01._Property_Tax_Appeal_Petition_Form_Valuation_Poverty_Classification.905ab19c-50a9-48b1-9c13-72930667bc3d.pdf
Westbrook Farmstead Ministry Petitioner V Township Of Lowell Respondent · 26-000397-TT
Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL MOAHR DOCKET NO. Do not use this form to appeal Principal Residence Exemption, Qualified Agricultural Exemption, Special Assessment, or Non-Property tax disputes. Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 277(3), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (e.g. Board of Review Decision or Notice of Uncapping) with this Small Claims Petition, if applicable. If you do not submit this document, you may be held in default. Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information Filer Type: Organization First Name M.I. Last Name/Company Name Westbrook Farmstead Ministry Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 3765 Kimberly Ct. SE City or Town Grand Rapids State Michigan ZIP Code 49508 Telephone Number 616-819-9137 Fax Number E-mail Address westbrookfarmstead@yahoo.com Section 2: Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information First Name Kathy M.I. S Last Name Sawyer-Hecksel Firm Name (if any) Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 3765 Kimberly Ct. SE City or Town Grand Rapids State Michigan ZIP Code 49508 Telephone Number 616-819-9137 Fax Number E-mail Address westbrookfarmstead@yahoo.com Section 3: Subject Property Information How many parcels are you appealing? 1 If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? *If no, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel. Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) [If multiple, list first property’s address] 14279 Oberley Dr. SE
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR Lowell Michigan 49331 Taxing Authority (City or Township) Township Of Lowell (KENT) County Kent Section 4: Issues Being Appealed (check all that apply) True Cash and Taxable Value Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL – SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION PETITION / COMPLAINT Petitioner: WESTBROOK FARMSTEAD MINISTRY Kathy Sawyer-Hecksel, Authorized Representative Respondent: Lowell Charter Township ________________________________________ Property Information Parcel Number: 41-20-12-400-050 Property Address: 14279 Oberley Dr. SE Lowell, MI 49331 Tax Year: 2026 ________________________________________ I. NATURE OF THE APPEAL Petitioner appeals the 2026 assessment of the subject property, including True Cash Value (TCV), State Equalized Value (SEV), and Taxable Value (TV) as determined by the Township and Board of Review. Petitioner contends that: The Township materially overstated the value of new construction (“additions”) applied to Taxable Value, resulting in an inflated assessment that does not reflect the actual construction completed as of December 31, 2025. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. The subject property is a residential structure under construction. 2. As of December 31, 2025, the structure was: o Dried-in (framed, roofed, windows installed) o Equipped with rough plumbing, electrical, and HVAC systems o No exterior siding o No insulation or drywall o No interior finishes, fixtures, flooring, or trim 3. The Township determined the property to be approximately 40% complete on Tax Day. 4. The Township assessed on December 31, 2025 increases from 2024: Land SEV: $52,100 – 18.95% Increase Building SEV: $159,200 - 119.6% Increase Total SEV: $211,300 – 81.7% Increase Taxable Value: $155,683 – 108% Increase 5. The prior year (2025) Taxable Value was $74,083. 6. The resulting increase in Taxable Value for 2026 is: The Township is assessing $81,600 attributed to “additions” for 2025, that translates into $163,200 of added construction value, solely for rough mechanicals. 7. Approximately 22% of the overall value was added for Rough Mechanical installation only. 8. The only construction completed during this period consisted of rough plumbing, electrical, and HVAC installation, with documented costs totaling approximately $24,635. 9. The Township’s assessment reflects an increase of approximately $95,000 in Assessed Value. 10. The magnitude of the increase is disproportionate to the work completed and indicates an overstated completion percentage. III. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL A. The Township Materially Overstated Additions to Taxable Value Under MCL 211.27a, increases in taxable value beyond the capped amount must reflect the value of new construction actually completed during the tax year. The Township attributed $81,600 in new construction to the subject property. However: • The only work completed was rough mechanical installation • Documented, actual cost of work: $24,635* AVAILABLE RECEIPTS UPON REQUEST • No siding, drywall, insulation, or interior finishes were installed This results in an overstatement of additions exceeding $56,000. The assigned additions do not reflect the value of improvements actually completed during the tax year and are therefore overstated. B. The 40% Completion Estimate Is Not Supported by the Property Condition The Township’s additions calculation is based on a determination that the property was approximately 40% complete. However, as of December 31, the structure:
Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR • lacked all exterior finish components • lacked all interior finish components • remained in an early-stage construction condition A 40% completion level typically corresponds to a structure at or approaching insulation and drywall phases, which did not exist. Accordingly, the completion percentage is overstated and directly resulted in the inflated additions applied to taxable value. C. The Assessment Does Not Reflect True Cash Value as of Tax Day Under MCL 211.27(1) and MCL 211.2(2), property must be assessed based on its true cash value as of December 31. The assigned value reflects a level of completion and value that did not exist on the assessment date. D. Generalized Guidelines and “Accumulative Value” Do Not Override Statutory Requirements The Township relied on generalized construction guidelines and stated that “new construction is accumulative.” While construction may progress over time, there is no statutory authority allowing value to be assigned based solely on accumulation. The law requires that value reflect: The actual physical improvements that existed on the assessment date The Township’s reliance on generalized guidelines without adjustment to the subject property resulted in an overstated valuation. E. Inconsistent Valuation Methodology Undermines Reliability The Township represented that land values increase at approximately 1.062% annually, yet increased land SEV by approximately 19% in one year. This inconsistency further demonstrates that the assessment methodology is not consistently applied or tied to actual market or property-specific data, undermining the reliability of the overall valuation. IV. REQUESTED RELIEF Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal: 1. Determine that the Township overstated the value of additions applied to taxable value; 2. Adjust the assessment to reflect the actual construction completed as of December 31, 2025; 3. Reduce the True Cash Value, State Equalized Value, and Taxable Value accordingly; 4. Grant such other relief as is just and proper. V. CONCLUSION The Township’s assessment is based on an overstated completion percentage and assigns $81,600 in new construction value for work that cost approximately $24,635 and did not include any finish-stage improvements. The resulting assessment does not reflect the actual condition or value of the property as of the assessment date and must be corrected. Respectfully submitted, Westbrook Farmstead Ministry Kathy Sawyer-Hecksel 3765 Kimberly Ct. SE Grand Rapids, MI 49508 (616) 891-9137 westbrookfarmstead@yahoo.com Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues Year(s) you are appealing: 2026 Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? Yes If Yes, check which BOR you attended AND upload the BOR decision: March If No, check the applicable reason(s): Did you request a Poverty Exemption at the BOR? If Yes, check which BOR considered your application AND upload the BOR decision: March July December If No, explain why: Section 7: Valuation Information *Use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels.
Page 4
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR Parcel Identification Number: 41-20-12-400-050 Classification of Property: Personal Residential Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR: 211300 Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 155683 What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as True Cash Value)? 280966 Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value). 140483 If you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value. 101100 Section 8: Classification Information *Only the MI Dep’t of Treasury may appeal this issue to the Tribunal* Parcel Identification Number: Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: What do you believe is the property’s classification? If improved property, how is the property currently being used? If improved property, for what use was the property designed? Fee Information Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition? No Are you appealing ONLY the denial of a Poverty Exemption? No If you answered yes to either or both of these questions, you are not required to pay any filing fees. The filing fee is based on the greater of the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention. If you are appealing more than one parcel, the parcel with the highest State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention will be used to determine your filing fee, plus $25.00 will be added for each additional parcel being appealed, not to exceed a total filing fee of $1,000. If your property is residential property (see MCL 205.762) and the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: Filing Fee is: $100,000.00 and under $125.00 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $200.00 $Over $500,000.00 $300.00 If your property is NOT residential property (see MCL 205.762) and the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: Filing Fee is:
Page 5
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature Petitioner or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: /s/ Kathy Sawyer-Hecksel