24-003466.pdf
Central States Tower Holdings American Tower Site 311161, Petitioner V Township Of Schoolcraft, Respondent · 24-003466-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 MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760 PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906 Central States Tower Holdings American Tower Site 311161, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003466 Schoolcraft Township, Case Type: Valuation Respondent. PROPOSED OPINION AND JUDGMENT Personnel Presiding: Kari L. Miles, Administrative Law Judge Location of Hearing: Telephone Hearing Held on: August 20, 2025 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: Brent Wornat Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Mark Erhart PROPOSED JUDGMENT The subject property’s true cash value (TCV), state equalized value (SEV) and taxable value (TV) for the tax years at issue shall be as follows: Parcel Number: 31-012-055-041-60 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $20,750 $10,375 $10,375 2025 $25,900 $12,950 $12,950 PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner was not required to protest the subject property’s assessment to the Board of Review (BOR). Petitioner did not protest the subject property’s assessment to the 2024 March BOR. Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on May 28, 2024, and Respondent filed an answer on October 12, 2024. The amount of SEV or TV in dispute, as set forth in the pleadings, for all tax years at issue is within the jurisdictional limits of the Small Claims Division.1 Further, the property’s assessment for subsequent tax years is included in this proceeding.2 1 See MCL 205.762(1). 2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003466 Page 2 of 6 ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW The issues in this matter are: 1. Whether the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its TCV. “The petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing the true cash value of the property.”3 The assessment of real property in Michigan shall not exceed 50% of its TCV.4 “True cash value” means “the usual selling price. . . .”5 “True cash value” means “fair market value.”6 The Tribunal is required to make an independent determination of TCV.7 “[T]he tribunal is not bound to accept either of the parties’ theories of valuation. It may accept one theory and reject the other, it may reject both theories, or it may utilize a combination of both in arriving at its determination.”8 The Tribunal is required to select the valuation methodology that is accurate and bears a reasonable relationship to the property’s TCV.9 2. Whether the TV exceeds the amount provided by MCL 211.27a. MCL 211.27a provides that a property’s TV is the lesser of the property’s SEV or capped TV, and a property’s capped TV is, absent a transfer of ownership, determined mathematically by taking into consideration the prior tax year’s TV, statutory losses, the lesser of the rate of inflation or 5%, and statutory additions, including omitted property (i.e., property not previously assessed).10 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE A. Petitioner’s Evidence Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: Parcel Number: 31-012-055-041-60 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $20,750 $10,375 $10,375 2025 $25,900 $12,950 $12,950 3 MCL 205.737(3); see also Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612, 620; 287 NW2d 603 (1979). 4 Michigan Const 1963, art IX, sec 3. 5 MCL 211.27(1). 6 CAF Investment Co v State Tax Comm, 392 Mich 442, 450; 221 NW2d 588 (1974). 7 See Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348; 483 NW2d 416 (1992). 8 Id. at 356. 9 See Safran Printing Co v City of Detroit, 88 Mich App 376; 276 NW2d 602 (1979). 10 See MCL 211.34d.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003466 Page 3 of 6 The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1 and 8 of the docket maintained in this case.11 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that there are two improvements included in the assessment that are not owned by Petitioner. Petitioner’s representative testified that the land value is reasonable, but BS&A shows two improvements on the property in 2024 that are owned by Verizon and AT&T. Petitioner does not know if these improvements are included in the subject property’s value. B. Respondent’s Evidence The property’s TCV, SEV and TV, as confirmed by the BOR, for the tax years at issue: Parcel Number: 31-012-055-041-60 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $170,026 $85,013 $70,056 2025 $25,900 $12,950 $12,950 Respondent’s revised contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: Parcel Number: 31-012-055-041-60 Year TCV SEV TV 2024 $20,750 $10,375 $10,375 2025 $25,900 $12,950 $12,950 The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on line 5 of the docket maintained in this case.12 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends that the land value is reasonable. Respondent’s representative testified that the two improvements were on the roll in 2024, but they were removed for 2025. The land TCV in 2024 was $20,750 and that should be the value. The 2025 SEV is $12,950. 11 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case. 12 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case.
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 24-003466 Page 4 of 6 FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The subject property is located at 28669 Gregorie Road, Schoolcraft Township, Houghton County. 2. The subject property is classified as commercial. 3. The subject property is vacant land, with two structures that are not owned by Petitioner. 4. The two structures on the property are owned by AT&T and Verizon. 5. Petitioner is not contesting the land value. 6. Respondent did not include the two structures in the 2025 assessment. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: A proceeding before the Tax Tribunal is original, independent, and de novo.13 The Tribunal's factual findings are to be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.14 Further, “[i]t is the duty of the [T]ax [T]ribunal to select the approach which provides the most accurate valuation under the circumstances of the individual case.”15 In doing so, the Tribunal shall consider the three most common approaches to valuation - the capitalization of income approach, the sales comparison or market approach, and the cost-less-depreciation approach.16 Except for any evidence that was excluded, as indicated above, all evidence submitted by both parties was considered in reaching a decision in this case. However, if specific evidence is not discussed in this section, it has been determined that this evidence shall be given no weight or credibility. Only evidence determined to have relevance in reaching a decision in this case is discussed within this Conclusions of Law section. Neither party raised any issue with respect to the highest and best use of the subject property by way of the testimony and evidence provided, and the Tribunal finds that there is no dispute that its highest and best use is continued use as commercial. This is not a “typical” valuation appeal in which Petitioner is contesting the value of the subject property that it owns. Petitioner does not dispute the land value set by Respondent. Rather, Petitioner’s issue is that the assessment included structures that 13 MCL 205.735a(2). 14 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277; 362 NW2d 632 (1984); Dow Chemical Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 185 Mich App 458, 462-463; 462 NW2d 765 (1990). 15 Antisdale, 420 Mich at 277; citing Pantlind Hotel Co v State Tax Comm, 3 Mich App 170; 141 NW2d 699 (1966). 16 See Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 484-485; 473 NW2d 636 (1991); Pantlind Hotel Co, 3 Mich App 170.
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 24-003466 Page 5 of 6 Petitioner does not own. Specifically, the 2024 assessment included structures owned by AT&T and Verizon. Under MCL 211.8(h), improvements installed on the property by the lessee “shall be assessed to the lessee” of the property. Further, MCL 211.14(6) provides that if the owner of the building is not the owner of the real property, the building “shall be assessed” to the owner of the building. Accordingly, the improvements owned by AT&T and Verizon (whether personal property or real property) are correctly assessed to them and not to Petitioner. Respondent’s representative testified that the value of the land only for the 2024 tax year was $20,750. For 2025, the structures were not included in the assessment, and the value was $25,900. Petitioner is not contesting the 2025 value as it only includes the value of the land owned by Petitioner. As such, the Tribunal finds the 2024 TCV to be $20,750, and the 2025 TCV of $25,900 is affirmed. JUDGMENT This is a proposed decision and not a final decision. As such, no action should be taken based on this decision. After the expiration of the time period for the opposing party to file a response to the exceptions, the Tribunal will review the case file, including the Proposed Opinion and Judgment (POJ) and all exceptions and responses, if any, and: a. Issue a Final Opinion and Judgment (FOJ) adopting the POJ as a Final Decision; b. Issue an FOJ modifying the POJ and adopting the Modified POJ as a Final Decision; or c. Issue an Order vacating the POJ and ordering a rehearing or such other action as is necessary and appropriate. EXCEPTIONS The parties have 20 days from the “Entered” date below to notify the Tribunal in writing, by mail or by electronic filing, if they do not agree with the POJ and to state in writing why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., file exceptions to the POJ). Exceptions must be signed and are limited to the evidence submitted prior to or at the hearing and any matter addressed in the POJ. There is no fee for filing exceptions. Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their exceptions and file proof of service with the Tribunal (i.e., submit a written statement indicating that the opposing party has been provided or “served” with a copy of the exceptions). Service on the opposing party can be made by mail, or if agreed to by the parties, by electronic service (i.e., email). The proof of service must be signed. The opposing party has 14 days from the date the exceptions are served on that party to file a written response with the Tribunal. Responses to exceptions must be signed.
Page 6
MTT Docket No. 24-003466 Page 6 of 6 Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their response to the exceptions and file a signed proof of service with the Tribunal. If the parties fail to sign their exceptions or responses, or if they fail to submit a signed proof of service for the exceptions and/or responses, the Tribunal may not consider the exceptions or responses in issuing the FOJ. By _________________________________ Date Entered by Tribunal: October 16, 2025 PROOF OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized representatives. By: Tribunal Clerk