Petition 1071 N Ballenger.pdf

A.S.B. LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Flint Respondent · 26-000495-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 AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

A.S.B. LLC,

Petitioner,

v.

MTT Docket No. 26-_________

Parcel ID 07-10-400-005

Charter Township of Flint,

Respondent.

______________________________________________________________________________

PETITION

A.S.B. 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 1201 Flushing Rd,

Flint MI 48504-4730.

2.

The Subject Property is a three-story, nine-suite, office building built in 1973

containing 19,865 square feet of gross leaseable space, situated on 2.53 acres located at 1071 N.

Ballenger Highway, Flint Township, Michigan, and further identified by Parcel ID No. 07-10-400-

005.

3.

Petitioner is the party in interest, as Petitioner is responsible for paying the property

taxes on the Subject Property.

4.

Respondent Charter Township of Flint 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

6.

The Subject Property is located in Genesee County and is in the Carmen-Ainsworth

Community Schools 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 07-100-400-005

$1,758,700

$1,758,700

$1,690,031

9.

Petitioner did not protest Respondent’s value contentions to the Charter Township

of Flint Board of Review.

10.

Based on Respondent’s contention of Assessed Value, Respondent determined the

Subject Property’s true cash value to equal $3,517,400, which equates to $177.07/square foot

[$3,517,400 / 19,865 SF = $177.07].

11.

For the following reasons, Petitioner contends Respondent has over-valued the

Subject Property.

12.

In an arms-length transaction, Petitioner paid $500,000 for the Subject Property on

January 25, 2024.

13.

Comparable sales indicate the Subject Property should be valued at approximately

$86/square foot (= $1,700,000 rounded) minus the cost of major capital expenditures that were

needed on tax day and are still needed (detailed in paragraphs 16-19).

14.

Four of the nine suites, totaling 6,556 SF, were vacant on tax day, meaning the

Subject Property was 33% vacant on that date.

2

15.

Many properties in the neighborhood, including one next to the Subject Property, are

poorly maintained, a situation that factors into the Subject’s high vacancy rate and is not likely to

change.

16.

Petitioner has made no major improvements to the Subject Property but the elevator

urgently needs to be replaced at a cost of approximately $200,000 for which Petitioner has already

paid a $70,000 deposit.

17.

Additionally, the entire parking lot including the entrance thereto is severely degraded

and needs to be completely resurfaced/replaced (estimated cost: $150,000). 

18.

Various metal exterior building fixtures are old and rusty and should be replaced.

19.

The building is heated and cooled with roof-top heat pumps believed to be the

originals and therefore likely in need of replacement soon. Indeed, the property manager advises that

it is difficult to get comfortable temperatures throughout the building.

20.

The third floor suites have only one bath each but prospective tenants have all wanted

at least two baths per suite. The entire third floor also needs to be painted and some ceiling tiles and

flooring need to be replaced.

21.

Given the foregoing, Petitioner contends the 2026 true cash value of the Subject

Property is $1,350,000 [i.e., $1,700,000 based on the comparable sales minus $200,000 for an

urgently needed new elevator and $150,000 to replace/resurface the parking lot] 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 07-10-400-005

$675,000

$675,000

$675,000

3

22.

Petitioner is unaware of any dispute concerning the value of a statutory “addition”

or “loss” in determining the Subject Property’s taxable value.

23.

Should Petitioner hereafter become aware of any such dispute, Petitioner reserves the

right to amend this Petition to reflect the dispute.

24.

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) require Respondent to pay Petitioner any refunds attributable to such reductions,

plus allowable interest and costs.

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

← View full record