Crooks-Mishacoff.pdf

Peggy Crooks-Mishacoff Petitioner V Township Of Bates Respondent · 26-001210-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 

APR 14 2026 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

VALUATION / UNCAPPING 

Do not use this form to appeal Classification, Principal Residence Exemption, Qualified Agricultural Exemption, Other 

Exemptions, Special Assessments, or Non-Property tax disputes. 

Pursuant to Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 279, you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal {i.e., Board of 

Review Decision or other notice) with this petition, if applicable. 

if you do not submit this document, you may be held in 

default. 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information 

First Name 

ME 

Last Name/Company Name 

Peggy 

Crooks-Mishacoff 

Malling Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 

200 Maria Ln 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Cottage Grove 

wi 

53527 

Telephone Number 6083955527 

Email Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send ali correspondence via email} 

crooksmishacoff@gmail.com 

Section 2: Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information 

} 

First Name 

Ma. 

Last Name 

Firm Name (if any) 

Matiiing Address (No., Street, P.0. Box or Rural Route) 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Telephone Number 

Emall Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email) 

Section 3: Subject Property Information ‘use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels, 

How many parcels are you 

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? 

appealing? 

Yes* 

No** 

*f No, you must file separate appeals for each parcel 

Proparty Address (No., Street) 

117 South Trybom Dr. 

ZIP Code 

48935 

State 

County Iron 

Mi 

Clty or Town 

Iron River 

Taxing Authority (City or Township}

po 

any 

Tex? 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Check which of the following you are appealing (check at that apply) 

‘Frue Cash and Taxable Value 

{0 Taxable Value Only (calculation) 

Uncapping of Taxable Value 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

As the attached documents show, there are a number of reasons we are appealing both the true cash and taxable 

values of out property. We bought the subject parcel in April 2025 for $331,000. At the same time, we purchased a 

separate back lot for $5000. The back lot is not subject to this appeal. The following is a list of issues we raise in 

support of our argument that the Bates Township assessor violated numerous principals of Michigan tax valuation law. 

1) The bor hearing was held in violation of our procedural due process rights when the assessor repeatedly 

interrupted my arguments to the board without prompting or questions from anyone. 

2) Excessive appreciation v. county values (the proposed valuation for 2026 is a 109% increase in our taxes--neatly 

$5000 increase. Preposterous in this market. 

J Inequity of assessment versus immediate neighbor and other comps in our area violates the Michigan and US 

onstitutions 

4) No valid reason for the $51, 968 increase in valuation from the time of purchase in April 2025 to 2026--county 

inflation rate is 2.7 percent. 

5) We paid too much for the property at $331,000, and suggest a valuation closer to $282,000 as the more correct 

valuation. 

6) The non-PRE hit to us at the current valuation assumes that every homeowner with a PRE exemption in Michigan 

will buy nearly $50,000 worth of TAXABLE items next year--that is ridiculous. 

7) Townships in lower Michigan understand that the PRE hit deters businesses and people from buying property in an 

area when we pay three times in taxes what pour neighbor with a fancier home pays. 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? 

Yes 

[wl] No 

If Yes, check which BOR you attended: 

March 

0 July 

O December 

If No, please check the applicable reason(s): 

[I Not required to attend 

Appealing a purported Clerical Error or Mutual Mistake of Fact (if yes, include explanation in Section 5) 

Appealing within 35 days of State Tax Commission Order 

Appealing within 35 days of receipt of Notice of Uncapping 

{1 other 

If you checked “other” above, explain: 

Year(s) under appeal: 2026

AR, 

a 

kg 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON i. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 7: Valuation Information *use the muttiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

Parcel NemBer: 

30H -400-01 7-00 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal [] {check one) 

Agricultural [J 

Commercial] 

Industria 

[] 

Residential 

¥4 

 Timber-Gutover [1 

Developmental 0 utility 

[J (check one) 

Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) established | Taxable Value established by the Board of Review: 

by the Board of Review: $101,484 

$191,484 

What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as true cash value)? 

$282,000 

What do you belleve is the assessed value? (multiply true cash 

What do you believe is the taxable value? (cannot exceed 

value by .5) 

$1 41 L000 

assessed value) 

Fee Information 

Does the property have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this patition for all tax years at 

Issue? 

[7 ves 

No 

If you answered yes to the above question, you are not required to pay any filing fees. 

if the property does not have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition for ali tax years at 

Issue, the filing fee is based on the greater of the Siate Equalized Value or Taxable Value in dispute. 

If you are appealing more than one 

parcel, the parce with the highest State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in dispute will be used to determine your filing fee, plus $26.00 

will be added for each additional parce! being appealed, not to exceed a total filing fee of $1,000.00 

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 

$400,000.01 to $500,000.00 

$200.00 

$0ver $500,000.00 

$300.00 

If tha property is NOT 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 

$250.00 

* Plus $25.00 for each additional parcel, as Indicated above. 

If the property Is NOT residential properly and the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in dispute is $100,000.01 or greater the 

appeal does not qualify for Smali Claims. Therefore, an Entire Tribunal petition must be fited. 

Signatu I'€@ *Required 

Petitioner or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: Peggy A. Crooks-Mishacoff 

ist

me mt bees bran 

NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER OR PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL: 

PROPERTY 

IDENTIFICATION: (Parcel Code required. Property address 

and legal description optionat.): 

001-400-017-00 

117 

STRYBOM DR 

MISCHACOFF PEGGY CROOKS- & N 

200 MARIA LANE 

COTTAGE GROVE WI 53527 

SEC 8 T43N R34W LOTS 16 & 17 ASSESSOR'S PLAT OF BELZ 

-016 & -017- COMBINED FOR 2026 

THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED 

401 

(RESIDENTIAL-IMPROVED) 

Thank you for attending this years March Board of Review. The Board has reviewed the information you supplied and the data necessary 

to compute your assessinent and taxable value. 

The Board has completed their review of parcel number 

001-400-017-00 

They have made the following determination based on the information you supplied. 

Board of Review Comments 

ASSESSMENT CORRECT 

[2026 ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE 

191,484 

| 

2026 "BOARD OF REVIEW" ASSESSED VALUE 

191,484 

| 

(If the above amounts are the same, no revisions have occured) 

2026 

ORIGINAL TAXABLE VALUE 

191,484 

2026 "BOARD OF REVIEW" TAXABLE VALUE 

191,484 

2026 

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION/QUALIFIED AG 

0.0000 

Please feel free to contact the assessor at the address listed or call if you have any questions. 

Assessor Laura Erhart 

906-265-2787 x 4 

assessor@BatesTownship.com 

Appeal insteuctions ace on page 2 of the enclosed petition / response from the Board of Review. 

“Effective March 1, 2013, the Tribunal is no longer able to accept Small Claims letter appeals. Rather, you are required to file a petition to 

initiate a new Small Claims appeal. Petition forms are available on this website.”

Property Overview 

Property Class: Residential - Waterfront (Sunset Lake) 

Year Built: 1970 

Total Square Footage: 1,976 sq. ft. 

Lot Size: 1.26 Acres 

Last Sale Price: $331,000 (April 25, 2025) 

Parcel no. 001-400-017-00 

Key Arguments for 117 S. Trybom Dr. (2026 Protest) 

Procedural due process violated during March board of review hearing 

o 

From the moment | walked into my bor hearing in Bates Township Hall, it 

became obvious that 

| was not going to receive a fair hearing. Though the 

board members sat quietly listening to my presentation, never once 

asking a question, the township assessor, whose decision the board is to 

review, continually interrupted my presentation to the board. The 

assessor's repeated, rude, and unprofessional interruptions were all her 

attempts to justify her overinflated valuation. Neither the board nor | 

asked one question of the assessor. 

o 

For my career, 

| work as a district staff attorney for the Wisconsin court 

of appeals. The circuit court judges are not ever allowed to communicate 

with the appellate judges to attempt to justify a lower court decision. 

That would be a clear violation of the rights of the litigants. The same is 

the case here. The bor did nothing more than rubber stamp the excessive 

valuation, and did not consider any of the arguments made in support of 

my appeal. This is evidenced by the bor “decision” on our valuation, 

which merely reads “assessment is correct” and regurgitates, verbatim, 

the material the assessor repeatedly interrupted me with in support of 

her inequitable valuation. Given the poor condition of our property, and 

the attempt to value a nonbuildable portion of our land at 60k despite the 

fact that it was purchased as one property for considerably less than the 

proposed valuation, it is apparent that the assessor is attempting to

¢ 

The "Arm's-Length’ Sale Rule: 

[o] 

We purchased the home in April 2025 for $331,000. Under Michigan law, 

this recent sale is the most accurate reflection of True Cash Value. 

The proposed 2026 assessed value of $191,484 implies a market value 

of $382,968 

This assessment claims the home gained $51,968 in value (15.7%) in the 

few months after my purchase, despite no structural improvements or 

renovations. 

Although two tax parcels were combined into one before we purchased 

the home, and we purchased the property as one parcel for $331,000, the 

assessor is trying to value the property as two separate parcels at 25.52% 

more than we purchased it for in 2025 

¢ 

The "Double Jump" Assessment Spike: 

[e] 

In 2024, the assessed value was $126,131. The proposed 2026 value 

is $191,484. 

This represents a 51.81% increase in just two years. 

From 2025 to 2026 alone, the assessment jumped 25.52% ($152,555 to 

$191,484). 

¢ 

Divergence from County Averages: 

[¢] 

[¢] 

[¢] 

Iron County's average property value growth for 2025 was 7.22%. 

The 2026 State Inflation Multiplier (for capped properties) is only 2.7%. 

My 25.5% single-year increase is nearly 10x the rate of inflation and 3.5x 

the county average. 

¢ 

Inequity of Assessment (Uniformity Clause): 

[¢] 

Neighbor Comparison (123 S. Trybom): In 2021, our properties were 

valued within $6,078 of each other ($188k vs. $182k).

Appeal Type: Michigan Tax Tribunal ~ Small Claims Division 

Comparable Sales Table 

The following properties in the 49935 zip code have sold recently and represent the 

True Cash Value of similar residential assets in the local market. 

Property 

Sale Date 

Sale Price 

Beds/Baths 

Sq. Ft. 

Notes/Adjustm 

Address 

ents 

112 Little 

02/16/2026 

$350,000 

6/3 

2,373 

Larger capacity; 

Deer Rd 

superior utility 

126 Big Bear 

02/10/2026 

$267,000 

5/3 

2,560 

Significantly 

Rd 

larger sq. ft. at 

lower price 

153 Camp 

03/03/2026 

$220,000 

2/1 

1,224 

Waterfront 

Lake Rd 

comparable 

144 N. 

01/06/2026 

$180,000 

3/1 

1,296 

Immediate 

Trybom Dr 

Neighbor 

128 Big Bear 

02/27/2026 

$169,900 

3/1 

969 

Recent area 

Rd 

sale 

123 W. 

03/11/2026 

$120,500 

3/2 

1,775 

Similar square 

Maple St 

footage

suggests the neighborhood market value does not support an aggressive 

upward assessment of the subject property. 

. Waterfront Valuation: The sale at 153 Camp Lake Rd ($220,000) provides a 

direct baseline for waterfront property values in ron River, indicating that water 

access alone does not justify a valuation exceeding $300,000 in all cases. 

. Square Footage Trends: Multiple homes with higher square footage (e.g., 126 

Big Bear Rd) sold for less than the subject property’s last purchase price, 

suggesting that the current assessment may be over-weighting specific features 

or the 2025 sale price. 

. 

The 2026 Gap: The Assessor now values 117 S. Trybom at $382,968, while 123 

S. Trybom is valued at $282,030. 

. 

There is now a $100,938 valuation gap between two adjacent, similar lakefront 

parcels that did not exist four years ago. This is a violation of assessment 

uniformity. 

Cumulative Valuation Strain (2021-2026): 

o 

Since 2021, the assessed value of 117 S. Trybom has increased 

by 102.7% ($94k to $191k). 

o 

In that same period, the next door neighbor at 123 S. Trybom increased by 

only 54.2%. 

o 

My property's value has been accelerated at double the rate of the 

immediate neighbor. 

o 

Recent photo of 123 S TRYBOM

o 

Financial Impact of the Over-Assessment: 

o 

As a Non-PRE (Non-Homestead) property, 

| pay an additional 18 

mills ($2,979 annually) that primary residents do not. 

o 

When combined with the inflated 2026 assessment, my projected tax bill 

is roughly $8,131, while my neighbor (if PRE) pays approximately $3,493. 

o 

| am being asked to pay $4,600 more per year than my immediate 

neighbor with a meticulous home due to an assessment that exceeds my 

actual purchase price by over $50,000. 

e 

The Requested "Fair" Value:

o 

Ata minimum, it should be $165,500 (50% of the $331,000 purchase 

price), though our home is in need of much repair. We believe we overpaid 

dramatically for the place because of emotional reasons. 

e 

Pictures of 117 S Trybom-the subject property

ES 

> 

~ 

hay 

=’ 

y/ 

" 

Sie 

9 

ye

5 

i 

H 

/ 

- 

iq i 

= 

i 

oo _ 

= 

nasi 

* | 

Tey 

Era

Aer 

eu 

4 

rg 

{7 

ile 

of! 

< 

{i 

x 

bs 

50 

2 

I 

p 

2 

re 

7 

E 

Vi 

Zig 

oe J 

Aad 

5 

5. 

> 

[R— att 

- 

y ci 

Srp 

ciecgi pa 

rt 

poi 

hes 

>. 

i 

i 

TE og 

14 

= 

+ 

¥ 

cid

| 

- 

ia 

. 

2 

- 

. 

i 

- 

i 

“ 

ci 

= 

dois 

oo 

~~ oi 

3 

oe si 

a 

dio 

ios 

es 

0 

pie 

i 

= 

= 

? 

Sibi 

. 

1 

i 

- 

i 

- 

ia 

- 

5 - 

. 

oy - 

- 

oe 

- 

- 

- oo = 

c 

- — 

- 

= . 

=. . 

- 

; 

- . . 

1 

- 

~ 

i 

i 

- 

i, 

= 

oo 

. Lea 

EA 

pe 

Gay

. 

_ 

- 

= 

- 

. 

- 

= 

- 

oo 

oo 

2 

: 

. 

oo -— - 

- 

. 

. 

- 

- 

: 

_ 

: 

- 

. 

oo 

- - 

. 

- 

= 

. 

= 

a 

a 

— 

Co . 

. 

= 

> 

_ 

- 

oo 

. 

. 

- 

= 

- 

. 

- 

- 

> - 

- 

- 

_ 

- 

oo 

=~ = 

_ 

- 

- 

_ 

oo - 

. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

oo = . 

- 

. 

oo 

. 

- 0 

- 

- 

- . 

- 

0 

oo 

oo 

< 

_ 

- 

- 

- 

- 

oo - 

c 

- 

~ 

= — 

. 

df 

- 

oo 

_ 

. 

- 

- 

. 

- 

. 

~~ 

- 

- 

Lo 

- 

. 

oo 

_ 

<< 

. 

. 

: 

. 

- 

= 

To 

- 

- 

. 

- 

- 

. 

_ 

. 

. 

_- 

- 

_ 

oo 

- 0 

- 

. 

< 

- 

— 

: 

. 

a 

2 

. 

-~ 

- - 

_ 

- 

: 

Sl 

. 

_ 

os 

- Se

eis 

= 

ay 

re” 

Z| 

— 

—=] 

Sm 

| EO 

~ 

P 

| 

eS 

ee 

© je 

ile 

EE 

Ym Be S— 

 ——————— 

[a > 

\n@ 

|e 

L 

i 

= 

il 

faa, as 

CE 

Bees prem 

i

5A 

1 

1. ASSESSED VALUE 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review mus! slate the reason for ils action below. 

NY Dented 

7 Assessed Value Changed From 

| 

| to | 

| 

Record of Vote — Board or three-member commiitee of board 

Chairperson: 

J Yes [1] No Gi 

Member: 

A 

ves i No 

Member: 

& Yes I] No fy 

. 

1 

ol 

: 

nitizls 

pe ASIEISNEBNT 

4S Oa sc 

: 

1 

is 

A 

a 

Bb) 

A 

~ 

Repson for Board Aone 202.0 

WES tle 

VT 

Leene 

cx peda tea § 

AIR 

atu bax 

id, 

. 

2S Yalad 

| lot ($29,610 

Tle 2b Assessed Valve $s 5% 

or Stes 

iY 

sed 

dot UT gis2, 55. cgndaundth 

2823 

Valo os Huy Coan 

sda Q 

Lrfeq 

If you disagree with the decision of the Board 

of Review regarding tentative assessed value, you may appeal that decision Hy filing a petition vith the Michigan Tax Tribunal 

at PO Box 30232, Lansing, Mi 48809. Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real, Commerciat Personal, Industdal Personal and Utifity Personal Property may 

be appealed by May 31. Agricultural Real, Residential Real, Timber-Cutover Real and Agricultural Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. The petition must be filed 

on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www.michigan.govitaxkib. 

. 

poral 

fie 

rn 

v6 

2. TENTATIVE TAXABLE VALUE 

; 

Disposilion by Board of Review. The Board of Review must stale the reason for its aclion below 

Ps 

) Ps 

1 

p Dénied 

il Tentative Taxable Value Changed From ~~ 

B 

p 

To 

i 

= 

’ 

i 

(See altached L-40354) 

7 

=< 

Record of Vole — Board or three-member committee of board 

Chalrperson: [ie [Je Che 

Member: 

[3 

ves [Jue 

bp 

Member: 

[ves [Ino 

. 

BY: 

. 

’ 

als 

i 

Initigs 

: 

a) 

Reason for Board Action 

ww 

Traxanlk Usloe tumaaps (rox. 

= assered) "Hu Naor Sellen = ele 

Par Thee Las 

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative taxable value, you may appeal thal decision by filing a petition with the Michigan Tax Tribunal at 

PO Box 30232, Lansing Mi 48909. Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real, Commercial Personal, Industial Personal and Utility Personal Properly may be 

appealed by May 31. Agriculiura) Real, Residential Real, Timber-Cutover Real and Agricultural Personal Properly may be appeated by July 31. The petition must be filed on 

a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or & form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal, Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available al wyw.michigan.aovitaxiib. 

Cm 

=~ 

EY 

3. CLASSIFICATION 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its aclion below. 

] Denied 

1] Classification Changed From 

to 

Record of Vole — Board or three-member commiltee of board 

Chairperson: M Yes Mm No 

Member: 

Hl Yes 3 No 

Member: 

I! Yes iN No 

Initials 

Initials 

Initials 

Reason for Board Action 

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding classification, you may appeal by sending Form 2167 to the State Tax Commission at PO Box 30471, 

Lansing Mi 48909, by June 30. 

Corzoz IRF SPOR 

4. QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY EXEMPTION 

Dlsposilion by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action belovs. 

in Exemption Request Denled 

[1 Exemption percent modified from 

% to 

% 

Record of Vote — Board or thioe-membereommities of board 

Chalrperson. 

Tes [Cw 

9 

© 

Member: 

[Yes [Jo 

) 

. 

Member: 

[7 ves 0) No 

. 

°° 

t 

- 

initials 

. 

2 

ls 

: 

Initials 

Tnidals 

Reason for Board Action 

or 

If you disagree with the decision of the Hoard of Review regarding qualified agricultural property exemption, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal at PO Box 30232, Lansing MI 48909 by July 31. The petition must be filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the Michigan Tax

to the Board of Review, except when the property is assified as commercial real, industrial real, or developmental real, You may not appeal properly classification to the State 

Tax, Commission unless you first protest to the Board of Review. 

TO BE COMPLETED BY OWNER OR OWNER’S AGENT 

Owner's Pe. 

(Please Print oa Typ! T 

Petitioner's Name (if Other than Owner. Please Print or Type) 

334 A. 

Crooks -Mishacaf £ 

Township o 

County 

Year of Appeal 

Bods Township 

Tron 

R016 

The undersigned protests the assessed value ‘andlor the tentative taxable value andlor the property classification and/or the qualified 

agricultural property exemption of the following described property: 

Properly identified ST 

code reg gred. oy) address and legal description optional } 

pores 1851 Yya0-cor00 

RE EEE 

Protested item: 

Assessed Value 

p< Tentative 

[7] Taxable Status 

[_] Classification 

[} Qualified Agricultural 

Taxable Value 

(exemption) 

Properly Exemption 

1, PROTEST OF ASSESSMENT 

Complete this section for a protest of assessed value, including assessed value changes associated with exempt status and denied or late filed 

personal property forms. 

Assessed Value ¥ / q /, 4 g Y 

LF 

q 20 o en He, 5 Se 

2. PROTEST OF TAXABLE VALUE 

.) or df fad) 

o A 70] 

Complete this section for a protest of Taxable Value. 

[a 

Reason: 

| Value of Losses 

{1 Value of Additions 

1 Poverty Exemption 

1 

uncapping % 

3. PROTEST OF CLASSIFICATION 

Complete this section for a request to change the classification. The Board of Review must make their decision regarding classification in accordance 

with Section 211.34¢ of the Michigan Compiled Laws. The Board of Review shall not be influenced by the effect that a particular classification has on 

that property's status as a homeowner's principal residence or qualified agricultural property.) 

Classification of property on this year's assessment roll 

Classification should be (check one of (he following): 

[ Agricuttural 

[} naustriat 

{] Timber Cutover 

{] utility (Personal Property Only) 

[_] commercial 

[] Residential 

["] pevelopmentat 

4. PROTEST OF EXEMPTION FOR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY 

If the assessor has denied or changed the percentage of the exemption from the 18 mills of local schoot operating tax for qualified agricultural proper- 

ty, the owner may appeal this action to the March Board of Review. THE BOARD OF REVIEW HAS NO AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER OR ACT UPON 

THE EXEMPTION FROM THE 18 SCHOOL OPERATING MILLS FOR HOMEOWNER'S PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE PROPERTIES.) 

Percent qualified agricultural exemption granted by assessor (Enter 0 if exemption 

Percent qualified agricullural exemption requested by owner (Enter 100 if fulf 

denied) 

exemplion requested) 

REASON FOR PROTEST 

State TA 

for pee. 4 

TA value andlor the oy! ive taxable “hh 

oper Tha 

and/or qualified agricubtyral pro; TE 

exemplion 

Radar) sib es 

ne Lok 

dn - -PPRE 

Re SoS 

fa 

EY trcassin preci 161 V, 

ony average ay. or 

09%,4 

an gr 

8 

No fpagon For (85 iA; nie 

1a yal (IR Cor Nd baugidit 

a, 

a fas, 7 %, 

777K

Statement of Assessment Protest: 117 S. Trybom Dr. (Parcel ID: 

001-400-017-00) 

Dear Members of the Board of Review, 

| am formally protesting the 2026 Assessed Value (AV) of $191,484 for my property at 

117 S. Trybom Dr. This assessment implies a market vaiue (True Cash Value) 

of $382,968. 

This assessment claims my home gained $51,968 in value (15.7%) in the few months 

following my purchase. No significant renovations or structural additions have been 

made to the property to justify a $52,000 increase above the actual price paid on the 

open market. And, in fact, our purchase price reflects my stupidity rather than the 

actual market price. Translation: we overpaid because we've been dreaming of a 

cottage on a lake for years. 

In addition, a comparison table below will show that we are being inequitably assessed. 

The current assessment creates an inequitable tax burden compared to immediate 

neighboring properties. 

| respectfully request that the Board adjust this value to reflect 

the actual market reality of the area, considering my recent purchase, and to maintain 

assessment uniformity with my immediate neighbors. 

| also contend that the current assessment is disproportionate to the local market 

growth (iron County). 

Finally, there is the reality of the clear inequities created by the 

state's PRE/NON PRE laws and regulations. 

| include some key data and points for 

each argument below. 

Property Valuation History: 117 S. Trybom Dr. 

+ Location: Iron River Township, Mi 49935 

Status: Non-Principal Residence (Non-PRE) 

Tax 

Assessed Value 

Implied Market 

Annual % 

Cumulative Increase (since 

Year 

(SEV) 

Value 

Increase 

2021) 

2026 

$191,484 

$382,968 

+25.52% 

+102.7% 

2025 

$152,555 

$305,110 

+20.95% 

+61.5% 

2024 

$126,131 

$262,262 

+6.67% 

+33.5% 

2023 

$118,247 

$236,494 

+6.07% 

+25.2% 

2022 

$111,481 

$222,962 

+18.01% 

+18.0% 

2021 

$94,464 

$188,928 

— 

— 

Subpoint: Purchase Price vs, Assessed Value: 

1. Actua! Purchase (April 2025): $331,000 

2. Assessor's 2026 Value: $382,968 

3. The Error: The Assessor is claiming your home is worth $51,968 MORE than you 

just paid for it on the open market less than a year ago. In Michigan, a recent "arm'’s- 

length" sale Is the gold standaid for "True Cash Value." 

The "Uncapping” Aftermath: 

our property "uncapped" in 2025

of 51.81%), which far exceeds all localized economic indicators. The same Is true 

even if we use the 2025 valuation of $152,555, Though less of a jump, the hike 

from $152,555 to $191,484 is still a whopping increase of 25.52%. 

Supporting Market Data: Iron County, Mi 

Clearly, the 31.2% increase in the 117 S. Trybom assessment from 2024 to 2025 

is disproportionate to the broader market, 

«+ 2025 Countywide Growth Average: 7.22% 

« 2026 State Inflation Multiplier: 1.027 (2.7%) 

« 2025 State Inflation Multiplier: 1.050 (5.0%) 

« Market Outlier: An assessment increase that is 4x-8x the county 

average suggests that the purchase price may have reflected a "peak" sentiment 

rather than the true, sustainable "Cash Value" required for assessment purposes. 

Inequity of Assessment (Uniformity Clause) 

The Michigan Constitution requires that similar properties be assessed uniformly. 

A 

comparison with my immediate neighbor at 123 S. Trybom Dr. reveals a widening, 

arbitrary, and indefensible gap. 

In 2021, these two properties were valued within $6,000 of each other. Today, the 

Assessor claims my property is worth over $100,000 more than the neighbor. There is 

no physical evidence or market trend to support a six-figure value divergence between 

these two adjacent parcels over a four-year or five-year period. There is no evidence of 

physical improvements to my property that justify this $49,000 premium over a neighbor 

with a far more valuable and well-kept properly. Our Trybom home has siding missing 

in various spots around the house, has a hole in the side of the garage, and has a 3- 

season porch that is currently a partial ice rink due to its poor construction and years of 

erosion. (PICTURES) 

Property Valuation Comparison: 117 8. Trybom vs. 123 S.Trybom 

Location: Iron River Township, Ml 49935 

Status: 2026 Assessment Protest Evidence 

Tax 

1178S. 

17 (Market 

1238. 

123 (Market 

Valuation 

Year 

Trybom (Assessed 

Value Est.) 

Trybom (Assessed 

Value Est.) 

Gap 

Value) 

Value) 

2026 

$191,484 

$382,968 

$141,015 

$282,030 

$100,938 

2025 

$152,555 

$305,110 

$141,015 

$282,030 

$23,080 

2024 

$126,131 

$252,262 

$110,535 

$221,070 

$31,192 

2023 

$118,247 

$236,494 

$110,535 

$221,070 

$15,424 

2022 

$111,481 

$222,962 

$100,832 

$201,664 

$21,298 

2021 

$94,464 

$188,928 

$91,425 

$182,850 

$6,078 

Key Point 

The $100k Disparity: In 2021, these two properties were valued within $6,078 of each 

other. By 2026, the Assessor claims our property is worth $100,938 MORE than our 

immediate neighbor. Our home has likely less square footage and no major luxury

need to spend $49,650 annually on taxable goods and 

services. 

Putting this into perspective for our 117 S. Trybom property tax situation: 

« The "Uncapping” Cost: The 18-mill non-principal residence (Non-PRE) portion of 

our property tax bill is approximately $2,979. 

« The Spending Equivalent: Paying that $2,979 in property tax is financially 

equivalent to the sales tax we would pay on nearly $50,000 of taxable retail 

purchases (like cars, electronics, or furniture) every single year. 

» The Argument: This "tax burden” comparison highlights the significant financial 

impact of even a small over-assessment. We love this community so far and are 

anxious to become active in service and financial support to the area, but cannot 

afford this extreme hike in our taxes that, for the most part, is put on us through 

referenda and legislation enacted without our ability to participate in the voting 

process. 

Financial Impact & Conclusion 

This analysis highlights the significant financial impact of even a small over- 

assessment, which we contend. We love this community so far and have been planning 

to become active in service and offering financial support to the area. We have already 

made some friends here, and 

| have been participating in Zumba at the Windsor Center 

—1 even went with some Zumba folks to the senior center valentine's day dance to help 

bring joy to the community members. 

But we cannot afford this extreme hike in our 

taxes that, for the most part, is put on us through referenda and legislation enacted 

without our ability to participate in the voting process. We do not want to sell and move 

back across the Wisconsin border, but a hike of $5000 in one year is beyond what most 

people can handle. 

Because the assessment is significantly higher than the neighboring baseline, market 

realities, and the county's average growth, 

1 respectfully request that the 2026 Assessed 

Value be adjusted to [$141,000--$145,000] to reflect a more equitable market position. 

Best, 

Peggy A. Crooks-Mishacoff 

Nathan R. Mishacoff

“IO0 

¢ < ANCTE 

Wt 

| 

> NARS = 

MN “Nag oN 

, Cove, WL 

Sos onl 

Lansin

← View full record