Petition Argos Building LLC.pdf
Argos Building LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Kalamazoo Respondent · 26-000813-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 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Argos Building LLC, Petitioner, v. MTT Docket No. 26_________ Parcel ID 06-15-377-100 City of Kalamazoo, Respondent. ______________________________________________________________________________ PETITION Argos Building LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorney Eva Cantarella at the law firm Hertz Schram PC, petitions this Tribunal as follows: 1. Petitioner is a limited liability company whose business address is 215 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 200, Kalamazoo, MI 49007-3909. 2. The Subject Property is a six-story office building built in 1988 comprising 36,542 leaseable square feet, situated on 0.17 acres at 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, MI, and further identified by parcel ID number 06-15-377-100. 3. Petitioner is the party in interest, as Petitioner is responsible for paying the property taxes on the Subject Property. 4. Respondent City of Kalamazoo levies and collects the property taxes on the Subject Property. 5. The Subject Property is classified 201 Commercial Improved and was built for its current use as an office building. 1
Page 2
6. The Subject Property is located in Kalamazoo County and is in the Kalamazoo City school district. 7. This Petition concerns issues relating to (a) valuation, (b) assessment, and (c) taxable value. 8. For the 2026 year, Respondent determined the following assessed, state-equalized, and taxable values for the Subject Property: Respondent’s 2026 Value Contentions Assessed Value State-Equalized Value Taxable Value Parcel ID 06-15-377-100 $1,570,800 $1,570,800 $1,570,800 9. Petitioner did not protest Respondent’s value contentions to the City of Kalamazoo Board of Review. 10. Based on Respondent’s contention of Assessed Value, Respondent determined the Subject Property’s true cash value to equal $3,141,600 [double the AV]. 11. For the following reasons, Petitioner contends Respondent has over-valued the Subject Property. 12. The Subject Property is 27.77% vacant and most of its leased space is short term, meaning it is at risk of losing more tenants and becoming more vacant over the next few years. 13. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Subject Property’s 2025 net operating income (after excluding interest, amortization and depreciation from expenses) was only $33,272! 14. One reason for the Subject’s high vacancy is that it has no on-site parking. In fact, there is no way to create such parking because the site is only 0.17 acres in size–just a little bigger than the footprint of the building. 2
Page 3
15. Although there are a few metered parking spots along the street, the closest surface lot or parking garage is about a block away. 16. Additionally, both elevators in the building are in urgent need of replacement. In fact, one elevator is currently not working at all. 17. Written quotes to replace the elevators have exceeded $800,000. 18. When Petitioner purchased the Subject Property, Petitioner was unaware the elevators were in poor mechanical condition and on the verge of needing to be replaced. 19. Given the foregoing, Petitioner contends the 2026 true cash value of the Subject Property is $2,000,000 and therefore the 2026 assessed, state-equalized, and taxable values should be as follows: Petitioner’s 2026 Value Contentions Assessed Value State-Equalized Value Taxable Value Parcel ID 16-15-377-100 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 20. Petitioner is unaware of any dispute concerning the value of a statutory “addition” or “loss” in determining the Subject Property’s taxable value. 21. Should Petitioner hereafter become aware of any such dispute, Petitioner reserves the right to amend this Petition to reflect the dispute. 22. Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order (i) reducing the 2026 assessed, state-equalized and taxable values of the Subject Property to the amounts contended by Petitioner, and (ii) requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner any refunds attributable to such reductions, plus allowable interest and costs. 3
Page 4
Respectfully submitted Hertz Schram PC /s/ Eva T. Cantarella Eva T. Cantarella (P51917) Attorney for Petitioners 1760 S. Telegraph Road Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0183 off. (248) 335-5000; fax. (248) 335-3346 ecantarella@hertzschram.com 4