 

7: 

| 

RES 

F7im 

& Decoration 

: 

s sorrae na 

eat 

Intercom 

Raised Hearth 

to. 

Doors: 

0 

Bei 

TReneaeTeg 

§ 

. 

i 

pace Jeazer 

Jacuzzi Tub 

| 

‘Wood Stove 

| 

iMech. 

Doors: 

0 

0 

ui 

emese 

e¢ 

TEx 

Xx ord 

Min 

[Hall/fioor Furnace 

Jacuzzi repl.Tub 

| 

Direct-Vented Gas 

Area: 

2423 

rarer 

: 

oven 

I pac 

% Good: 

20 

ConA Esa 

(Size 

of Closets 

Heat Purp 

. 

Microwave 

Crass: 

> 

ss 

‘Storage Area: 

© 

1g 

x 0rd 

TSmail, 

No Heating/Cooling 

Standard Range 

aos Area: Te 

Ko Conc. Floor: 2423 

: 

: 

yc 

; 

TT 

I 

ai 

Self Clean 

Rar 

z 

Fr 

SE 

— 

Room List 

Doors:] 

iSolid X H.C. 

oR 

serr © ean 

Range 

tal Base New 

: 

206,383 

.C.F. 

IBsmnt Garage: 

h 

i 

i 

— 

tal Depr Cost: 

76,339 

X 

1.260 

Basement 

(5) 

Floors 

= 

> 

: 

|Trash Compactor 

|.°°% 

ped 

: 

7 

1st 

Floor 

2 

(12) 

Electric 

Central Vacuum 

{Estimated T.C.V: 

96,187 

garport Area: 

12nd Floor 

| Kitchen: 

: 

0Amps Service 

| 

Security System 

= 

[Bedrooms 

. Other: 

; 

FT 

I 

> 

: 

: 

; 

| 

Other: 

| No./Qual. 

of Fixtures 

Cost Est. 

for Res. 

Bidg: 

1 

Single Family 

RES 

3lt 

0 

(1) 

Exterior 

{ 

TEx. 

X 0d. 

Min 

| 

(11) 

Heating System: 

Foxced Air w/ Ducts 

| 

X {Wood/Shingle 

(6) 

Ceilings 

“ 

fr 

- Ground Area 

= 1088 

s*¥ 

Flocr Area 

= 

1632 

SF. 

7 

Aluminum/Vinyl 

No. 

of Elec. Outlets 

| Phy/Ab.Phy/Func/Econ/Comb. 

% Geod=45/100/100/100/45 

Brick 

[Many 

X Ave. 

| 

(Few 

| Building Areas 

: 

GER 

Plumbing 

| Stories 

Exterior 

Foundation 

Size 

Cost New 

Depr. 

Cost 

~sulation 

~ 

re) 

: 1.5 Story 

Siding 

Basement 

1,088 

| 

A 

—— 

rp 

Average Fixture(s) 

Total: 

118,709 

53,419 

(2) Windows 

(7) Excavation 

13 Fixture Bath 

| Other Additions/Adjustments 

Basement: 

1088 

S.F. 

|2 Fixtuxe Bath 

| Water/Sewer 

Crawl: 

0 

S.F. 

‘Softener, Auto 

1000 Gal Septic 

1 

2,993 

1,347 

| Slab: 

0 

S.F. 

iSoftenexr, Manual 

Water Well, 

50 Feet 

1 

3,278 

1,475 

- Height to Joists: 

0.0. 

Solar aver Heat 

Porches 

- 

i 

: 

No Plumbing 

| 

CGEP 

(1 

Story) 

260 

8,317 

3,743 

Metal 

Sash 

- 

: 

+ 

Story 

’ 

4 

Vinyl Sash 

(8) Basement 

xia sotlet 

WSEP 

(1 Story) 

260 

6,952 

3,128 

=z 

° 

{Extra 

Sin 

| Garages 

Double Hung 

(Cone. Block 

{Separate Shower 

Class: 

D Exterior: 

Pole 

(Unfinished) 

‘ 

Horiz. 

Slide 

{Poured Conc. 

H 

5 

5 

H 

- 

hie 

* 

= 

; 

Casement 

Stone 

Ceramic Tile Floor | 

pase Cost 

2423 

44,438 

8,888 

*2 

Double Glass 

Treated Wood 

Ceramic Tile Wains 

No Concrete Floor 

2423 

~12,987 

-2,597 

Patio Doors 

‘Concrete Floor 

Ceramic Tub Alcove | Class: 

D Exterior: 

Pole 

(Unfinished 

Storms 

& Screens 

(37 Basement Finish 

[Vent Fan 

Base Cost 

1088 

18,934 

3,991 

2 

= 

= 

14) 

Water/Sewer 

No Concrete Floor 

1088 

-5,832 

-1,166 

: 

(3) 

Rcof 

e 

< 

CO. 

i 

{Recreation 

SF 

T 

7 

Class: 

D Exterior: 

Pole 

(Unfinished) 

| 

San 

Living 

© 

sp 

Public Water 

Base Cost 

1584 

29,051 

5,810 

*2 

X [Gable 

|Gambrel 

| 

Public Sewer 

: 

i 

Hip 

iMansard! 

{Walkout Doors 

(B) 

| 

1 later Well 

No Concrete Floor 

1584 

-8,480 

-1,698 

‘Flat 

Shed 

| 

No Floor 

SF 

3 

00 Gal Septic 

i 

Totals: 

206,383 

76,339 

- 

T 

fe 

{Walkout Doors 

{A}. 

2000 Gal Septic 

| Notes: 

LOG CABIN 

(Asphalt Shingle 

(10) 

Floor Support 

{ad 

* 

ECF (AGRICULTURAL) 

1.260 => TCV: 

96,187 

**% 

Information herein deemed reliable but 

not guaranteed***

Mi Tribunal reply 2025 — PARCEL # 43-019-001-70 

In response to our 2025 spring Board of Review request being denied I find it necessary thus to appeal 

to the M.T.T for assistence. 

I have the following issues of contention via property tax values for the below property in Lake 

Township of Lake County Michigan.....Parcel 43-13-019-001-70 

Per my Tribunal request I have the following issues concerning the 2025 — 2026 property taxes levied: 

1). The T.A. is NOT applying the FOJ terms per MTT Docket #23-00317 replies per August 

19% 2024 and October 18" 2024 

2). A higher adjustment (LOSS) for Unskilled Labor + Material Deduction 

3). Applying Unskilled Labor + Material Deduction adjustment to farm barns and sheds. 

4). Deletion of Well + Septic valuations 

Furthermore, the following items are of concern to petitioner as to arriving at a “fair” TCV (market 

value): 

1) 

An adjustment (LOSS) for the neglect of the Tax Assessor in adjusting the land valuation based 

on the highly used easement road running through the center of the entire 6.6 acres. 

I used the following abbreaviations within this request: 

COA — Court of Appeals 

MSC — Michigan Supreme Court 

U.L.AM. - Unskilled Labor + Materials Adjustment per M.A.M. 

T.A. -- Tax Assessor 

M.A.M. -- Michigan Assessor's Manual's (2025 ed for both 2025 and 2026) 

B.O.R. -- Township Board of Review 

S.T.C 

-- Michigan State Tax Comm. 

AV. -- Assessed Value 

T.V. -- Taxable Value 

T.C.V. -- True Cash Value

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF FOJ Docket # 23-003171 

The T.A. has NOT complied with the FOJ terms per MTT Docket #23-00317 replies per August 19" 

2024 and October 18" 2024, 

In those FOJ's the following was ordered: 

Per August 2024 FOJ - “However, at hearing, Petitioner credibility testified that he built the log cabin 

himself to keep costs as low as possible and is not a builder by trade. Further, Petitioner provided 

evidence from the Michigan Assessor’s Manual which specifically provides, “[flor amateur 

workmanship, costs should be reduced by 15% to 30% to reflect primarily unsupervised, unskilled 

labor.”32 Based on the photographic evidence and Petitioner’s credible testimony, the Tribunal finds 

that a 20% reduction is supported by the evidence.” 

Also... 

Per October 2024 Appeal FOJ - “The Tribunal also agrees that the FOJ’s reduction in the value of the 

log cabin by 20% due to issues relating to craftsmanship and quality of construction is supported. The 

20% adjustment shall be applied to the depreciated cost of the log cabin prior to the additions and 

adjustments from other value-adding features.” 

I have repeatedly reminded both the B.O.R. And the T.A. of these FOJ orders but have seen NO 

evidence on the Property Cards for 2025 thru 2026 of any reductions of the depreciated valuations of 

the cabin. 

In reading the rules of the M.T.C. it was expected that this adjustment deductions would 

have been reported and shown as a “loss” in the “Factors” box. 

Both B.O.R. And the T.A. refused to supply an answer to my queries about this issue. 

A FURTHER adjustment (LOSS) for Unskilled Labor deduction per low quality owner built, 

recreational farm cabin 

It is now my intention to request at this Tribunal to change the awarded 20% adjustment deduction to 

the full 30% allowed by the Michigan Assessor's Manual. 

Since the 2023 Tribunal I have discovered many other factors concerning this adjustment which 

warrent an increase. 

Because we are reaching that stage in life where we have to decide what becomes of our estate we are

between parcels #13-019-001-70 and #13-018-014-16. (Two seperate parcels which make up my farm) 

We then discovered that the septic drain field for our cabin (upon #13-019-001-70) actually lies within 

the other parcel (#13-018-014-16). 

This was the ONLY site that the Lake Township Health Dept. Could find that would perk for the cabin 

build... the rest of the land that lays within parcel #13-019-001-70 is clay packed swamp land or dug 

ponds. There was no-where else on the entire 6.6 acres that would allow a septic field. 

So, as I owned 

all three properties (at that time) I placed the drainage from the cabin onto parcel #13-018-014-16. 

My unskilled knowledge caused this mistake... and it creates a huge issue when selling the parcels. 

In order to have the cabin be allowed occupancy upon selling I would have to sell BOTH parcels of 

land together... which we do not plan to do. (I have already made plans to sell #13-018-014-16 

seperately). 

Currently (as of Dec 31% deadline) our cabin property is unsellable except to family members. NO 

mortage lender would supply payment for a property which cannot be perked or a cabin without a full 

septic system. And a mortage survey would certainly uncover the facts. 

This map will show the placment issues I speak off... 

2.088 Af 

WOR £ 9S 

DRATNFIRLD -- 

arrnrana aprinas 

3 

T7135 acne 

Es. 

a UO & 

—qFO7 

0" Ww 

RB 

Quesnes 

2 

Timmaw 

Gp, 

i

Another issue which came to the forefront with a cabin inspection was my method of building the two 

main cross beams for the cabin. 

At the time I was getting all my building info from various books, USDA phamplets, magazines (such 

as Mother Earth News) and various older neighbors (including the T.A.'s grandfather). 

As I was trying to figure out how to build my two main support beams for the loft and the roof the 

method I finally decided to use was one that was explained within the magazine Mother Earth News by 

a fellow who had also built his own cabin. 

It entailed using reinforced cement to form the two 32 foot 

long beams. The cement was hand applied between the beams so that in the end one would get a 

continous 32 ft long 6 x 12 beam for support. Seemed like a good idea. At the time. 

We saw no issues with that idea until of late. Because of the movement as the logs swelled and dried 

out, back an forth each season, the cement beams have began breaking down. They seem to be still 

stong enough to do their job but this had led to great concern with visiting realitors. Again the concern 

is that a mortage lender survey would spot the issue instantly and flag it as being an issue. The 

insurance company is also following their lead. We do not have insurance on the cabin. 

I have 

photographied the issue to show the problem and design failure: 

these are photo's of our kitchen ceiling 

_- 

pe

These two issues above were not mentioned per my 2023 Tribunal. They have just recently come to 

our attention. So, along with the many major issues which I had explained during that Tribunal I feel 

the additions of these two MAJOR issues will, indeed, warrant a changing of the “Unskilled Labor + 

Materials” adjustment awarded in 2023. There are more new issues but these two are primary. Iam 

asking that the M.T. Tribunal increase the awarded 2023 adjustment to the full 30% as per the M.A.M. 

Instuctions allowance. 

Along these same lines I also ask the M.T.T. To allow incorporation of the 30% Unskilled Labor + 

Materials Adjustment per the Pole Barns and Sheds upon the parcel. 

I request this per the M.A.M. Instuctions for Agriculture buildings on page 2 of the 2025 Michigan 

Assessors Manual ie: 

“Farm or ranch-built buildings must be graded according to the quality of workmanship and 

sometimes the value of the labor is very low, bringing the end costs below those listed. For 

buildings constructed by the owner, often using some secondhand material, 15%-30% may be 

deducted to reflect proper wage rates and lack of job supervision relative to the quality of the 

work.” 

Truthfully I thought that these buildings were covered with my request during the 2023 Tribunal. 

Somehow that information was lost in the mix and the loss of time. 

1 built every single farm building myself. My only design help and ideas came from the books, mags, 

USDA booklets and elderly neighbors. 

I learned as I built (and re-built to fix issues) and made a ton of 

mistakes. Ihad very little money to use in buying material so 95% of the barns are handmade or 

salvage. At the time there was NO other choice. 

The farm buildings are built mainly of UNTREATED Native oak + popple + cedar timber with salvage 

corragated tin for the roofs... With PRICE being the MAIN factor in construction! Except for the 

sheet metal roofing the Barns were built with native lumber cut off the property... which I sawed out 

myself on a rebuilt 1940's Belsaw sawmill. The barns were built using either the Post + Beam style or 

Pole Barn style. Again, money was VERY tight so I had no choice but to build them at "'least-cost"' 

method. Windows and doors, and most of the steel roofing, were salvage items as well the limited 

electrical and lighting. The only new materials purchased (that I can remember) would have been some 

of the replacement metal roofing at a later date and the Class 4 (underlayment shingles...lowest price) 

Cedar Shingles there were used as siding to repair the walls of one Barn in 2000. 

It was never my intention to build either my cabin nor my barns to last for a century... I had neither the

siding. Popple siding only seems to last approx 12 yrs before rotting... unless it is kept dry. As can be 

seen from the photo's my siding has been in the “rotting” stage for some time. And I'm at the age 

where I will let the next “owner” decide how to repair or replace. 

I think the photo's will show better than words my workmanship ability and the style of building. 

I was 

not attempting to build the Taj Mahal.... just working buildings that “hopefully” would last my lifetime. 

It's gonna be very very close on that...

"SS 

o men 

LB) 

1 

I 

Wl 

- 

Sel w 

£25 

| 

—. 

~ 

I: 

x 

H 

ac 

ki 

Ll 

Ps 

Eg 

i 

5 

Pe 

a Ts 

'N 

I 

Li 

ps 

41 

Po 

“a 

{1 

Li 

ia 

> ge? 

> 

a 

—— 

“= 

20 

=) 

SL 

iN 

i 

He 

x 

Sos 

. 

5 TR 

* SN 

Re 

3 

Co 

“rg 

Fan 

\ 

_. 

& 

5 

Vor 

rt 

iL 

SS Cas 

& 

Si 

Hi 

5% 

oF 

A, 

he 

Em, 

bel_3

SHE 

La 

oh 

LY 

Ly 

2 

PL 

ou 

A 

« 

8 

“0 

v 

= 

A 

em) 

7 

— 

Te 7 

Zo 

hr 

ep © 

[5] 

Vir 

Af 

Se 

ma 

Eres 

= 

i) 

JA 

Bi 

| 

or” 

¥ 

4, 

PLD 

4 

Cd 

wre 

£48. 

pl 

EN 

4d 

og 

a) 5, 

-r 

SE ~ 

—— 

.% 

LA] 

N 

(Ca 

— 

a 

go

4 

bi 

ne, 

he; 

a 

Tay 

xh 

2 

2342 

i 

5 

A BT 

- 

3 i 

ATE 

zt ~ 

WX 

"3 

fo Ony WE 

Es 

Hn 

NA ae, 

Po 

he 

a 

Se 

Bird 

552 

gl 

JN 

ST 

oar 

Ral 

ie RE 

&- 

a a 

* 

Ap 

ar 

7 

<5 he 

x 

a 

Ta 

- | 

BAA 

oo 

a 

— 

= 

PINs 

&s 

ati 

SFT 

& 

Poa 

pu 

43 

Ta fd 

oe 

1 

0 

a 

A 

Pe 

hp 

bei Pete? 

pe 

— 

= 

7% / 

¥ 

5 

a 

a 

i 

ae 

£5 

kB 

7] 

’ 

|] 

[3 

] 

oar 

g. 

Sg1am 

pry 

hd 

4 

Sd 

fi 

Gd 

7 

] 

No 

| 

= 

ei 

~n 

ne) 

iP

5 

TN 

# 

Ae” 

dh &) 

iF 

ITP 

fot 

yn 

i nl 

re 

(11 

| 

| 

| 

be 

a 

% 

17 

w 

or 

iy 

~~ 

wy 

¥! 

\ 

yf 

i 

/ 

¥ 

f 

\t 

> 

od 

a 

\ 

oe 

W. 

i) 

EE 

He 

A 

a 

“w 

ol 

Gh 

& 

OLN 

SS 

fetal 

aa 

wid 

«24 

oN 

op 

Fah 

| or 

o 

Vi 

Votes 

pe 

Ve 0d 

pr aATs 

gee 

as 

p— 

Oo 

S15 

a 

AR 

= 

Ss 

AL 

a, 

FED 

= A 

13 

= Zp LS 

ED) 

DHA 

[1 

17] 

} 

——— 

je 

Fe 

M 

=p 

lA 

SE 

Ty 

=i ih 

N 

BN (X 

| 

wi 

£ 

[i 

™ 

{& 

Hi 

> 

id) 

EB

ALL the labor on the farm buildings was accomplished by me. 

I have no constuction trade 

background, instead I taught myself thru books while I built the cabin. Top to bottom... ALL labor was 

mine. Quality matched my skill level. Iwas in a hurry to get my farm started so that we could eat and 

pay bills and I needed to do so with speed and some "short-cutting". 

I offer no apoligies for such. We 

were happy with the result then ...and as it was "pay as you go" we were happy with the cost's 

expended and by NOT having to borrow any money to build. However, the resulting buildings would 

NEVER be considered “quality”... that was neither my intent nor in my ability. We have no regrets 

with the building style or methods. However, as the Mich Assessor's vols clearly state... “the style and 

skill level in building has a major impact on valuation”.. the final cost should be adjusted such. 

The barns are NOT insulated and there are few doors in place and very few single pane windows. 

There is only minimal lighting and electic in two of the three main barns. 

There were NO professionals building our barns !!!

Given these facts and photo's I am asking that the Michigan Tax Tribunal designate as the adjustment 

for the described M.A.M. Unskilled Labor + Material Adjustment the value of 30% 

For both the Cabin + Porches (both Porches are attached, albeit a couple years afterwards, and are part 

off the Cabin) and for all the Farm Buildings. 

I also think there has been an error in the construction of our Property Cards ... 

ISSUE WITH MULTIPLING THE WATER WELL AND SEPTIC BY THE E.C.F. 

The current T.A. For Lake Township (Lake county) has utilized a viewpoint in which he applies the 

E.C.F value to the water wells and septic systems located on the parcel. We have pointed out at various 

times that this does not seem to align with the approved Michigan calculation of T.C.V. 

“No, a Michigan tax assessor should not multiply the value of a septic system or a water well by 

the Economic Condition Factor (ECF). 

Under State Tax Commission guidelines, the cost-approach valuation process strictly separates 

building components from land improvements. The calculation requires specific handling of these 

utilities. 

Buildings Only: The calculated ECF is applied strictly to the building improvements (e.g., houses, 

garages, sheds) on the property. 

Exclusion of Utilities: Septic systems and water wells are categorized as land improvements or site 

utilities rather than above-ground building structures. 

The Math: To find the True Cash Value (TCV), the assessor adds the flat, depreciated cost of the well 

and septic affer the ECF has already been applied to the home.” 

It seems that our property cards are being recorded and valued differing to this opinion. 

The calculations of this parcel T.C.V. For the years 2025 + 2026 (plus the previous 40+ yrs) are 

effected by this method and we would ask that the proper corrections be applied by the Michigan Tax 

Tribunal. It is our contention that the depreciated values of the parcels water well and septic system 

should be listed on the property card under “Land Improvement Cost Estimates” and thus NOT 

increased (or decreased) by the yearly E.C.F. 

And thus'ly the “Water / Sewer valuations placed within the “Other Additions” section of Building 

Areas should, according to the above info, be placed in the “Land Improvements” section of the 

Property Card. 

However, in the case of this parcel we feel that neither the well nor the septic system should be value 

added to T.C.V. 

As mentioned above, the septic drain field is NOT part of this parcel. And, according to the Health

The same situation applies to the water well, 

I hand dug the well (actually hand pounded) using 1 4” 

iron pipe and hit a good spring at 27° We have used the well ever since. However it will NOT meet 

code today and if the cabin were priced for sale the well would have NO value to the buyer as they 

would have to have a new one dug. 

In conversations with several local well drillers we could possible 

have a new well put in but the cost would be approx $6-8,000 plus the plumbing and the labor cost. So 

in actuality the well should be valued as a LOSS ...not a gain...in the T.C.V. mathematics. 

Again, I 

feel that the water well does NOT add any value to the cabin at this time and should not be added to the 

“Building Value”. 

In order to refresh memories I am here including photo's of the main cabin and porches to show the 

style and quality of my construction. 

In 2023 the Tribunal Judge made a FOJ that the given 2023 facts merited a 20% Unskilled Labor + 

Materials Adjustment. 

With the additional information I presented above included with the 

information given at the 2023 Tribunal it is my reasoning to request from the M.T.T. a higher deduction 

allowance. 

per the 2025 Assessor's Manual Volume I (Agricultural section) page 2 ...ie: 

“Farm or ranch-built buildings must be graded according to the quality of workmanship and 

sometimes the value of the labor is very low, bringing the end costs below those listed. For buildings 

constructed by the owner, often using some secondhand material, 15%~30% may be deducted to 

reflect proper wage rates and lack of job supervision relative to the quality of the work.” 

and 

per the 2025 Assessor's Manual Volume I (Log Homes section) page 1...ie: 

“Log homes are usually precut and packaged kits, erected using skilled labor for construction and 

installation of fixtures. The finished structure will conform to building codes........ For amateur 

workmanship, costs should be reduced by 15% to 30% to reflect primarily unsupervised, unskilled 

labor 

We think a deduction of 30% is warranted for ALL items in Building Areas and Other Additions.

20k 

Eh 

=a 

ol 

Be 

“i 

Re 

=. 

- 

oD 

— 

a 

er 

— 

oo —™ 

a 

\ 

» 

LE 

Wag 

a 

x 

Sr FT TRE 

ir 

dl 

— 

> 

Ls 

Pigs | 

HR 

#0} 

re 

pg 

aT 

A 

a 

wr 

PET 

oT 

2 

2 

a SO 

- 

ah a 

v aE 

5 

Pp bo 

sg 

= 

a 

ad 

i > a 

{ 

pre 

\ 

- 

a 

ps 

A) 

oT

2 

i 

3 

[2] 

| 

gs 

a 

| 

h\ 

rye 

yo 

Ny 

= 

1 

é 

fi 1) 

i 

- = 

Es 

A 

— 

| 

L 1) 

TR 

TE 

; 

ki 

rd 

Pa 

- 

| 

¥ 

hi 

Hew 

Pl] 

iw 

AT 

A? 

ae | 

eer 

- fF 

zg 

A. 

EN 

_—\ 

ma 

5% 

a 

ee 

— 

— 

Rat 

"R 

I 

dl 

= 

- 4 ¥ 

| 

i 

tl 

De) 

TE 

i ——_— 

a 

t 

TERE 

ar 

tg 

| 

nw B STEYR 

ary 

de 

:

i 

£3 

“| 

\ 

4 

y] 

Al 

Vl 

W 

l 

A NN 

Lo 

\ 

[asc a 

wl 

¢ 

Nad 

NAL MN 

WL) 

NY 

AY 

LN 

un 

- 

Ee 

A 

X 

— 

i 

a= 

£7] 

57, 

—_— 

JP 

>> po 

gg 

Fe 

SN 

Ya 

4d 

“ 

ANN 

i 

SO 

Sw 

ae 

™ 

\N 

= 

Sn 

rea 

Se TOR 

ee 

TENE 

SN

po 

7 

=) 

= 

Fabs 

Ea 

ie 

Te, 

=, me 

he 

\) 

Fe 

) 

-— 

SCAT Gs Se 

Ccmiain 

= 

=a 

FANN 

RUAN 

ind 

i 

he BE 

ig 

j.77 7 

— 

ara 

Nd 

vii 

Ie 

oe 

= 

= 

& 

Hh) 

[VF] 

Wi 

I'd 

yo 

/ 

1 

7 

B 

Vf 4 

(v1 

bel 

A 

F/ 

HIE 

| 

fi 

J 

|! 

# 

idly 

id V4 

i 

| 

| 

fan 

/ 

fi 7 

li 

/, 

J 

# 

0 

\ 

&/ 

i 

Be 

py 

I 

Tn, 

Alf 

le 

fj 

4 

V. 

| 

A 

Ji 

tage 

{: 

4) 

LS 

i

As a comparison I will show below photos of my neighbors (about 100 ft away) log cabin,which 

was built by a professional crew....

—_ 

— 

a" 

EE 

RI 

NR 

* 

~ 

— 

= a 

Eas » 

— 

= 

ain Sl 

=o 

yg 

— 

— 

a 

a 

pe 

— 

———- " 

= 

“ 

AN 

8x, 

5 

— 

— 

Ee 

oN 5; 

~ 

ES 

————————— 

L/ 

£2 

ft 

hed 

fs 

Pa 

xe 

» 

— 

—— 

= 

29 

io = 

» 

a 

§ 

= = 

Se 

wd 

a 

———— 

= 

4 

we 

fo 

— 

ee, 

pa 

2 

a 

v- 

Po — 

_— 

eo 

— 

= 

7 

[5 

— 

shy 

8 

a 

1s 

1/ 

5 

pe 

5 = 

- 

Nt 

Pos 

\ 

oom 

= 

wn 

bos 

\ 

WE 

- 

hp 

in 

yy 

— 

AR 

— 

pot 

= 

W 

a 

_— 

- 

I 

a 

I. 

sar? 

in 

0 

a 

x E_— gp—— 

— 

= 

— 

v 

Li 

1 

wy 

—— 

aa J 

se 

KA 

ee ~ 

——— 

I 

— 

YW. / / 

em.

ISSUE OF CONCERN 1 --- A neglect of the Tax Assessor in adjusting the land valuation 

based on the highly used easement road running in the center of the entire 6.6 acres. 

Per M.A.M. Edition 2017 page 16 “211.7¢ ..... (2) The value of land over the surface of which is 

located a public right of way shall not be considered when the real property is being assessed.” While 

our easement is not considered a public road we have no real ability to reduce the traffic from both the 

back lot landowners and their many many many friends and guests! The precedent above per public 

roads should be used by the T.A. when costing the parcel with this easement! 

However this factor is continuely overlooking by the Township Assessor when valuing the property and 

he has never offered any sort of adjustment via the un-improved, dirt road, highly used, easement... 

(extensively used by the other property owners and their multiple guests) running smack dab down the 

middle of the entire parcel! The easement road is deeded to the lands. From the main road entrance to 

the cabin on this property is approx. 1/3 mile of sand + gravel two track easement. There is NO 

maintance agreement deeded to the various properties it runs thru. Iam the only one who keeps it 

clean.. and snowplowed in the winter. 

Anyone wishing to purchase this property would have to factor 

in the cost of maintainance and accessability. Obviously it would be much less desirable than a “main 

road cabin”. 

Online law firm content...“In Michigan, ..... Assessors generally factor these access roads into your 

taxes using a market value approach, treating the easement as a partial restriction ....” 

“A private access road restricts how you can use that specific slice of land. Assessors and appraisers use 

the "before and after" method to evaluate partial takings. They compare the total market value of your 

property without the easement against the value with the easement in place. Because an easement 

encumbers the land, it generally lowers the overall fair market value of the burdened property.” 

According to Real Estate professionals “Easements that restrict your use or aesthetics can devalue a 

property, typically by 5% to 50%, depending on how invasive they are « 

The Parcel included an easement clause within the deed. 

It remains in effect in perpetuity 

. 

The easement is a 66 foot wide approx 1/3 mile long dirt track sand/gravel easement driveway, which is 

shared with other property owners and their multiple guests and is un-maintained or improved (unless I 

do it), from the main gravel road (South Branch Rd) to this parcel. 

The easement is highly used by the other property owners and is almost always in disrepair.

MCL 211.10e indicates: 

All assessing officials, whose duty it is to assess real or personal property on which real or personal 

property taxes are levied by any taxing unit of the state, shall use only the official Assessor's Manual or 

any Manual approved by the state tax commission, consistent with the official assessor's Manual, with 

their latest supplements, as prepared or approved by the state tax commission as a guide in preparing 

assessments. 

And the Mich Assessor's manual clearly states that such "de-valuations" (as per easements) should be 

held as an adjustment of value when determining the Assessed Value and thereby the T.A. should set 

the S.E.V. at the current value adjusted with negative aspects to each property... clearly an easement 

road running thru the middie would be such! 

As seen in B.S. 

A photo...the easement goes right thru the center of the entire 6.6 acres. In doing so it 

effectively disallows the useage (for any other reasons) of a huge swath of this property. This would 

subtract the “useage value” of the parcel acres by approx 15%. Which is clearly a “negative” aspect to 

the value. 

For that result alone there should be an adjustment in value for this property. 

In addition, having an un-maintained (i.e.: no county snowplowing, grading, or repair) easement has, 

according to numerous real estate companies and professionals, 

a HUGE impact in the value and 

sellability of a parcel of land. 

{ 

A short quick search of info on the net revealed the following about "negative" value of an road 

easement and property value. 

"The impact of an esement on the property value will depend on the degree of interference permitted by 

the easement, said David Reischer,Esq., real estate attorney and CEO of LegalAdvice.com......For 

instance, an easement that permits regular and steady traffic across a parcel and that interferes 

significanlty with the enjoyment of the property by the owner (of said property) might have a 

significant negative effect on the value of the property." 

(MoneyTips.com) 

The right of way easement is one of the most common types of easements. Easements can affect a 

property in several ways. When there is an easement on a propetty, the owner may be prohibited from 

building structures within a defined area. For example, an owner will likely not be allowed to erect a 

fence or plant trees that obstruct access or block the use of an easement.

Resale values might be impacted by structures, wires, pipes, etc. placed by utility companies, especially 

if they are unsightly or prevent owners from developing the land for personal purposes. 

Buyers might not like the idea of others “trespassing” on their land, even if being done legally. 

(legalzoom.com) 

Whether you're the dominant or servient property of an easement, having an easement can sometimes 

negatively affect the value of your property. Not everyone wants to buy property with an easement on 

it, so the property with the easement may take longer to sell. 

(quora.com) 

An easement is an encumbrance on a property. No matter what type of easement or the terms, any 

property burdened by an easement will have a diminished value in comparison to the same property 

without that burden. 

private roads may be a result of several property owners sharing common access with maintenance 

cost shared by the owners. There is an upkeep factor that may not be as desirable as being on a public 

road, ..... Also if there isn't a written maintenance agreement filed in public records between the owners 

on the private road, some lenders will not loan on such properties which could affect values. 

(antonlegal.com) 

Determining the value of a piece of property with an easement on it can be difficult. However, the type 

of easement on the property will greatly affect the price. Additionally, “the size of the easement 

compared to the overall size of the property will play a role”. 

(civilstuff.com) 

“An easement will generally devalue a property by an amount proportional to the size and impact on 

surface area.” 

When appraising a property that has an easement on it, you (the T.A.) should initially value the 

property as if the easement was not present. By valuing the property as you normally would, you 

can find a fair purchase price and then lower or raise the price depending on the type of and how 

invasive the easement is on the property. 

(eweb.irwaonline.org)

2.088 M 

5 0yss’ 

i 

PARCEL 

#43-13-018-014-16 

13.4 acres 

res of Easement #1 in Parcels A and L: 

PARCEL 

#43-13-019-001-70 

6.6 acres 

N 014003" E 973.15 

GILLIANS SPRINGS 

s, 

17.39 ACRES 

%s. 

+ 

kd 

ap. 

Up 4z 

= 

« 

& 

N 

N 

® 

Hy %. 4 

coi 

§707'40" W 

7 

SE Comer 

Sec 18 

TITN R14W

¥ 

\ 

17 

CANE 

A 

[v3 

bl 

1) 

a 

oh 

4t 

8 

bi) 

\§ 

Ud 

/1} id 

$a 

} 

J 

i Hi 

Po 

« 

i 

| 

| 

BL 

\ 

i 

oA) 

li 1 

rhe 

Ly 

BRR 

5 

15% 

I 

J 

= 

Ko 

\ 

Jed 

Moss 

- Lx 

[OEE io Tag 

RY 

wl 

Ps 

oo 

=] 

PRE yn 

k= 

Su 

wa 

LL 

SA 

ory 

— 

= 

vr 

&F 

SE 

SA 

! 

ha 

lh, 

« 

E 

i) 

= 

Ti 

SA 

oy 

Lr f= 

TE 

2 RY 

= 4 

2 

RS 

po 

FR 

Fe 

~ig 

4 

Fo 

3x 

nr Sey 

45 

A 

me 

et 

= 

uT 

Ce 

i 

Sr 

0s 

~* 

[553 

pa 

ate 

2 

NE 

bs 

RCo 

3% 

™ 

BAR 

8% 

Mini 

3 

En

As seen in the “SCALE SURVEY MAP” this unimproved dirt track easement, with NO written 

maintenance agreement deeded (I am the ONLY person who attempts to keep the easement passable), 

or assigned to this parcel, across nearly the center, has a very high negative impact on the value of the 

entire property. The length and width of the easement effects nearly every aspect of our lifestyle and 

enjoyment per this property. While an entrance drive is needed to get into a purchased property I want 

to point out that, usually, an “easement” road goes TOO a property and stops... or in the case of a 

multiply parcel easement... it is usually found along the edge or many times even deeded as a seperate 

piece of land as an easement for all the parcels. This is the most common way I've seen easements 

approached via the BSA land maps for Lake County. Most deeded easement roads that are shown on 

the BSA mapping for Lake County have little impact on the parcel being severed. They normally run 

up to a parcel, or along one edge, or are a seperate deeded land parcel feeding several bounding parcels. 

As can be seen on the survey above, our easement was not built that way...Sadly, the terrian of this 

parcel and the parcels that rely on our easement drive did not make it possible to build it “out of the 

way”... most of the land involved is extremely hilly or covered with swamps and water. So the 

developer did not have much choice in “Where” to put the easement. 

It runs pretty much right in the 

middle of all the parcels it accessess. And thus, it creates a huge factor in “liveability” for the owners 

and a “negative” value for said owners. And also for the “potential” owners when pricing it for 

“Market Value”. By taking up wide swaths of land it reduces availability and resource for any potential 

property purchase. Any potential buyer would immediately realize the impact it causes. And it's 

VERY evident right away as the easement is “right in your face”. So, yes, the easement “gets me to my 

home” ...but... it also brings with it tremoudous imposition and loss of privacy. These are VERY 

undersirable when it comes to selling ones property and must (when faily assessed) be seen as a 

negative value for the T.C.V.. A "negative" value that our Township Assessor has not and will not 

address within the valuation of our properties. With 15% of the parcel being tied up in an deeded 

easement there HAS to be some sort of land valuation adjustment. 

It's only common sense.

There are long standing examples of the T.A. Adjusting “land values” based on conditions of use. Even 

his own family farm across the street was de-valued for many many yrs under the basis that the farm 

land was “not farmable” which produced a land valuation of $1,600 while the surrounding farm lands 

(per parcel #'s 43-13-018-004-01...#43-13-019-002-00...#43-13-018-013-00) were valued at $1,800 to 

$2,000 during the same tax years. This 20% reduction in value and the reason was listed on the 

property cards of parcel #43-13-017-005-00 per FOIA'ed cards from 2023, 2024,2025,2026 (and many 

prior yrs) as “swampy non farm” showing thus... that the T.A. Has adjusted land valuations based upon 

“conditional use of the land” 

Parcel Nueber: 

43-13-017-005-00 

Jurisdiction: 

LAKE TONSSHIP 

County: 

Lake 

Printed on 

03/31/2023 

Sale! 

Sale 

Grantor 

Grantee 

: 

| 

Price; 

Date 

{Terns of sale 

{Liber 

[Verified 

ferent. 

i 

is Page 

By 

| Tea 

i 

| 

| 

H 

| 

i 

i 

| 

{Property Adress 

(Class: AORICULTURML-THPROBonings 

Baiiding Pernit (a) 

7 

bate 

{tasber 

states 

8572 

§ BRANCH RD 

iSchool: MASON COUNTY CENTRAL SD 

i 

i 

{ 

| 

(Eau. 100% 82/11/1934 Qual, ha. 

| 

Ouner’s Hame/Address 

Ap be 

i 

) 

BARNETT SAH LIFE EST 

| 

2023 Bek TCV 368, 343 TCH/IRRY 109.55 

; 

BARNETT GREGORY ETAL 

8572 

§ BRANCH RD 

X {Taproved 

| 

{Vacant 

land Value Estimates for Land Table AG.AGRICULTURAL 

BRANCH MI 43102 

‘Public 

; 

+ Factors 

* 

Inprovenents 

iDescription 

Frontage 

Bepth 

Front 

Depth 

Rate tad). Reason 

Value 

Bice Road 

| ACREAGE TABLE *A’ 

120.000 Acres 

1,600 

100 

SKANPY NOX FARM 

192,000 

Tax Description 

120.00 Total heres 

Total Fst, Land Valye = 

192,000 

1, 17-9 10 11 N 1/2'SK 174 AND SH 1/4 SW 

1/4 SEC 17.1178 RUAN. 

120 A. 

{Land Improvevent Cost Estimates 

i 

i Description 

Rate 

Size 

§ Good 

Cash Value 

Couments/Influences 

| 

| D/#IP: Asphalt Paving 

2.44 

ws 

70 

834 

[Sawer 

| D/W/P: 3.5 Concrete 

5.25 

120 

0 

41 

X Electric 

i 

Total Bstimated Lond Tnprovexents True Cash Valve 

= 

1,275 

Gas, 

H 

i 

curb 

istrect Lights 

Just as he devalued his own acreage because it was not “useable” one would expect a devaluing of 

land taken from useage per an easement. 

Another example of the T.A. Adjusting land value based upon conditions of use can be seen where he 

has lowered assessed values for those properties which do not have road access. A good example is the 

farm abutting ours... which the T.A.'s cousin owns... a 40 acre farmland parcel (#43-13-019-002-00).... 

In 2022 when surrounding ag properties with road access were being valued higher this property was 

valued at only $1,800 per acre and I was informed by the B.O.R. It was because of having NO road

$3-13-018-002-00 

gurisdicticn: 

LAKE TGRNSHIP 

County: 

Lake 

printed on 

03/03/2025 

Jrandes 

f 

Bafa] 

Eale 

[favtl 

[Terms of aw 

[Liber 

fer iFicd 

re 

i 

vrice| 

bate 

 |1ype 

is page 

juy 

rans. | 

i 

. 

i 

5 

7 

JEOBERTYR ROBERT 

47 

HOP MARL 

4 43720720137 

[05 

|83=RRTS RG 

! 

JBROPERTY THNETER 

| 

0.0 

! 

. 

g 

i 

1 

i 

i 

H 

i 

| 

) 

I 

| 

§ 

i 

i 

H 

| 

. 

L 

SR. 

{ 

i 

; 

: 

i 

io 

| 

| 

| 

i 

H 

i 

{ 

! 

J 

! 

f 

i 

| 

i 

. 

‘Property hddress 

i 

Ciassi ASATCOLTUINI-VACH (751i hg} 

hutiding permit {ay 

[ 

Date 

Jitomser 

|Bratus 

PLURLRL 

1608 + okie at Ry! 

| 

1 

Guner¥n Nana Zhddrans 

oe ti 

I 

j 

EASE BEN TRMLE 

2038" E<i 1EV $8) 00] 

i 

| 

i 

| 

Babiie 

ci 

Izprovezents 

bescription 

 Fronlage 

Depth 

Frost 

Uaplh 

Bate 3Adi. Reagan 

Valine 

BEV Road 

ACRERGE TRBLE 

‘At 

40,000 Acres 

2,060 

100 

80,909 

Tox Besuription 

10.00 Tota) Acres 

Total Fst. Land Value 

= 

80,600 

| 

USSR E/E HE TI/EERE Te FYI RUG 

i 

40 A 

ji 

i 

Cormahte/Intinancan 

Gos 

cur 

Street Lighta 

Standard Utilities 

Underground Utils. 

Topography of 

site 

fievel 

Rolling 

{Low 

x 

jnigh 

Landcanad 

swarp 

Honded 

Pend 

ator front 

iavina 

itn 

vaiv 

| 

Ts] 

Wotiding] 

Revel 

BRE Bd] RRR] 

aan 

aio 

vies 

Wat 

{R028 

I 

48, 000; 

af 

6, 608 

Ey 

i 55736798167 Thisee 

5653 

| 

40,66] 

i) 

407, 600 

i 

ihe Eausiieer 

Copyriant 

©) 

bELE) 

N 2008. BOW 08/24/1998 INSPE 

sa2% 

7 

FTN 

Bo 

a 

10, 000] 

| 

i 

cenced 

Tot Township 

of 

Lake, 

County 

of 

[Boa 06/06/2003 DATS ITER 

i 

. 

Another example of easement roads effecting valuations can be seen using the original pricing 

structure of the developer who sold the various parcels affected by the easment in question above. Per 

the original map used by my parents when scouting a potential land purchase in 1978 (the parcel 

valuations were penciled in to help my folks decide wither to purchase or not) and Lake County B.S.A. 

Records ... the selling prices, per acre, starting per the main road parcels (S.Branch Rd) and continuing 

down the easement, went from a high of $8,100 per acre down to $425 per acre as you go further back 

along the approx. mile long easement known as Clear Lake Circle. 

1. 

13-018-014-25 --- $8,100/acre 

2. 

13-018-014-50 --- $6,560/acre 

3. 

13-018-014-35 --- $4,423/acre 

4. 

13-018-014-45 --- $3,125/acre 

5. 

13-018-014-40 --- $1,850/acre 

6. 

13-019-001-70 --- $1,590/acre 

7. 

13-019-001-55 --- $1,400/acre 

8. 

13-019-001-51 --- $1,200/acre 

9. 

13-019-001-75 --- $425/acre 

10. 13-019-001-85 --- $425/acre

Based upon the T.A. Practice of lower “land values” based on conditional use and the actual real 

estate valuations per length of easement, we think that a 15-20% decrease in “Assessed Value” is 

not out of line in order to adjust the real world T.C.V. Of this parcel. 

Therefore I request that the M.T.T. Require the T.A. To adjust the “Assessed Value” for this parcel's 

property cards to show the 15-20% as a loss in value based on the above and to show that loss on the 

property card as a “loss deduction” in the “Factors” table. 

THUS 

Section 27 (1) of the General Property Tax Act defines “true cash value” as “...the usual 

selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied is at the time of 

assessment, being the price that could be obtained for the property at private sale.... 

Also.... 

In Michigan, the True Cash Value (TCV) of a property is determined each year based on the 

property's condition and market status as of December 31% of the preceding year... 

In order to arrive at a fair and just “True Cash Value” of parcel 43-13-019-001-70 we ask that the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal firstly approve the 30% Unskilled Labor + Material Adjustment for each of the 

Tax years in question (2025 + 2026). 

In addition, we ask that our moderate and fair deduction percentage, for a reasonable amount of 

“Assessed Value” reduction, in the amount of 15-20%, be approved due to the decreased valuation 

of the property because of the missplaced and intrusive deeded easement. 

Based on experience with this T.A. We also ask that the court mandate that these two deductions be 

shown on the property card for each year as a “Loss” under the “Factors” area and be dually deducted 

from the overall totals in their proper positions. To date the T.A. Has NOT followed the instructions 

per M.T.T. Final judgement of October 18, 2024 - Docket No. 23-003171 in reguards to that property 

in question so we fear the same with this property.

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

DIRECTOR 

Roger D Jones 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No,25-000634 

Mark Bamett (Lake Township tax assessor) 

Respondent(s) 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Roger D Jones 

states that on 6/23/2026 

he/she 

[Name of person serving/mailing petition] 

[date of service] 

served a copy of the reasons for appeal 

relative to the above-captioned matter upon: 

[Provide name and address of the party/people being served] 

Mark Barnett 

1857 W. Fountain Rd 

Scottville Mi 49454 

Rozer 

8) 

neo 

[Signhturg/of person whois serving/mailing copy] 

Roger D Jones

& 

I \ 

i 

IX 

\ 

fir! 

i 

I 

74 FN 

» 

AN 

(\ 

a} 

\\ 8 

1 

[27 

he) 

\/ 

aN 

| 

) 

iY 

ie 

If 

94] 

Wo 

l 

{ 

1) 

af 

8 

rg 

Li 

AS 

Vo 

_) 

WE) Wi th 

I 

Fi] 

4: 

iY 

I 

FL 

\ 

(i 

1 

1 

J 

—— 

=, 

% 

A 

\5y 

i 

\= 

ies 

i

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

DIRECTOR 

Roger D Jones 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-000634 

Mark Barnett (Lake Township tax assessor) 

Respondent(s) 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Roger D Jones 

states that on 6/23/2026 

he/she 

[Name of person serving/mailing petition] 

[date of service] 

served a copy of the reasons for appeal 

relative to the above-captioned matter upon: 

[Provide name and address of the party/people being served] 

Mark Barnett 

1857 W. Fountain Rd 

Scottville Mi 49454 

foe, 

2 

[has 

[Signature 

person who j Jéperving/malling copy] 

Roger D Jones

Mi Tribunal reply 2025 — Trailer property 

In response to our 2025 spring Board of Review request being denied I find it necessary thus to appeal 

to the M.T.T for assistence, 

1 have the following issues of contention via property tax values for the below property in Lake 

Township of Lake County Michigan..... 

Parcel 43-13-018-014-16 

Per my Tribunal request I have the following issues concerning the 2025 — 2026 property taxes levied: 

1). Illegally charging a “lake frontage” cost. 

2). Incorrect Land Value, Assessed Value and Taxable Value on 2025 property card 

3). An incorrect “Building Value + Assessed Value” on the 2026 property card 

Furthermore, the following items are of concern to petitioner as to arriving at a “fair” TCV (market 

value): 

1) 

An adjustment (LOSS) for the neglect of the Tax Assessor in adjusting the land valuation based 

on the highly used easement road running through the center of the entire 20 acres. 

I used the following abbreaviations within this request: 

COA — Court of Appeals 

MSC — Michigan Supreme Court 

G.B.A. -- Michigan State Tax Comm. "Guide to Basic Assessing" 

T.A. -- Tax Assessor 

M.AM. -- Michigan Assessor's Manual's (2014 ed. (with 2024 updates) for 2024) (2025 ed for 2025 

and 2026) 

B.O.R. -- Township Board of Review 

S.T.C 

-- Michigan State Tax Comm. 

A.V, -- Assessed Value 

T.V. -- Taxable Value

ISSUE #1 (charging “Lake Frontage” values) 

per MAM. Volume HII (published 2018 page 11) 

“When real estate is transacted, it is the legal description that uniquely describes and identifies the 

property involved in the transaction, It is not sufficient to rely merely on an address or property 

identification number for this purpose. Your property ownership is “legally” identified by the legal 

description on your deed.” 

: 

per online search “Michigan property assessments and taxes rely on several distinct rules” 

i.e..... “Direct Ownership: You are only taxed on the specific parcel of land defined by your official 

property deed and legal boundaries. If the pond is entirely on your neighbor's land, its assessed value 

remains with their parcel.” 

Per legal titles this property (Parcel 43-13-018-014-16) does NOT own any part of the property which 

contains Gillians Springs thus it has NO pond (lake) frontage. This parcel abuts/borders another 

owners property which includes an approx 17acre man made pond. 

According to documents held at 

the Lake Township Register of Deeds office the 17 acres which comprise Gillians Springs was part of a 

160 acre propety which was sold in 1978 to a private individual(s). That owner then, in late1978, 

proceeded to survey and sell off certain sections of the 160 acres for the next few yrs. He held ... AND 

continues to hold... ownership of the 17 acres under the man made artificial pond called “Gillians 

Springs” (or Mohlers Pond). (Per County records at R.0.Deeds office) Our registered deeds clearly 

show the surveyed lines of each parcel. None of them include land under the body of water as that land 

was, and remains, in private hands. Lake County records continue to show that this 17.39 acres has a 

clear unbroken line of ownership since 1961 when Dale Mohler purchased several properties and 

combined them into one parcel. At that time there was NO body of water and Gillians Springs is listed 

on the 1961 MSU water lands of Lake County as being only wetlands springs of one tenth of an acre. 

In 1964 Mr. Mohler built an unlicensed artificial farm pond dam (known locally as Mohlers Pond) and 

created what is currently known as Gillians Springs for use in his farm operations. 

Upon later becoming ill Mr. Mohler sold the deeded property (as recorded at the Lake County Register 

of Deeds) in it's entirety (which included all land around and beneath Gillians Springs). 

As Gillians Springs (Mohlers Pond) was a man-made artificial pond built in the early 60's none of 

the land owners surrounding the privitally owned land (UNDER GILLIANS SPRINGS) containing 

said pond hold Ripiarian rights within the pond as per multiple Mich case summery's 

: 

COA 2014 No. 308454 Oakland Circuit Court, LC No. 2011-121522-CH

COA 2010 Persell v. Wertz, 287 Mich App IE: 

“A “riparian proprietor” is a person who is in possession of riparian lands or who owns an estate 

therein. 4 Restatement, Torts, § 844, p 331. 

See also Little v. Kin3 which adopted Thompson's definition of “riparian land” being land bounded by 

a natural water course. 

While the above alone would make it clear that an artificial pond does not create riparian lands with 

riparian rights, the Court went on to make the point even clearer: 

Artificial water courses are waterways that owe their origin to acts of man....... 4 Restatement, Torts, § 

841, subd h, p 321. 

Land abutting on an artificial water course has no riparian rights. 

“it is clear under Michigan law that no riparian rights arise from an artificial body of water « 

Parsons v. Whittaker (1996) Michigan Court of Appeals case (COA 170274) 

“The general common law rule is that land abutting on an artificial watercourse has no riparian rights. 

The rationale for this rule is that: The natural corporeal right in question is possessed by riparian 

owners of land on natural channels of water courses only. Such right does not exist in the water flowing 

in an artificial channel. The right of those owning land bordering upon or through which artificial 

channels pass, to the use of the water flowing therein, is not a natural right, nor a corporeal right, 

but an incerporeal right, which can be acquired only by grant, express or implied, or by 

prescription.” (Emphasis in original.) 

MSC 1967 Thompson v. Enz (379 Mich. 667, 1967 [ 385 Mich. 103, 1971) 

“a landmark Michigan Supreme Court case that established key precedents for riparian rights and 

water law” 

AS being fact that the 17+ acre parcel which encompases Gillians Springs remains in private 

ownership... the surrounding parcels that border do not (PER LEGAL DESCRIPTION) inherit nor 

posess rights of use or ownership. Our deeds do NOT specificy such. Any of the bordering properties 

being re-sold would therefore NOT legally be able to claim either pond usage nor rapiarian rights. 

Those of us who have purchased those parcels of land which were sold all have deeds which show by 

survey that such land descriptions END at the proscribed survey line near the edge of the man made 

artificial pond commonly known as Gillians Springs or Mohlers Pond. All our deeds clearly show that 

property lines do NOT extend into the 17 acres covered by Gillians Springs. 

Ownership of that 17+ 

acres continues to date to be held by a private individual as per county records. Repeated attempts have

per the fact that the registered deed (and all the registered deeds surrounding this parcel of water) does 

NOT include that land which comprises the 17.39 acres pond... commonly known as “Gillians 

Springs”. However, the T.A. did not remove the “lake frontage” charges from the property card. This 

led to multiple B.O.R. Visits... trying to fix that “lake frontage” issue. Including the 2000 + 2002 Lake 

Township Board of Review's for (#43-13-018-014-16 AND #43-13-019-001-70).... and the 2026 

B.O.R.'s for both parcels. At each B.O.R. (of 2000 + 2002) the members confirmed that there should 

NOT be charges assessed on the property cards for “Lake Frontage”. Again, the T.A. later came back 

and, once again, added in those charges. Finally, per the 2026 B.O.R., I went before the B.O.R. 

Explaining the legality of “Lake Access” charges, the negative impact of the nearly 1/2 mile “two- 

track” casement access along with other key issues concerning this parcel. AND... once again This 

LACK of “lake frontage” was reaffirmed which led to a reduction of A.V. And the removal of the “lake 

frontage” charges on the 4/20/2026 property cards for this parcel and for property parcel 43-13-019- 

001-31 (another 20 acre parcel bordering “Gillian Springs”) Both property assessments were reduced. 

We should not have to fight this issue time after time after time..... 

As it is clearly shown above the T.A. .and Lake Township have erred in adjudicating a just cause for 

attaching “lake frontage” costs to the properties surrounding Gillians Springs...including thusly the 

property per this Tribunal ie: Parcel 43-13-018-014-16 

Any compentent land sale lender would require a property appraiser to research the ripiarian rights to 

this parcel of land PRIOR to purchase. An examination of the deed and a knowledge of Mich law 

would clearly show that NO inherit right of pond usage could be legally constructed in a purchase 

agreeement or deed. 

Per the fact that this property does NOT acquire, own, or possess, ripiarian rights to the pond waters 

know as “Gillians Springs”, nore do they have any legal claim to the land laying below said waters, 

attempts to attach “lake frontage” charges should be seen as excessive and unwarrented... and the T.A. 

Should be clarified on such. Charging this property.... “values”... that relate to another privately held 

property seems... and is.... wrong. 

In Michigan, a tax assessor can not legally charge a person property taxes on real estate that you do not 

own as “the duty to pay “real property” taxes rest on the holder of the legal title” registered at the Lake 

County Register of Deeds. The T.A. is attempting to charge this parcel with a “lake frontage” cost. He 

is attempting to charge such for another persons property. A property which “legally” this parcel has 

NO ownership of...and... the State of Michigan has clearly judged cannot be charged for. 

A property's taxable value should not be increased by adjoining privately held lands.

ISSUE OF CONCERN 2 --- 

A neglect of the Tax Assessor in adjusting the land valuation 

based on the highly used easement road running in the center of the entire 20 acres. 

Per M.A.M. Edition 2017 page 16 “211.7¢ ..... (2) The value of land over the surface of which is 

located a public right of way shall not be considered when the real property is being assessed.” While 

our easement is not considered a public road we have no real ability to reduce the traffic from both the 

back lot landowners and their many many many friends and guests! The precedent above per public 

roads should be used by the T.A. when costing the parcel with this easement! 

However this factor is continuely overlooking by the Township Assessor when valuing the property and 

he has never offered any sort of adjustment via the un-improved, dirt road, highly used, easement... 

(extensively used by the other property owners and their multiple guests) running smack dab down the 

middle of the entire parcel! The easement road is deeded to the lands. From the main road entrance to 

the cabin on this property is approx. 1/4 mile of sand + gravel two track easement. There is NO 

maintance agreement deeded to the various properties it runs thru. Iam the only one who keeps it 

clean.. and snowplowed in the winter. 

Anyone wishing to purchase this property would have to factor 

in the cost of maintainance and accessability. Obviously it would be much less desirable than a “main 

road cabin”. 

Online law firm content...“In Michigan, ..... Assessors generally factor these access roads into your 

taxes using a market value approach, treating the easement as a partial restriction ....” 

“A private access road restricts how you can use that specific slice of land. Assessors and appraisers use 

the "before and after" method to evaluate partial takings. They compare the total market value of your 

property without the easement against the value with the easement in place. Because an easement 

encumbers the land, it generally lowers the overall fair market value of the burdened property.” 

According to Real Estate professionals “Easements that restrict your use or aesthetics can devalue a 

property, typically by 5% to 50%, depending on how invasive they are “ 

The Parcel included an easement clause within the deed. 

It remains in effect in perpetuity 

. 

The easement is a 66 foot wide approx 1/4 mile long dirt track sand/gravel easement driveway, which is 

shared with other property owners and their multiple guests and is un-maintained or improved (unless I 

do it), from the main gravel road (South Branch Rd) to this parcel. 

The easement is highly used by the other property owners and is almost always in disrepair.

MCL 211.10e indicates: 

All assessing officials, whose duty it is to assess real or personal property on which real or personal 

property taxes are levied by any taxing unit of the state, shall use only the official Assessor's Manual or 

any Manual approved by the state tax commission, consistent with the official assessor's Manual, with 

their latest supplements, as prepared or approved by the state tax commission as a guide in preparing 

assessments. 

And the Mich Assessor's manual clearly states that such "de-valuations" (as per easements) should be 

held as an adjustment of value when determining the Assessed Value and thereby the TA. should set 

the S.E.V. at the current value adjusted with negative aspects to each property... clearly an easement 

road running thru the middle would be such! 

As seen in B.S.A photo...the easement goes right thru the center of the entire 20 acres. 

In doing so it 

effectively disallows the useage (for any other reasons) of a huge swath of this property. This would 

subtract the “useage value” of the 13.4 acres by approx 15%. Which is clearly a “negative” aspect to 

the value. 

For that result alone there should be an adjustment in value for this property. 

In addition, having an un-maintained (i.e.: no county snowplowing, grading, or repair) easement has, 

according to numerous real estate companies and professionals, 

a HUGE impact in the value and 

sellability of a parcel of land. 

A short quick search of info on the net revealed the following about "negative" value of an road 

easement and property value. 

"The impact of an esement on the property value will depend on the degree of interference permitted by 

the easement, said David Reischer,Esq., real estate attorney and CEO of Legal Advice.com......For 

instance, an easement that permits regular and steady traffic across a parcel and that interferes 

significanlty with the enjoyment of the property by the owner (of said property) might have a 

significant negative effect on the value of the property.” 

(MoneyTips.com) 

The right of way easement is one of the most common types of easements. Easements can affect a 

property in several ways. When there is an easement on a property, the owner may be prohibited from 

building structures within a defined area. For example, an owner will likely not be allowed to erect a 

fence or plant trees that obstruct access or block the use of an easement.

Resale values might be impacted by structures, wires, pipes, etc. placed by utility companies, especially 

if they are unsightly or prevent owners from developing the land for personal purposes. 

Buyers might not like the idea of others “trespassing” on their land, even if being done legally. 

(legalzoom.com) 

Whether you're the dominant or servient property of an easement, having an easement can sometimes 

negatively affect the value of your property. Not everyone wants to buy property with an easement on 

it, so the property with the easement may take longer to sell. 

(quora.com) 

An easement is an encumbrance on a property. No matter what type of easement or the terms, any 

property burdened by an easement will have a diminished value in comparison to the same property 

without that burden. 

private roads may be a result of several property owners sharing common access with maintenance 

cost shared by the owners. There is an upkeep factor that may not be as desirable as being on a public 

road, ..... Also if there isn't a written maintenance agreement filed in public records between the owners 

on the private road, some lenders will not loan on such properties which could affect values. 

(antonlegal.com) 

Determining the value of a piece of property with an easement on it can be difficult. However, the type 

of easement on the property will greatly affect the price. Additionally, “the size of the easement 

compared to the overall size of the property will play a role”. 

(civilstuff.com) 

“An easement will generally devalue a property by an amount proportional to the size and impact on 

surface area.” 

When appraising a property that has an easement on it, you (the T.A.) should initially value the 

property as if the easement was not present. By valuing the property as you normally would, you 

can find a fair purchase price and then lower or raise the price depending on the type of and how 

invasive the easement is on the property. 

(eweb.irwaonline.org)

PARCEL 

#43-13-018-014-16 

13.4 acres 

sor 

2.088 Afres of Easement #1 in Parcels 

A and L 

hs 

7 

a 

N 014003" E 973.15 

GILLIANS SPRINGS 

17.39 ACRES 

S05 

707'40" 

rH 

40° w 

SE Comer Sec 18 

T17N R14W 

PARCEL 

#43-13-019-001-70 

6.6 acres

Is HL 

N 

ft 

il 

1 

1} 

i 

TA 

0" 

EN 

{5 

Ly 

ft | 

ae 

er 

- 

SS A 

RT 

Ay 

oe 

ae 

x 

a 

Sep 

noe Bo 

Re Sy 

Xs 

wow 

pe 

% 

- 

8 

re halo 

+ 

Ty 

: 

| 

ET, 

Ls 

Ja, 

& 

7° 

SLE 

Fr i 

Cy 

£9 

a 

AA 

Ls 

£3 

ho} 

: i 97 

ii 

— 

te 3 

Fas 

EE 

a 

F 

£% 

=. 

Se 

Sw 

Ly 

bo 

S 

Zer 

& 

LN 

ES 

- 

18 

—— 

- 

~ 

ON ~~ 

a

As seen in the “SCALE SURVEY MAP” this unimproved dirt track easement, with NO written 

maintenance agreement deeded (I am the ONLY person who attempts to keep the easement passable), 

or assigned to this parcel, across nearly the center, has a very high negative impact on the value of the 

entire property. The length and width of the easement effects nearly every aspect of our lifestyle and 

enjoyment per this property. While an entrance drive is needed to get into a purchased property I want 

to point out that, usually, an “easement” road goes TOO a property and stops... or in the case of a 

multiply parcel easement... it is usually found along the edge or many times even deeded as a seperate 

piece of land as an easement for all the parcels. This is the most common way I've seen easements 

approached via the BSA land maps for Lake County. Most deeded easement roads that are shown on 

the BSA mapping for Lake County have little impact on the parcel being severed. They normally run 

up to a parcel, or along one edge, or are a seperate deeded land parcel feeding several bounding parcels. 

As can be seen on the survey above, our easement was not built that way...Sadly, the terrian of this 

parcel and the parcels that rely on our easement drive did not make it possible to build it “out of the 

way”... most of the land involved is extremely hilly or covered with swamps and water. So the 

developer did not have much choice in “Where” to put the easement. 

It runs pretty much right in the 

middle of all the parcels it accessess. And thus, it creates a huge factor in “liveability” for the owners 

and a “negative” value for said owners. And also for the “potential” owners when pricing it for 

“Market Value”. By taking up wide swaths of land it reduces availability and resource for any potential 

property purchase. Any potential buyer would immediately realize the impact it causes. And it's 

VERY evident right away as the easement is “right in your face”. So, yes, the easement “gets me to my 

home” ...but... it also brings with it tremoudous imposition and loss of privacy. These are VERY 

undersirable when it comes to selling ones property and must (when faily assessed) be seen as a 

negative value for the T.C.V.. 

A "negative" value that our Township Assessor has not and will not 

address within the valuation of our properties. With 15% of the parcel being tied up in an deeded 

easement there HAS to be some sort of land valuation adjustment. 

It's only common sense.

y 

4 

wd 

I 

ALY 

Ty 

[1 

Ww 

SN 

nfl 

L 

WW Ns 

At 

Hl 

(ti// 

Ni 

{] 

J) 

\ 

} 

, 

I 

Ai 

N 

gh 

2) Lo) 

Hi 

7 

ih i) bi 

y 

4 

BN 

AON 

| 

ii 

\Y 

[A 

LALON 

If 

inl 

\ 

\X 

18) 

it 

1 

Ne 

iN 

if 

Ng 

\ ho 

Wl 

Ia 

| 

{I 

| 

| 

1 

pi 

aN) 

il i 

Al 

A) 

—— 

~~, 

= 

at 

| 

Xz

There are long standing examples of the T.A. Adjusting “land values” based on conditions of use. Even 

his own family farm across the street was de-valued for many many yrs under the basis that the farm 

land was “not farmable” which produced a land valuation of $1,600 while the surrounding farm lands 

(per parcel #'s 43-13-018-004-01...#43-13-019-002-00...#43-13-018-013-00) were valued at $1,800 to 

$2,000 during the same tax years. This 20% reduction in value and the reason was listed on the 

property cards of parcel #43-13-017-005-00 per FOTA'ed cards from 2023, 2024,2025,2026 (and many 

prior yrs) as “swampy non farm” showing thus... that the TA. Has adjusted land valuations based upon 

“conditional use of the land” 

Parcel Number: 

43-13-017-005-00 

Jurisdiction: 

LAKE TOHNSHIP 

County: Lake 

Printed on 

03/31/2023 

Grantor 

‘Grantee 

Sale! 

Sate 

Inst, 

[Terms of Sale 

Libor 

Verified 

Brent. 

: 

Price. 

Date 

Type 

| 

& Page 

By 

rans, 

Property Address 

Class: AGRICULTURAL-THPRO Zoning: 

Building Pernit{s) 

| 

Date 

Muher 

Status 

8572 5 BRANCH RD 

School: MASON COUNTY CENTRAL $0 

i 

(ELR.E. 100Y 02/11/1534 Qual. Aa. 

Ouner's Name/Address 

Wa bi 

BARNETT SAH baila 

2023 Est TCV 288,343 TCV/TER: 109.55 

: 

| 

{BRRHEIT GHEGOR! 

E 

: 

Co 

i 

Table 

AG,AGRICULTURAL 

i 

8572 

§ BRANCH RD 

X Improved 

Vacant 

land Value Estimates for Land 

Table 

AG 

BRARCH M1 49402 

¢rublie 

+ Factors 

* 

) 

[ 

| 

isprovenents 

Description 

Frontage 

Depth 

Front 

Depth 

Rate Adj. Reason 

valve 

Dirt Road 

ACRRAGE TABLE A? 

120,000 Acres 

1,600 

100 

SKAMPY NOR FARM 

192,000 

{Tax Description 

: 

120.00 Total Acres 

Total Est, lend Valve = 

192,000 

; 

X Gravel Read 

117-9 70 11 N 1/2 SH 1/4 MD SH 1/4 SR 

paved Road 

74 SEC 1) PIR RUG. 120 A. 

Storm Sewer 

Land Inprovesent Cost Estimates 

Comzents/Intluences 

| 

Sidewalk 

pescription 

Rate 

Size 

¥ Good 

Cosh Value 

Kater 

D/#/p: Asphalt Paving 

2.44 

488 

Ki 

83¢ 

i 

Seder 

B/H/P: 3.5 Concrete 

5.25 

2 

NW 

415 

X Electric 

Total Estimated Land Inprovements True Cash Value = 

1,275 

Gas 

H 

Curb 

Street Lights 

Just as he devalued his own acreage because it was not “useable” one would expect a devaluing of 

land taken from useage per an easement. 

Another example of the T.A. Adjusting land value based upon conditions of use can be seen where he 

has lowered assessed values for those properties which do not have road access. A good example is the 

farm abutting ours... which the T.A.'s cousin owns... a 40 acre farmland parcel (#43-13-019-002-00).... 

In 2022 when surrounding ag properties with road access were being valued higher this property was 

valued at only $1,800 per acre and I was informed by the B.O.R. It was because of having NO road

Id 

Farvel Farber: 

$3-13-019-062-00 

Surisdiction: 

LAKE TGHNSRIF 

County: Lake 

Printed on 

03/03/2025 

Granta 

Gianten 

| 

Save] 

SSE 

Yinetl 

(Ferma ef §3id 

feibed 

exittad 

) bint 

| 

Price] 

hate 

jiwe 

| 

[¢ page 

ny 

rans. | 

. 

. 

{ 

H 

£ 

cosh 

TE ROBERT 

resem RONERT 

& 1i0B HAR 

0] 8372672613 Wn 

{O3-ARNYS TARGET 

{ 

TBROBERTY TRANSFER | 

070 

| 

| 

| 

; 

: 

i 

i 

i 

i 

1 

I 

| 

i 

; 

HOS 1ding Barmit (57 

Bate 

; 

: 

: 

1 

| 

| 

: 

: 

! 

| 

ropatty Address 

) 

jean AGHICULTURAL-UACAI] 

Honing 

i 

iStatus 

| 

BURR. 

1064 0470471594 Quail 

Ag. 

[ 

ana /hddress 

ET 

| 

0 

| 

| 

SER 

i 

2085 bat 76 50,000] 

! 

! 

CUSTER NT 49405 

[proved 

| % Wacant 

hand Valie atinates’ for and Tabla AGLAGRICOIAURAL 

public 

H 

Improvexents 

i Deserlplien 

Frontage 

Depth 

Front 

Depth 

Nate 

tAdj. 

Reason 

Value 

[BEV Hosa 

| ACREAGE TABLE 

'A" 

40.000 Acres 

2,000 

100 

20,000 

H 

; 

10.00 Total Acres 

Foal Tet. fend value = 

50.000 

Factors 

¥ 

Tax Description 

Gravel 

mead 

LUISE 

LAE TSEC 

FWRI 

Pavan Road 

40.8 

Storm sever 

i 

Cermants Pint ibances 

aaa 

J 

water 

Sever 

Elocteic 

Gan 

Corb 

Surcat Lighta 

Standard Utilities 

Underground Utils. 

Topography of 

site 

% 

Evel 

Rolling 

Low 

Ligh 

Landrcaped 

Suarp 

Hooded 

Fond 

Waterfront 

Ravine 

fretiand 

{Flood Plain 

Vest 

i 

Hho 

When 

What 

17025 

WIE 65 75675610 THE PECTRR 

17024 

The Equalizer. 

dopyriaht 

{CY 199872 5405 1non 08/26/1998 MNSPECTED 

(553% 

Licensed To: Tounship of lake, County of 

|Bo3 06/06/2002 DATA ENTER 

take, Michigan 

363% 

A 

sui atagt 

Badass 

uk br] Mabsnals| 

| roves 

i 

value 

vatue] 

Review] 

Other 

value 

46,606] 

a) 

40, 085} 

| 

|g 

6,6] 

0) 

io, did] 

] 

| 

12,2350] 

¥, 600] 

a 

a6, 605] 

iH, BHE 

Another example of easement roads effecting valuations can be seen using the original pricing 

structure of the developer who sold the various parcels affected by the easment in question above. Per 

the original map used by my parents when scouting a potential land purchase in 1978 (the parcel 

valuations were penciled in to help my folks decide wither to purchase or not) and Lake County B.S. A. 

Records ... the selling prices, per acre, starting per the main road parcels (S.Branch Rd) and continuing 

down the easement, went from a high of $8,100 per acre down to $425 per acre as you go further back 

along the approx. mile long easement known as Clear Lake Circle. 

1. 

13-018-014-25 --- $8,100/acre 

2. 

13-018-014-50 --- $6,560/acre 

3. 

13-018-014-35 --- $4, 423/acre 

4. 

13-018-014-45 --- $3,125/acre 

5. 

13-018-014-40 --- $1,850/acre 

6. 

13-019-001-70 --- $1,590/acre 

7. 

13-019-001-55 --- $1,400/acre 

8. 

13-019-001-51 ~~~ $1,200/acre 

9. 

13-019-001-75 --- $425/acre 

10. 13-019-001-85 --- $425/acre

Based upon the T.A. Practice of lower “land values” based on conditional use and the actual real 

estate valuations per length of easement, we think that a 15-20% decrease in “Assessed Value” is 

not out of line in order to adjust the real world T.C.V. Of this parcel. 

Therefore I request that the M.T.T. Require the T.A. To adjust the “Assessed Value” for this parcel 

showing the 15-20% as a loss in value based on the above and to show that loss on the property card as 

a “loss deduction” in the “Factors” table. 

THUS 

Section 27 (1) of the General Property Tax Act defines “true cash value” as “...the usual 

selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied is at the time of 

assessment, being the price that could be obtained for the property at private sale.... 

Also... 

In Michigan, the True Cash Value (TCV) of a property is determined each year based on the 

property's condition and market status as of December 31* of the preceding year... 

In order to arrive at a fair and just “True Cash Value” of parcel 43-13-018-014-16 we ask that the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal firstly approve the complete discharge and abandonment of the illegal “Lake 

Frontage” charge on each of the Tax years in question (2025 + 2026). 

In addition, we ask that our moderate and fair deduction percentage, for a reasonable amount of 

“Assessed Value” reduction, in the amount of 15-20%, be approved due to the decreased valuation 

of the property because of the missplaced and intrusive deeded easement. 

Based on experience with this TA, We also ask that the court mandate that these two deductions be 

shown on the property card for each year as a “Loss” under the “Factors” area and be dually deducted 

from the overall totals in their proper positions. To date the T.A. Has NOT followed the instructions 

per M.T.T. Final judgement of October 18, 2024 - Docket No. 23-003171 

in reguards to that property 

in question so we fear the same with this property.In order to visualize and compute the request's we 

have made above we show the following for each tax year in question.

ISSUE #2 

INCORRECT LAND, ASSESSED, AND TAXABLE VALUE ON 2025 PROPERTY CARDS 

Per the TA. supplied 2025 Property card for #43-13-018-014-16 it can be seen that “Lake Frontage” 

was illegally charged for the 2025 tax assessment. Given that NO “Lake Frontage” should be charged 

for this parcel we feel that the correct Land Value on the 2025 propery card should instead be set at 

$13,400. 

Thus the combined properly set Land Value along with the stated Building Value of $800 would thus 

lead to a corrected Assessed Value being $14,200 prior to any allowed adjustment per the loss of value 

concerning the intrusive and negative aspects of the easement road. 

Given a 10% adjustment of the Assessed Value thusly would lead to a final Assessed value of $12,780 

In Michigan, the legal requirement stipulating that a property’s Taxable Value (TV) cannot exceed its 

Assessed Value or State Equalized Value (SEV) is established directly by the Michigan Constitution 

(Article IX, Section 3) and detailed in Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) Section 211.27a 

and thus the corrected Taxable Value for this parcel should be corrected to NOT exceed the Assessed 

Value thereby making the 2025 Taxable Value for parcel #43-13-018-014-16 be either $12,780 or 

$14,200 .....per the decisions of the Tax Tribunal.

ISSUE #3 

AN INCORRECT “BUILDING + ASSESSED VALUE ON THE 2026 PROPERTY CARD. 

On the T.A. supplied 2026 proprty card for this parcel it can be seen that the Building Value has been 

improperly set at $11,100 

... whereas the listed T.C.V. is actually $1,704 when Building T.C.V. And 

Land Improvments are combined. And thusly the listed Assessed Value would also be incorrectly listed 

at $27,900. 

Michigan Tax Tribunal Act: MCL 205.737 dictates that state equalized valuation shall not exceed 

50% of the property's true cash value on the assessment date 

Thus the correct Building Value of $852 and the Land Value of $16,750 would permit the Assessed 

Value to be $17,600 as set by the B.O.R..... prior to any allowed adjustment per the loss of value 

concerning the intrusive and negative aspects of the easement road. 

Given a 10% adjustment of the Assessed Value thusly would lead to a final Assessed value of $15,840. 

and of course the 2026 T.V. would be the sum of the 2025 adjusted T.V. multiplied by the (IRM) for the 

2026 tax year (1.027 ) 

Making the 2026 Taxable Value for parcel #43-13-018-014-16 should be either $13,125 or 

$14,200 .....per the decisions of the Tax Tribunal.

Sy, 

Cy 

3) 

ET 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

DIRECTOR 

Aaron C. Jones 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No.24-003727 

Mark Barnett (Lake Township tax assessor) 

Respondent(s) 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Roger D Jones 

states that on 6/23/2026 

he/she 

[Name of person serving/mailling petition) 

[date of service] 

served a copy of the reasons for appeal 

relative to the above-captioned matter upon: 

[Provide name and address of the party/people being served] 

‘Mark Barnett 

1857 W. Fountain Rd 

Scottville Mi 49454 

Foaer 

0. 

Ypres 

[Signature 

@f person who is sfving/mailing copy} 

Roger D Jones

| Bd 

HOSTAL Sef 

UNITED. GATES 

re— 

com 

$9.32 

US POSTAGE 

06/22/2026 

11b00z 

ROGER JONES | —_— 

96 W CLI 

BRANCH MI 49402-9470 

STATE OF M

USPS

KE 

PO BOX 3023

LANSING MI 

JAE

9405 5301

← View full record