Respondent's Answers and Affirmative Defenses - Bingham Solar v Bingham Twp.pdf
Bingham Solar, LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Bingham Respondent · 26-001322-TT
Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL ________________________________________________ BINGHAM SOLAR, LLC Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 26-001322 v. Parcel No.: 19-030-900-100-001-00 BINGHAM TOWNSHIP, Respondent. ______________________________________________________________________________ Adam J. Brody (P62035) Deborah I. Ondersma (P55907) Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) VARNUM LLP FOSTER, SWIFT, COLLINS & SMITH, PC Attorneys for Petitioner Attorneys for Respondent 333 Bridge Street, N.W. 1700 E. Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 P.O. Box 352 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352 (616) 726-2258 (616) 336-6000 tdillon@fosterswift.com ajbrody@varnumlaw.com diondersma@varnumlaw.com _____________________________________________________________________________________________ RESPONDENT’S ANSWERS & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION Respondent, Bingham Township, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., states as follows for its Answer to Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition: 1. Petitioner is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal address at 8400 Normandale Lake Blvd, Suite 1200, Bloomington, MN 55437. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Petition as Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations. Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 2
2.
Petitioner is the owner of and/or the party in interest with respect to the subject
personal property (the "Property") which is located in Bingham Township, Clinton County,
Michigan and is more particularly described as:
Parcel No.
Property Address
19-030-900-100-001-00
Personal property located on the contiguous real
property parcels with the following addresses: 1635 E.
Steel Rd., E. Steel Rd., and N. Williams Rd., Saint
Johns, MI 48879
ANSWER:
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph
2 of the Petition as Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a
belief as to the allegations. Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
3.
No real property is under appeal in this Petition. However, the Property consists
of all personal property that is located upon the real property with the following permanent
parcel numbers: 19-030-010-100-005-00, 19-030-010-100-010-50, and 19-030-010-100-025-
50.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Petition.
4.
Respondent, Bingham Township, ("Respondent"), assesses, levies and collects
the property taxes on the Property.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Petition.
5.
The Property is in Clinton County and is located within the St. Johns Public
School District.
ANSWER:
Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the
Petition.
6.
The 2026 Personal Property Statement for the subject Property was timely filed
on February 17, 2026. Given the timely filing of the Personal Property Statement, no appeal
to the March 2026 Board of Review was required. However, an appeal to the March BoardPage 3
of Review was made. The 2026 March Board of Review denied Petitioner’s requested relief and instead increased the 2026 assessment of the Property purportedly based upon a mis-calculation of Respondent. ANSWER: Respondent admits the factual allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Petition as Petitioner did appeal the 2026 assessment to the Township’s March Board of Review, which denied the petition. Respondent neither admits nor denies any legal conclusions contained in paragraph 6. 7. The Property is classified as industrial personal property (351). ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 7 of the Petition. 8. The Property is used as part of a solar energy facility. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Petition as Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations. Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 9. The tax year at issue is tax year 2026. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 9 of the Petition. 10. The Tax Year 2026 values for the Property as established by Respondent through its Board of Review are as follows: Tax Year Parcel No. True Cash Value Assessed/State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 19-030-900-100-001- 00 $31,375,800 $15,687,900 $15,687,900 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Petition. 11. Petitioner contends the correct values for the Property are: Tax Year Parcel No. True Cash Value Assessed/State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 19-030-900-100-001- 00 $15,500,000 $7,750,000 $7,750,000 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Petition as being untrue and erroneous.
Page 4
12. The values in dispute for the Property are: Tax Year Parcel/Address True Cash Value Assessed/State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 19-030-900-100-001- 00 $15,875,800 $7,937,900 $7,937,900 ANSWER: Respondent admits that Petitioner’s calculations of the values in dispute are mathematically correct but denies that Petitioner’s contentions of value are accurate. 13. Petitioner requests a reduction of the Property's true cash, assessed, state equalized and taxable values as outlined above, which values are based on the relevant market. Petitioner further requests a refund with interest of taxes paid due to the original, incorrect assessment, as well as any other relief this Tribunal deems appropriate. ANSWER: Paragraph 13 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required. To the extent that paragraph 13 contains any factual allegations, they are denied. 14. This matter involves issues relating to (a) assessment, (b) true cash value, and (c) taxable value. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in paragraph 14 of the Petition and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 15. The 2026 values imposed on the Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer for the reason that: (a) The assessed, state equalized, and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes and do not reflect the sales of similar properties. (b) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes. (c) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of Petitioner’s Property and are based upon the application of wrong principles.
Page 5
(d) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner, its constitutional rights of uniformity, equal protection, and due process of law. ANSWER: The preceding allegations contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent denies the allegations as the assessed, state equalized and taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage for true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon the correct application of proper principals, and do not discriminate against Petitioner. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Bingham Township, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., and states that it may rely on one or all of the following Affirmative Defenses: 1. The appropriate methods of assessing the Subject Property were used and those methods conform to the methods used to assess similarly situated property in the State. 2. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 3. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the Respondent. 4. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (8)), including on, but not necessarily limited to, the following grounds: a. The Petition does not comply with the Tax Tribunal Rules TTR 227(1) and (2)(f). b. The Petition provides no factual basis to determine the Tribunal’s subject matter jurisdiction or “Petitioner’s” standing. c. The Petition provides no factual basis to determine that the assessment is incorrect. d. The Petitioner provides no factual basis to support the claim for different values.
Page 6
e. The Petition establishes no factual basis for relief. 5. Petitioner may not be a proper party-in-interest. MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5) and (8). 6. Petitioner may not have standing to appeal. MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5) and (8). 7. The Tribunal may lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (8). 8. Petitioner may have failed to comply with state property tax law by, inter alia, failing to report or failing to report completely its assessable property, such that its property taxes were delinquent or underpaid, Petitioner is precluded from appealing its property values, and Respondent should be awarded damages. 9. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 10. Respondent reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses as they become known to it through discovery in this matter. WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal affirm the assessed and taxable values as determined by Respondent, dismiss the Petition, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees and any other relief that the Tribunal determines is fair, just, and equitable. Respectfully Submitted, FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, PC Attorneys for Respondent Dated: September 3, 2026 By: ____________________________________ Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 726-2258 16845:00008:203036676-1