Full record / 260521 Petition 6465 Millennium.pdf

260521 Petition 6465 Millennium.pdf

Eyde Ironpoint LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Delta Respondent · 26-001662-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.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

_______________________________________________ 

 

EYDE IRONPOINT, LLC, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-_______ 

DELTA CHARTER TOWNSHIP, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

______________________________/ 

 

 

Michael F. Matheson (P52997) 

Matheson Law Firm 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

200 Woodland Pass, Suite F 

East Lansing, MI 48823 

(517) 993-6699 

 

Mark K. Clouse (P38513) 

Co-Counsel for Petitioner 

300 S. Washington Sq, Suite 400 

Lansing, MI 48933 

(517) 512 6834 

clouse@eyde.com 

 

______________________________/ 

 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

 

1. 

Property Parcel No: 040-022-200-075-00. 

 

2. 

The property identified above is X real __ personal. 

 

3. 

The property identified above is classified as Commercial-Improved. 

 

4. 

If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to 

Respondent’s 

 March 

 July 

 December Board of Review. 

 

5. 

The property at issue is located in Eaton County. The property address is: 6465 

Millennium Dr, Lansing, MI 48917.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-______ 

Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition 

Page 2 of 3 

 

 

 

 

6. 

The assessment at issue was established by the (applicable local governmental 

unit): Delta Charter Township. 

 

7. 

Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 300 S Washington Sq, 

Suite 400, Lansing, MI 48933. 

 

8. 

This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable): 

XX the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values 

___ 

the property or properties’ taxable value only 

If the property or properties’ taxable value is at issue, is there a dispute as 

to the value of an addition or loss? ___ Yes X No 

___ 

uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment 

___ 

the property or the properties’ exemption from ad valorem taxation 

under MCL ______ 

 

9. 

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

 

10. 

The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board 

of Review are: 

 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2026 

$1,919,400 

$959,700 

$959,700 

 

11. 

Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: 

 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2026 

$1,500,000 

$750,000 

$750,000 

 

12. 

The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2026 

$419,400 

$209,700 

$209,700 

 

13. 

Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): 

Determine the correct true cash value and lawfully assess the property in 

accordance with Michigan law. Petitioner further requests its costs, interest and 

reasonable attorney fees.

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 26-______ 

Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition 

Page 3 of 3 

 

 

 

 

 

14. 

List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief 

requested (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

The assessment by Respondent of the subject project is arbitrary and 

discriminatory, based on the wrong principles, and otherwise unlawful as being 

contrary to the General Property Tax Act and Tax Tribunal Act for the following 

reasons: 

 

a. 

Respondent has failed to identify the nature of the property being assessed; 

 

b. 

The subject property is assessed in an amount greater than 50% of its true 

cash value; 

 

c. 

Respondent did not assess the subject property taking into account the 

accepted methods of determining true cash value; 

 

d. 

The subject property is subject to restrictions, and said restrictions severely 

restrict the market value of the project. However, the restrictions were not 

taken into account by Respondent in making the assessment, even though 

Respondent was clearly required to do so, pursuant to Michigan law; and 

 

e. 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, and 

the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against 

Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal 

protection and due process of law. 

 

Signature of Petitioner’s Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

 

/s/ Michael F. Matheson 

 

Michael F. Matheson (P52997) 

 

Address: 

Matheson Law Firm 

 

 

 

 

 

200 Woodland Pass, Suite F 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

East Lansing, MI 48823 

 

 

Email Address: michael@mathesonlawfirm.com 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Telephone Number: (517) 993-6699 

Date: May 23, 2026

PDF reading copy

← View full record