Answer Affirm Def & POS 26-001480.pdf
Blue Elk Solar II, LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Leslie Respondent · 26-001480-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
1 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL BLUE ELK SOLAR II, LLC, Petitioner, v LESLIE TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-001480 PARCEL NO. 33-14-14-90-909-244 ______________________________________/ Ryan M. Shannon (P74535) Dickinson Wright PLLC Attorneys for Petitioner 123 W. Allegan St., Suite 900 Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 410-5443 rshannon@dickinson-wright.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com ______________________________________/ ANSWER TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION Respondent, LESLIE TOWNSHIP, by and through its counsel, FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH RHODES PLC, and hereby answers Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition as follows: 1. This Petition concerns the 2026 values for the following parcel number (the “Subject Property”): 33-14-14-90-909-244 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 2. The Subject Property is industrial personal property located in the following Township (the “Respondent”) Leslie Twp. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph.
Page 2
2 3. The personal property statement for the Subject Property was filed with the local assessor on or before February 20, 2026. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 4. Regardless of whether the assessment at issue was protested to the local board of review, the Tribunal has jurisdiction as the property is classified as industrial personal property and a statement of assessable property was filed under section 19 of the general property tax act prior to the commencement of the board of review for the year involved. See MCL 205.735a(4)(b). ANSWER: Respondent states that the legal conclusions require no answer, and to the extent that an answer may be required, neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 5. The Subject Property is located in the following County: Ingham ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 6. The parcel or parcels of real property with which the Subject Property is associated is/are: 33-14-14-05-100-003, 33-14-14-05-100-004, and 33-14-14-05-100-005 (Tuttte Rd., Leslie, MI 49251) ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 7. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to the Subject Property. ANSWER: Respondent states that the legal conclusions require no answer, and to the extent that an answer may be required, neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 8. Petitioner’s principal tax address is 575 Fifth Ave., 24th Floor, New York, NY 10017. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 3
3 9. This appeal involves issues relating to the Subject Property’s true cash and taxable values, and the uniformity of the Subject Property’s assessment as established by Respondent’s Board of Review. ANSWER: Respondent states that the legal conclusions require no answer, and to the extent that an answer may be required, neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 10. Respondent’s Board of Review established the following values for Subject Property for the 2026 tax year: a. True Cash Value: $22,982,174 b. Assessed and Taxable Values: $11,491,087 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 11. Petitioner contends that the 2026 values for the Subject Property should be as follows: a. True Cash Value: $117,400,000 b. State Equalized and Taxable Values: $8,700,000 ANSWER: Respondent admits only that Petitioner purports to make the indicated contentions of value but denies that Petitioner’s contentions have merit and asserts that the Petition should be dismissed, incorporating its additional answers and affirmative defenses. 12. The values in dispute for the 2026 tax year are thus as follows: a. True Cash Value $5,582,174 b. State Equalized and Taxable Values: $2,791,087 ANSWER: Respondent admits only that Petitioner purports to make the indicated contentions of value but denies that Petitioner’s contentions have merit and asserts that the Petition should be dismissed, incorporating its additional answers and affirmative defenses. 13. The Subject Property is assessed at more than 50% of its true cash value. Among other things, Respondent has utilized a valuation methodology and depreciation tables that are inconsistent with the actual values and depreciation for the Subject Property.
Page 4
4 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph. Respectfully Submitted, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent October 12, 2026 _________________________________ Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, MI 48864 (517) 381-0100
Page 5
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL BLUE ELK SOLAR II, LLC, Petitioner, v LESLIE TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-001480 PARCEL NO. 33-14-14-90-909-244 ______________________________________/ Ryan M. Shannon (P74535) Dickinson Wright PLLC Attorneys for Petitioner 123 W. Allegan St., Suite 900 Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 410-5443 rshannon@dickinson-wright.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com ______________________________________/ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent LESLIE TOWNSHIP, by and through its attorneys, FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH RHODES PLC, states as follows for its Affirmative Defenses: 1. Petitioner failed to state a claim for which its requested relief, or any other relief, may be granted. 2. If the proofs shall show, Petitioner’s conduct renders it estopped or otherwise barred from asserting the claims presented in the Petition. 3. If the proofs shall show, Petitioner’s claim is barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitations, laches, and/or undue delay.
Page 6
2 4. Petitioner’s legal theories and requested relief are either not recognized as valid under Michigan law or have no application to the facts of this case. 5. Some or all of Petitioner’s claims and requests for relief are barred on jurisdictional or jurisprudential grounds as moot, not ripe, and/or not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and authority. 6. There is no issue of material fact, and Respondent is entitled to the dismissal of the Petition in its entirety and with prejudice. 7. Petitioner waived any right to assert the claims presented in the petition, or its claims are otherwise barred in whole or in part, by lack of standing, failure to be the real party in interest, agreement, consent, acquiescence, ratification, course of conduct or performance, promissory and/or other estoppel, misrepresentation, release, abandonment, or violation of law. 8. Petitioner may have failed to allege specific facts sufficient to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, the application of wrong principles, or illegality on the part of Respondent. 9. Petitioner may have failed to allege specific facts sufficient to support its allegation that the assessed value of the subject property, as equalized, is at a level other than 50% of the subject property’s true cash value or that the subject property’s taxable value is incorrect. 10. Petitioner has asked this Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different that that utilized in the assessment of other properties in Respondent’s taxing unit, thereby shifting an otherwise equitable tax burden to Respondent’s remaining taxpayers.
Page 7
3 11. Respondent acted lawfully pursuant to the applicable statutes, rules, regulations, and guidelines. 12. Petitioner’s characterization of the assessment(s) and taxes is contrary to law and refuted by documentary evidence. 13. Respondent reserves the right to amend and supplement these affirmative defenses as facts are learned through continuing investigation and discovery and as the Tribunal permits. Dated: October 12, 2026 Respectfully submitted, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent By: __________________________________ Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, MI 48864 (517) 381-0100
Page 8
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL BLUE ELK SOLAR II, LLC, Petitioner, v LESLIE TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-001480 PARCEL NO. 33-14-14-90-909-244 ______________________________________/ Ryan M. Shannon (P74535) Dickinson Wright PLLC Attorneys for Petitioner 123 W. Allegan St., Suite 900 Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 410-5443 rshannon@dickinson-wright.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com ______________________________________/ PROOF OF SERVICE Jamy A. Staffeld states that on October 12, 2026 she served a copy of Answer to Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition, Affirmative Defenses, and this Proof of Service, upon the following via first class mail: Ryan M. Shannon Dickinson Wright PLLC 123 W. Allegan St., Suite 900 Lansing, MI 48933 I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. /s/ Jamy A Staffeld Jamy A. Staffeld