answer to petition-20260917-.pdf

Essenburg Car Wash Of Holland Inc Petitioner Vs. City Of Holland Respondent · 26-001606-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.

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

ESSENBURG CAR WASH OF HOLLAND, INC, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-001606 

 

CITY OF HOLLAND, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

Joshua T. Shillair, Esq. (P72674) 

Senior Vice President | Tax Appeal 

Colliers International 

Representative for Petitioner 

400 W 4th Street, Suite 350 

Royal Oak, MI 48067 

(248) 226-1632 

(248) 226-1633 

Joshua.Shillair@Colliers.com 

Karen.Cameron@Colliers.com 

 

Vincent L. Duckworth (P64222) 

Rachel L. Hillegonds (P67684) 

Attorney for Respondent 

Cunningham Dalman, P.C. 

321 Settlers Road 

Holland, MI 49423 

(616) 392-1821 

vince@cunninghamdalman.com 

rachel@cunninghamdalman.com 

 

 

ANSWER TO 2026 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERYT TAX PETITION 

 

Respondent, City of Holland, by and through its attorneys, Cunningham Dalman, P.C., and 

for its Answer to Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition states as follows: 

1. The Petitioner in this matter, ESSENBURG CAR WASH OF HOLLAND INC, has the 

legal residence or principal office address of 661 E LAKEWOOD BLVD, HOLLAND, 

MI 49424-2062. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on property 

parcel no(s). (hereinafter referenced as the Subject Property) 03-02-05-102-009. If the 

Subject Property in this petition includes more than one (1) real property tax parcel, the 

Subject Property’s tax parcels are contiguous. 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

2. The Subject Property is located in Allegan County.

2 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

3. Respondent, City of Holland of Allegan County, assesses and collects property taxes on 

the Subject Property. 

ANSWER: The City of Holland is a municipal corporation of both Ottawa and Allegan 

Counties. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 3 are admitted. 

4. The Subject Property is real property and is classified as Commercial. The Subject 

Property is presently used or available for use for Commercial purposes. Petitioner 

believes that the Subject Property was originally designed to be used for Commercial 

purposes. 

ANSWER: Admitted that the property is designated as 201 Commercial-Improved. 

Respondent is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations, and 

leaves Petitioner to its strictest proofs. 

5. Protest to the 2026 Board of Review was not made and is not required by law for the 

Subject Property. 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

6. The Subject Property’s address is: 

809 WASHINGTON AVE, HOLLAND, MI 49423 

 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

7. This appeal involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable value and 

(d) uniformity. 

ANSWER: Respondent is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations, and 

leaves Petitioner to its strictest proofs.. 

8. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2026 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

9. The values for the Subject Property as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are:

3 

Tax Year 

Parcel Number 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable 

Value 

2026 

03-02-05-102- 

009 

$2,276,200.00 

$1,138,100.00 

$761,972.00 

 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

10. The 2026 assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and taxable value imposed 

upon all parcels of the Subject Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, 

are invalid and unlawful and operate as a fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: 

a. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value 

exceeds the amounts permitted by the Michigan Constitution, applicable statutes 

and case law; 

b. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value are at 

higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan 

Constitution, applicable statutes and case law; 

c. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value are 

based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of 

the Subject Property that is taxable under Michigan law, and are based upon the 

application of wrong principles; and 

d. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value, and 

the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner 

and denies Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection and 

dues process of law. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

11. Petitioner contends that the actual values for the Subject Property are: 

Tax Year 

Parcel Number 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value

4 

2026 

03-02-05-102- 

009 

$820,800.00 

$410,400.00 

$410,400.00 

 

ANSWER: Admitted, in part, to the extent Petitioner contends certain values should be applied 

to the property, but denied that Petitioner’s claimed values are accurate because they grossly 

understate the actual value of the subject property. 

12. The amount of value in contention for the Subject Property is: 

Tax Year 

Parcel Number 

Assessed Value in Contention 

2026 

03-02-05-102-009 

$727,700.00 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits that the values in dispute are correct but denies that the 

values in dispute are proper for the actual values of this property. 

13. Petitioner relies on the following specific facts to support the relief requested: Market 

sales and income data indicates that the subject property’s assessed value, state equalized 

value and taxable value exceed 50% of its actual market value. In addition, the cost less 

depreciation method Respondent utilizes to establish the Subject Property’s assessment at 

issue is not related to the Subject Property’s actual market value. 

ANSWER: Admitted, in part, to the extent Petitioner contends certain facts support the relief 

requested, but denied that Petitioner’s facts are accurate or support reduction of the values of 

the property. 

 

WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the tribunal dismiss this proceeding and award 

Respondent its costs and attorney fees. 

Dated: September 17, 2026 

 

 

By: /s/ Rachel L. Hillegonds 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vincent L. Duckworth (P64222) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rachel L. Hillegonds (P67684) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cunningham Dalman, P.C. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City Attorney 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

321 Settlers Road, P.O. Box 1767 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Holland, MI 49422-1767 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(616) 392-1821

← View full record