01._Property_Tax_Appeal_Petition_Form_Valuation_Poverty_Classification.df3c1702-c786-4c96-94a2-10dbfef80d38.pdf
Nathaniel Kramer, Petitioner V Township Of Allouez, Respondent · 25-003060-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: Individual First Name Nathaniel M.I. Last Name/Company Name Kramer Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 120 Stanton Ave City or Town Mohawk State Michigan ZIP Code 49950 Telephone Number 720-231-6987 Fax Number E-mail Address nkdesk@tutanota.com Section 2: Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information First Name M.I. Last Name Firm Name (if any) Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) City or Town State Michigan ZIP Code Telephone Number Fax Number E-mail Address 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] 120 Stanton Av.
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR Mohawk Michigan 49950 Taxing Authority (City or Township) Township Of Allouez (KEWEENAW) County Keweenaw Section 4: Issues Being Appealed (check all that apply) True Cash and Taxable Value Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal I feel the assessment is too high, even after an adjustment from the Board of Review. At the Board meeting I was told that the assessor's processes involved taking exterior measurements, using existing property records, and entering information from those sources into a formula, and somehow averaging this result with other properties for a final, total assessment. They also stated they were concerned with being in accord with Michigan state law. The township board was very polite and let me speak at some length. While of course I agree with wishing to be in accord with state law, I disagree with the assessment, and feel it is too high. Transaction History: Before my purchase, there was no sale by the original owners since the church's construction in 1904, and the property was never taxed. I understand uncapping, but this was a completely new evaluation of the property: there was no prior anchor or tax record. The property was listed for sale in 2022 for approximately $120,000 and remained on the market for many months before the asking price was reduced to approximately $100,000. During this time the property was available for viewings, with visible signage, listed regionally and globally via online listings at UPMLS, and how I came to be aware of the property in the first place. In the autumn of 2023 the owners reduced the price again, to $69,900, after about a year on the market. I purchased this property (using a trust) at this price. This was an arms-length deal between two undistressed, uncoerced, unhurried, and unrelated parties on the free, open market: the market decided the price. I understand the sale price is not the only factor in making an assessment. However I believe in this case it is the pricipal factor, the best factor, and that the sale price was reasonable. If the assessment was correct, the seller should have had no problem in selling the property at the original asking price of $120,000 with a potentially global audience of buyers, and more than ample time in a high demand market - but that was not the case. I believe the sale price should 'anchor' any assessment rather than being insubstantial. More details of the math are below. Comparable properties against which to potentially average: The Property is a 120 year old church that has seen some tough times, and is in a less desirable location. I believe that the assessment has averaged on a purely square foot basis against other residential property across all of Keweenaw County. This county covers areas I would describe as 'premium' (Copper Harbor, or Lac La Belle near Mt. Bohemia Ski Resort, or idyllic lakeshore properties, for example), all the way to properties which are simply ruins of century old mining structures and mine tailings: there is a wide range. Any average, I believe, should be averaged against like properties - averaging this property with premium comparables is really not a fair comparison. What other recently sold properties are an old churches with similar attributes? I imagine there are none. Therefore the true cash value of the property should be anchored by the arm's length deal on the free, open market. Condition of property: As I said, this is an old building, built about 1904 and is not a standard residence. While there is some historical water damage, the roof is in good condition, and the siding is good enough, but the internals of the building are problematic. The adjustment made by the board was based on the sloped floor of the main 'sanctuary' area which takes up the vast majority of the square footage. The only bathroom is tiny (3.5' x 6'), with 1 toilet and a sink, running only cold water. Upon purchase the kitchen sink did not drain, and in fact was not at all linked into the existing sewer line, it ran directly into the ground. The gas furnace had a water outlet draining into a hole in the floor of the utility room. The main fuse box of the property had rain water draining directly into it from a leaky 'periscope' and meter system. There is an electrical sub-system using knob and tube. There are no bedrooms. Location / Neighbors: The property is in close proximity to two facilities operating heavy equipment, which are the source of noise, vibrations, lights, dust, and odors. The Keweenaw County Road Commission has year-round traffic of all kinds, including a variety of heavy equipment which is serviced, fueled, loaded, and deployed. If I understand correctly, they are the largest employer in the county, and sometimes their days begin as early as about 4am. This sizable installation directly borders the entire 'southern' side of the property, and all traffic drives down 4th street on the 'western' side of the property. The Mohawk Snowmobile Club Grooming Barn's activities are largely limited to winter months of November through April. This last winter I believe counted 4 enormous, treaded 'snow cat' type grooming machines with rotating emergency lights that hook up with trailers, refuel, are serviced and deployed. (Mohawk grooming barn - across the street on the north side of the property. this building is in severe disrepair but has light shining directly onto the building 24/7/365 ) The presence of these installations was not a surprise to me, they existed before I purchased the property: I was aware of them. What I was surprised by was the assessment of a property with these location attributes. Rather than to complain generally as some are prone to do, all these facts are assembled simply to illustrate that this property was in essence and very much in
Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR practice NOT a typical residental property. The Math: Here are some details on the math. I am not looking for an amazing or generous assessment, but I looking for fair assessment. 2024 (first, original) Assessment: $79,199 implying a $159,398 True Cash Value. This original assessed value reflects not just the seller's first asking price in 2022, but was over 30% higher than that amount. This number was 226.6% of about what I was reasonably expecting. 2025 (unmodified) Assessment was adjusted by 3.1% from the previous value to $81,467 SEV, reflecting a true cash value of $162,934. 2025 (modified: changed by Board) assessment is $59,602, reflecting a True Cash Value of $119,204. This TCV is near to the first, original asking price of the seller, the arms-length open market deal was closed at a much lower price after a prolonged listing period in which the property was on the market. The property is not really worth anything close to this if it were listed on the market - the assessment does not reflect a True Cash Value. A $69,990 sale price estimated as TCV results in an assessment of about $34,950. Adjusted by another 3.1% for 2024 to 2025 results in a TCV of $72,067. 50% of that is $36,033. Thank you for taking the time to consider this lengthy statement in detail. I look forward to moving toward a just and fair conclusion of this situation. If I can provide any more documents or information beyond the attached Petition to Board of Review, please contact me. ---------------------- Some additional notes that may be relevant: I did not contest the 2024 assessment because the 2024 Notice of Assessment document was not delivered by the post office, which does not deliver to the building, one block away. When I went in to ask to have a PO box setup, I was told I needed to retrieve the deed to prove residency. The deed itself was offsite and additionally it was winter time and I had to attend to family health concerns. The notice was also not delivered by other methods; 120 Stanton is about 2 blocks from the township hall, on the way to the post office. I made and should still have an audio recording of my meeting with the Board of Review. Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues Year(s) you are appealing: 2025 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. Parcel Identification Number: 42-101-53-018-001-001 Classification of Property: Real Residential
Page 4
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR: 59602 Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 59602 What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as True Cash Value)? 72067 Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value). 36033 If you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value. Section 8: Classification Information *Only the MI Dep’t of Treasury may appeal this issue to the Tribunal* Parcel Identification Number: 42-101-53-018-001-001 Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: Real Residential What do you believe is the property’s classification? Real Residential 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? Yes 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: $100,000.00 and under $250.00 * Plus $25.00 for each additional parcel, as indicated above. If your property is NOT residential property and the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is $100,000.01 or greater the appeal does not qualify for Small Claims. Therefore, an Entire Tribunal petition must be filed.
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/ Nathaniel Kramer trustee Demesne Revocable Trust