Ryskamp 26-002818 duplicate.pdf
Gordon L Ryskamp Petitioner V Township Of Alpine Respondent · 26-002818-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
RECEIVED
JUL 29 2026
> MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL
STATE OF MICHIGAN
GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA
GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM
VALUATION / UNCAPPING
Do not use this form to appeal Classification, Principal Residence Exemption, Qualified Agricultural Exemption, Other
Exemptions, Special Assessments, or Non-Property tax disputes.
Pursuant to Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 279, you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., Board of
Review Decision or other notice} with this petition, if applicable. If you do not submit this document, you may be held in
default.
Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information
First Name M.i. Last Name/Company Name
Gordon L Ryskamp
Malling Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)
351 Timber Creek Circle
City or Town State ZIP Code
Comstock Park MI 49321
Telephone Number 5 £0-3387931
Email Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email)
gordonryskamp@gmail.com
Section 2: Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information
First Name mi i Last Name
Firm Name (If any)
Malling Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)
City or Town State ZIP Code
Telephone Number
Email Address {do not enter untess you want MTT to send all correspondence via email)
Section 3: Subject Property Information *use the multipte parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels.
How many parcels are you If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining?
appealing? 3 Yes No*
1 **If No, you must file separate appeals for each parce!
Property Address (No., Street)
351 Timber Creek CirclePage 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN
GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON 1. BROWN, DPA
GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR
Section 4: Check which of the following you are appealing (check alt that apply)
True Cash and Taxable Value
[J Taxable Value Only (calculation)
{71 Uncapping of Taxable Value
Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal
Please See Attached
Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues
Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? Yes [0] No
If Yes, check which BOR you attended: March |] July [Mi] December
if No, please check the applicable reason(s):
1 Not required to aftend
[mn] Appealing a purported Clerical Error or Mutua! Mistake of Fact {if yes, include explanation in Section 5)
1 Appealing within 35 days of State Tax Commission Order
[0] Appealing within 35 days of receipt of Notice of Uncapping
[1 other
If you checked “other” above, explain:Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR Section 7: Valuation Information use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. Parcel Number: / 4 -09-36-455-040 Classification of Property: Real] Personal [J (check one) Agricultural J Commercial 0 Industrial 0 Residential Timber-Cutover [J ~~ Developmental [J Utility (J (check one) Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) established | Taxable Value established by the Board of Review: by the Board of Review: 1 70,500 147,900 What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as true cash value)? 300,000 What do you believe is the assessed value? (multiply true cash What do you believe is the taxable value? (cannot exceed value by .5) 150,000 assessed value) 120,494 Fee Information Does the property have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition for all tax years at issue? WM ves [J No If you answered yes to the above question, you are not required to pay any filing fees. If the property does not have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition for all tax years at issue, the filing fee is based on the greater of the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in dispute. If you are appealing more than one parcel, the parcel with the highest State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in dispute 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 $1,000.00 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 $126.00 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $200.00 $Over $500,000.00 $300.00 If the 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 the property is NOT residential property and the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in dispute is $100,000.01 or greater the appeal does not qualify for Small Claims. Therefore, an Entire Tribunal petition must be filed. Signature *required Petitioner or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s-Signature: Isl esi ZL. 1-07 za 7
Page 4
Form 618, Page 2 FOR BOARD OF REVIEW USE ONLY INSTRUCTIONS: incorporate a copy of this form and the assigned number in the Board of Review minutes. Petition Number Parcel Code . M26-001 41-09-36-455-040 1. ASSESSED VALUE : : : a Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must sfate the reason for its action below. Denied [J Assessed Value Changed From: I 170,500 Jo: [ | Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board Chairperson:f [yes [1 no 5 Member: [sei ves [1 wo Member: jd p YES Initials Reason for Board Action: The Board reviewed comparable sales and properties and determined the assessment is accurate and equitable. if you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative assessed value, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the Michigan Tax Tribunal at PO Box 30232, Lansing Mi 48909. Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real, Commercial Personal, Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be appealed by May 31. Agricultural Real, Residential Real, Timber - Cut Over Real, and Agricultural Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. The petition must be filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www.michigan.govitaxtrib, 2. TENTATIVE TAXABLE VALUE Diopositon by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. ’ Denied [[] Tentative Taxable Value Changed From: 147.900 To: (See attached L-4035A) Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board. yy > Chairperson: SY ves J no A Member: x ves [1] no. Member: B YES Ihitials J! als Reason for Board Aefon. ame as above. If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative taxable value, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the Michigan Tax Tribunal at PO Box 30232, Lansing MI 48909, Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real, Commercial Personal, Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be appealed by May 31. Agricultural Real, Residential Real, Timber - Cut Over Real, and Agricultural Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. The petition must be filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunat form or a form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www.michigan.govitaxtrib. 3. CLASSIFICATION. ie Disposition by Board of Reviéww.The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. O Denied MO Classification Changed From: 407 To: Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board, Chairperson: [_} YES [J] NO Member: [J] ves [] no Member: [1] ves [J no___ ) Initials Initials Initials Reason for Board Action: 1 you cisagres with fhe desion of the Boa of Review regarding classification, vou may appeal by sending Form 2107 ihe Shai Tax Conmmoissing, FO ous 30-71, Lansing ‘ IM] 48902 by June 30. 4. QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY EXEMPTION Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. [l Exemption Request Denied 0 Exemption percent modified from % To: % Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board. Chairperson: [yes [J No ____ Member: [1 Yes [Ino ____ Member [J ves [Ino
Page 5
Mae 00!
Michi_~n Department of Treasury
618 (Rev. 12-25)
Petition to Board of Review L-4035
This form is issued under the authority of PA. 206 of 1893, as amended. Filing is voluntary: however, you may not appeal fo the Michigan Tax Tribunal unless you first protest to the Board of Review, except when the property is classified as commercial real, industrial real, or developmental real. You may not appeal properly classification to the State Tax Commission unless you first protest to the Board of Review,
TO BE COMPLETED BY OWNER OR OWNER'S AGENT
Owner's Name (Please Print or Type) ji Petitioner's Name (if Other than Owner. Please Print or Type)
Gordons 4 4 Toye Va Kom po
Township ar City County Year of Appeal
DIP I nE Kens 202g
The undersigned protests the assessed value and/or the tentative taxable value and/or the property classification and/or the qualified
agricultural property exemption of the following described property:
Properly Identified (Parcel code required. Property address and legal description optional.)
SF. FE YES oY \/ E RECE!
MAR = 6 2026
HIP
Protested Item: |X] Assessed Value [4 Tentative [7] Taxable status [| Classification [] Quaid Kohat
Taxable Value (exemption) Property Exemption
1, PROTESTOF ASSESSMENT
Complete this section for a protest of assessed value, including assessed value changes associated with exempt status and denied or late filed personal property forms.
Assessed Value
Owner's Estimate of True Cash Value (Markel Value)
/70, soe Soo, oc
2. PROTEST OF TAXABLE VALUE
Complete this section for a protest of Taxable Value,
Reason: 1 Value of Losses Value of Additions J Poverty Exemption 0 Uncapping %
3. PROTEST OF CLASSIFICATION CC i
Complete this section for a request to change the classification. The Board of Review must make their decision regarding classification in accordance with Section 211.34¢ of the Michigan Compiled Laws. The Board of Review shall not be influenced by the effect that a particular classification has on that property's status as a homeowner's principal residence or qualified agricultural property.) :
Classification of properly on this year's assessment roll
Classification should be {check one of the following):
1 Agricultural O Industrial O Timber Cutover 0 Utility (Personal Property Only)
O Commercial J Residential 1 Developmental
4. PROTEST OF EXEMPTION FOR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY
If the assessor has denied or changed the percentage of the exemption from the 18 mills of local schoo! operating tax for qualified agricultural proper-ty, the owner may appeal this action to the March Board of Review. THE BOARD OF REVIEW HAS NO AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER OR ACT UPONTHE EXEMPTION FROM THE 18 SCHOOL OPERATING MILLS FOR HOMEOWNER'S PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE PROPERTIES.)
Percent qualified agricultural exemption granted by assessor (Enter 0 if exemption Percent qualified agricultural exemplion requested by owner (Enter 100 if fulldenied)
exemption requested)
REASON FOR PROTEST
State reason(s) for protest of assessed value and/or the tentative taxable value and/or taxable status and/or classification “andlor qualified agricultural property exemption
‘Page 6
Section 5: Why you are appealing We are appealing the 2026 assessed value and taxable value on our condominium at 351 Timber Creek Circle NW, Comstock Park, Michigan, parcel 41-09-36-455-040, in Alpine Township, Kent County. This is our home. We bought it in February 2022 and have lived in it since. We protested this assessment to the Alpine Township Board of Review in writing. We were out of state in March and could not appear in person. The Board received our protest on March 6, 2026, assigned it Petition No. M26-001, voted on it, and denied it on March 10, 2026. That decision is attached to this petition. 1. Our taxable value went up more than the law allows. Michigan law limits how much our taxable value can go up each year. Under MCL 211.27a(2), it can only rise by the inflation rate multiplier, which the State Tax Commission set at 1.027 for 2026. The one exception is if something was added to the property. Our 2025 taxable value was $117,327. Multiply that by 1.027 and you get $120,494. That is what our 2026 taxable value should have been. The Township set it at $147,800 instead. The difference is $27,406. The only thing that can account for it is additions, because losses only move the number down. | looked up four other units in Timber Creek and ran the same math on each one: 2% Timber Creek Cir $105,156 $107,995 $107,995 $107,995 $0 a Timber Creek Cir $122,998 $126,318 $126,318 $126,318 $0 Fo Timber Creek Dr | $132,689 $136,271 $136,271 $136,271 $0 Sone Timber Creek Dr | $124,235 $127,589 $127,589 $127,589 $0 351 Timber Creek Clr | $117,327 $120,494 $120,494 $147,900 $27,406
Page 7
The table also shows that the Township drops the cents instead of rounding up. That is how | arrived at $120,494 for our unit. 2. Most of what was added should not have been added. The assessor added value for three things: the finished lower level, the full bath on the lower level, and the gas fireplace. The fireplace is ours. We put it in during 2025 and pulled a permit for it. Under MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(iii) that counts as new construction, because it was not there on the previous tax day. | am not arguing about the fireplace. The Township should add whatever it is actually worth. But it has never told us what figure it used, and a gas fireplace cannot be worth $27,406 in taxable value. That would mean about $54,812 in market value. Nobody pays that for a fireplace. The finished lower level and the lower level bath are a different matter. We did not do that work. Both were already there when we bought the condo in February 2022. The finished lower level was described in the listing before the sale, Prior owners must have done work. The unit was built in 1997, and our neighbors tell us the lower level and the bath have been finished for many years, possibly since it was built. That makes them omitted property, not new construction. MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(i) covers this. It defines omitted real property as property that already existed but was left off the assessment. It also says the Township cannot use omitted property to raise taxable value unless it has a property record card or other documentation showing the property really was left off the assessment before. The law puts that burden on the Township, not on us. We ask the Township to produce the property record card for our parcel as it stood before the 2026 roll. | do not believe they can, and their own numbers are the reason. For 2025 the Township had our assessed value at $124,200, which means they thought the condo was worth $248,400. We paid $259,000 for it in February 2022. Their 2025 number was within about 4% of what we actually paid, and the finished lower level and the bath were there the whole time. Either their records already accounted for those features, in which case nothing was omitted and nothing should be added. Or their records did not account for them, in which case they still had the condo valued within 4% of the market without them, and those features cannot be worth what they are now claiming.
Page 8
3. The assessed value is higher than the condo is worth. The Township has our assessed value at $170,500 for 2026, which means they think the condo is worth about $341,000. Sales in our own development do not support that: 293 Timber Creek Cir | Jun 18, $280,000 3/25 2,057 Two fireplaces, finished Nw 2026 basement 3586 Timber Creek Dr | May 2022 | $287,900 3/25 2,041 Finished walkout lower level, gas NW #23 fireplace 3656 Timber Creek Dr | Dec 2022 | $238,750 2/25 1,954 Finished lower level, fireplace NW 351 Timber Creek Feb 2022 | $259,000 2/3 2,200 Finished walkout lower fevel, vi Cir NW (ours) bath, deck : The best comparison is 293 Timber Creek Circle. It has three bedrooms, two fireplaces and a finished basement, and it sold on June 18, 2026 for $280,000. The Township has that same unit assessed at $173,200 for 2026, which comes to $346,400 in market value. It sold for 24% less than that a few weeks later. 3656 and 3586 Timber Creek Drive both already had a finished lower level and a fireplace when they sold, and both sold at or below what we paid for our unit. We believe the true cash value of our condo is no more than $300,000, which puts the assessed value at $150,000. That is the same figure | gave the Board of Review in March, and the sales above are the reason | have not changed it. 4. What we are asking for. We ask the Tribunal to: (1) Lower our 2026 taxable value to $120,494, plus only whatever the Township can show the 2025 gas fireplace is actually worth. (2) Lower our 2026 true cash value to $300,000 and our assessed value to $150,000.
Page 9
“Gordon Ryskamp pe 351 Timber Creek Cir. NW Comstock Park, MI 49321" Mier CAN Thx TRIBuNAL Received Po Box JeR32 J Loansiné, 77! Lh aE ET FHA IE TR RIT FT A