2024-10-04 Respondent's Answer + POS.pdf

Michigan Nature Association, Petitioner Vs. City Of Munising, Respondent · 24-003370-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.

1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

MICHIGAN NATURE ASSOCIATION,

a Michigan nonprofit corporation,

Petitioner,

v

CITY OF MUNISING, 

Respondent.

MTT Docket No. 24-003370

Scott W. Howard (P52028)

OLSON & HOWARD, P.C.

Attorneys for Petitioner

420 East Front Street

Traverse City, MI 49686

(231) 946-0044

scott@envlaw.com

Thomas M. Amon (P72351)

WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP

Attorneys for Respondent

150 Ottawa Ave NW, Suite 1500

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

(616) 752-2000

tamon@wnj.com 

ANSWER

Respondent, City of Munising, by and through its attorneys, OLSON & HOWARD, PC, 

submits the following response to the Petition:

1. This Appeal is regarding Parcel No. 051-451-054 -00, 051-451-056-00 and 051-451-

071-00 (the “Property”). The parcels comprising the Property are contiguous and 

within the same assessing unit. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the property identified in Paragraph 1 of the 

Petition is a parcel of real property within the Respondent’s jurisdiction.

2. The Property identified above is real property.

2

ANSWER: Admits.

3. The Property is and/or was classified as 090 Exempt. Respondent has not indicated 

the new classification of the Property if any. 

ANSWER: Denied. The March Board of Review determined that this property is 

no longer exempt based on the fact that the property is no longer accessible to the 

public as indicated by signs posted on the property and no evidence was presented 

of the charitable or educational benefit to the community.

4. The Property is owned by Petitioner. Petitioner is a Michigan nonprofit Corporation 

with its resident agent located at 2310 Science Parkway, Okemos, MI. As stated in its 

Articles of Incorporation (attached as Exhibit C), MNA’s purposes are:

The purpose or purposes for which the corporation is organized are:

MNA’s purposes are:

(a) To acquire, maintain, and protect natural areas that predominantly contain 

examples of Michigan fauna, flora, geologic features, and other components 

and aspects of the natural environment of Michigan, including habitat and 

natural communities for fish, wildlife and plants, in the State of Michigan;

(b) To carry on a program of conservation study and education; 

(c) To carry on such other activities as are permitted under the Michigan Nonprofit 

Corporation Act. 

ANSWER: Neither admit nor deny. Respondent leaves Petitioner to their proofs. 

5. Respondent is a City under Michigan law that has wrongfully attempted to remove the 

Property’s tax-exempt status and make it subject to taxation.

ANSWER: Denied. 

6. The decisions at issue (attached as Exhibit A) were issued by the March Board of 

Review at its July 16, 2024 meeting. 

ANSWER: Neither admit nor deny. The exhibit speaks for itself and Respondent 

leaves Petitioner to their proofs.

3

7. The Tribunal has jurisdiction of this Matter under MCL 205.731 and 

205.735a.

ANSWER: Admit. 

8. The Property is located in Alger County. It does not have an official address.

ANSWER: Neither admit nor deny. Respondent leaves Petitioner to their proofs. 

9. The assessment at issue was established by the City of Munising’s Board of Review.

ANSWER: Admit. 

10. Petitioners’ legal residence or principal office address is 2310 Science Parkway,

Okemos, MI.

ANSWER: Neither admit nor deny. Respondent leaves Petitioner to their proofs. 

11. This appeal involves issues relating to the Property’s exemption from taxation and the 

Board of Review’s incorrect determination that the Property in question constituted 

“omitted” property. 

ANSWER: Denied. The March Board of Review determined that this property is 

no longer exempt based on the fact that the property is no longer accessible to the 

public as indicated by signs posted on the property and no evidence was presented 

of the charitable or educational benefit to the community.

12. The Property has been owned by the MNA and has had tax exempt status for

approximately 33 years or more.

ANSWER: Neither admit nor deny. Respondent leaves Petitioner to their proofs.

13. The tax years at issue are 2023 and 2024.

ANSWER: Neither admit nor deny. Respondent leaves Petitioner to their proofs.

4

14. The values for the Property as stated in the Exhibit A are: 

ANSWER: Admit. 

15. Petitioner contends that the Property is exempt from taxation under Michigan law for 

the 2023 and 2024 tax years. Accordingly, the entire amount of the values determined 

by the Board of Review, as set forth in the proceeding paragraph, are in dispute. 

ANSWER: Denied. The City of Munising has determined that this property is no 

longer exempt based on the fact that the property is no longer accessible to the 

public as indicated by signs posted on the property and no evidence was presented 

of the charitable or educational benefit to the community. 

16. Petitioners request that the Tribunal cancel the assessments in their entirety, find that 

the Property is exempt from taxation in its entirety under Michigan law, and award 

Petitioners all other relief that it deems appropriate, equitable and just, including an 

award of costs, attorneys’ fees, and all other relief to which Petitioners are entitled. 

ANSWER: Deny. As respondent has outlined in its Response to Petitioner’s 

Motion for Summary Disposition filed on June 8, 2023 in Docket No. 22-001091-

5

TT the well-established rule is that tax exemptions are “narrowly construed” in 

favor of taxing authorities because exemptions “upset the desirable balance 

achieved by equal taxation[.]” Wexford Medical Group v City of Cadillac, 474 Mich 

192, 204; 713 NW2d 734 (2006); see also Association of Little Friends, Inc v City of 

Escanaba, 138 Mich App 302, 307; 360 NW2d 602 (1985) (“[e]xemption statutes 

are to be strictly construed in favor of the taxing unit”). Tax exemptions are 

generally “disfavored” and are in “derogation of the principle that all shall bear 

a proportionate share of the tax burden.” GMAC LLC v Treasury Dep’t, 286 Mich 

App 365, 375; 781 NW2d 310 (2009). Accordingly, the party seeking the exemption 

bears the burden of establishing that all requirements for an exemption have been 

satisfied. Chauncey and Marion Deering McCormick Foundation v Wawatam Tp, 

196 Mich App 179, 182; 492 NW2d 751 (1992).

First, MCL 211.7o(5) requires, among other things, that the property in 

question be held by a conservation organization and is open to the general 

public for use:

Real property owned by a qualified conservation organization that is held 

for conservation purposes and that is open to all residents of this state for 

educational or recreational use, including, but not limited to, low-impact, 

nondestructive activities such as hiking, bird watching, cross-country 

skiing, or snowshoeing is exempt from the collection of taxes under this 

act. As used in this subsection, “qualified conservation organization” 

means a nonprofit charitable institution or a charitable trust that meets 

all of the following conditions: 

(a) Is organized or established, as reflected in its articles of 

incorporation or trust documents, for the purpose of acquiring, 

maintaining, and protecting nature sanctuaries, nature preserves, and 

natural areas in this state, that predominantly contain natural habitat for 

fish, wildlife, and plants.

(b) Is required under its articles of incorporation, bylaws, or trust

6

documents to hold in perpetuity property acquired for the purposes 

described in subdivision (a) unless both of the following conditions are 

satisfied:

(i) That property is no longer suitable for the purposes described in 

subdivision (a). 

(ii) The sale of the property is approved by a majority vote of the members or 

trustees.

(c) Its articles of incorporation, bylaws, or trust documents prohibit any 

officer, shareholder, board member, employee, or trustee or the family 

member of an officer, shareholder, board member, employee, or trustee from 

benefiting from the sale of property acquired for the purposes described in 

subdivision (a).

While the City recognizes that the preserve had been open to the public in 

the past, it has been closed for the past three years and the City has not been 

provided with any plans to re-open the preserve to the public. 

Respondent requests that the Tribunal uphold the City’s assessments until such a 

time as the Petitioner complies with the statutory requirements for tax exemption 

and deny Petitioner’s request for an award of costs, attorneys’ fees, and all other 

relief. Rather the Respondent requests an award of costs, attorneys’ fees, and all 

other relief to which Respondent is entitled. 

17. Petitioners rely on the following facts to support the requested relief:

a.

As set forth in more detail in the docket filings for the prior tax appeal between 

the same parties for the 2022 Tax Year, MTT Docket No. 22-001091-TT, the 

Property is exempt under numerous provisions of Michigan law;

ANSWER: No answer is necessary as this statement is a conclusion of 

law. To the extent an answer is required, Respondent neither admits nor 

denies. Respondent leaves Petitioner to their proofs. Respondent would 

also point the Tribunal to its Response to Petitioner’s Motion for 

Summary Disposition filed June 8, 2023 in Docket No. 22-001091-TT. 

b. The Property has been treated as tax exempt for decades and is owned by MNA;

ANSWER: Neither admit nor deny. Respondent leaves Petitioner to their

7

proofs.

c.

The MNA is a nonprofit charitable institution, whose purposes for 

incorporation are stated in its Articles of Incorporation, which are excerpted in 

paragraph 4 above;

ANSWER: Neither admit nor deny. Respondent leaves Petitioner to their 

proofs.

d. The MNA acquired, owns, and occupies the Property for the purposes for which 

it is incorporated, and the Property is exempt under MCL 211.7o(1);

ANSWER: Neither admit nor deny. Respondent leaves Petitioner to their 

proofs.

e.

The Property is separately and independently exempt under MCL 211.7o(5), 

because any limits on public access to the Property are temporary and are being 

done to advance the stated goals of the exemption in MCL 211.7o(5): to 

maintain the property for conservation purposes, and to keep the property 

available for “low-impact, nondestructive activities” by the public. The fact that 

decades of public access has resulted in high impact, destructive activities 

requires MNA to close portions of the Property for temporary maintenance does 

not destroy MNA’s exempt status;

ANSWER: No answer is necessary as this statement is a conclusion of 

law. To the extent an answer is required, Respondent neither admits nor 

denies. Respondent leaves Petitioner to their proofs.

f.

The Property is separately and independently exempt under MCL 211.7n, 

because MNA is expressly incorporated to “carry on a program of conservation 

study and education,” and occupies the Property solely for the purposes for 

which MNA was incorporated.

ANSWER: No answer is necessary as this statement is a conclusion of 

law. To the extent an answer is required, Respondent neither admits nor 

denies. Respondent leaves Petitioner to their proofs.

8

Respondent respectfully requests that this Tribunal enter an order denying the requested 

relief in the Petition and affirming the Respondent’s valuation of the property in question along 

with any other relief that is just and called for under the circumstances.

Respectfully Submitted,

OLSON & HOWARD, PC

Attorneys for Respondent

By: _______________________________

Date: October 4, 2024

Scott W. Howard (P52028)

scott@envlaw.com

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

MICHIGAN NATURE ASSOCIATION,

a Michigan nonprofit corporation,

Petitioner,

v

CITY OF MUNISING, 

Respondent.

MTT Docket No. 24-003370

Scott W. Howard (P52028)

OLSON & HOWARD, P.C.

Attorneys for Petitioner

420 East Front Street

Traverse City, MI 49686

(231) 946-0044

scott@envlaw.com

Thomas M. Amon (P72351)

WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP

Attorneys for Respondent

150 Ottawa Ave NW, Suite 1500

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

(616) 752-2000

tamon@wnj.com 

PROOF OF SERVICE

On the date below, I sent by first class mail a copy of Respondent’s Answer to the counsel 

of record of all parties to this cause, at their email address as set forth in the caption and/or 

disclosed by the pleadings filed in this matter.

The statements above are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

OLSON & HOWARD, P.C.

Date: October 4, 2024

By:_________________________________

Karla Gerds, Paralegal

← View full record