Astera Credit Union, Petitioner Vs. City Of Lansing, Respondent

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760 

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906 

Astera Credit Union, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002338 

 

City of Lansing, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Joshua M. Wease 

 

 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

The Tribunal has reviewed the Stipulation and finds that it comports with the mandates 

of State law.1 As a result, the Tribunal shall enter the parties’ Stipulation. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment including all 

attachments, terms and conditions is GRANTED and ADOPTED, unless otherwise 

indicated. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with maintaining the assessment 

rolls for the tax years at issue shall correct or cause the assessment rolls to be 

corrected to reflect the property’s true cash and taxable values as provided in this 

Consent Judgment within 20 days of the entry of the Consent Judgment.2 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with collecting or refunding the 

affected taxes shall collect taxes and any applicable interest or issue a refund as 

required by the Consent Judgment within 28 days of the entry of the Consent 

Judgment. If a refund is warranted, it shall, unless otherwise indicated, include a 

proportionate share of any property tax administration fees paid and of penalty and 

interest paid on delinquent taxes. The refund shall also, unless otherwise indicated, 

separately indicate the amount of the taxes, fees, penalties, and interest being 

refunded. A sum determined by the Tribunal to have been unlawfully paid shall, unless 

otherwise indicated, bear interest from the date of payment to the date of judgment and 

the judgment shall bear interest to the date of its payment. A sum determined by the 

Tribunal to have been underpaid shall not bear interest for any time period prior to 28 

days after the issuance of this Consent Judgment. Pursuant to MCL 205.737, interest 

shall accrue (i) after December 31, 2013, through June 30, 2016, at the rate of 4.25%, 

(ii) after June 30, 2016, through December 31, 2016, at the rate of 4.40%, (iii) after 

December 31, 2016, through June 30, 2017, at the rate of 4.50%, (iv) after June 30, 

 

1 See MCL 211.27a. 

2 See MCL 205.755.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002338 

Page 2 of 2 

 

2017, through December 31, 2017, at the rate of 4.70%, (v) after December 31, 2017, 

through June 30, 2018, at the rate of 5.15%, (vi) after June 30, 2018, through December 

31, 2018, at the rate of 5.41%, (vii) after December 31, 2018, through June 30, 2019, at 

the rate of 5.9%, (viii) after June 30, 2019, through December 31, 2019, at the rate of 

6.39%, (ix) after December 31, 2019, through June 30, 2020, at the rate of 6.40%, (x) 

after June 30 2020, through December 31, 2020, at the rate of 5.63%, (xi) after 

December 31, 2020, through June 30, 2022, at the rate of 4.25%, (xii) after June 30, 

2022, through December 31, 2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (xiii) after December 31, 2022, 

through June 30, 2023, at the rate of 5.65%, (xiv) after June 30, 2023, through 

December 31, 2023, at the rate of 8.25%, (xv) after December 31, 2023, through June 

30, 2024, at the rate of 9.30%, (xvi) after June 30, 2024, through December 31, 2024, at 

the rate of 9.50%, (xvii) after December 31, 2024, through June 30, 2025, at the rate of 

9.47%, and (xviii) after June 30, 2025, through December 31, 2025, at the rate of 

8.66%. 

 

This Consent Judgment resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. 

 

See docket look up for a copy of stipulation and for any possible refund paragraph. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

Entered: October 30, 2025 

gc 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

RECEIVED 

0CT 29 2025 

aly 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

PROPERTY TAX 

CONSULTANTS 

YOUR PROPERTY TAX EXPERTS SINCE 1989 

October 21, 2025 

Clerk of the Court 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

RE: 

Property Tax Consultants for Astera Credit Union 

Parcel # 33-01-01-33-452-011, v. City of Lansing 

Docket # 25-002338 

Dear Clerk, 

Regarding the above matter, enclosed please find the STIPULATION TO CONSENT 

JUDGEMENT fully authorized by the petitioner and the respondent. 

We hope that this meets with the approval of the Michigan Tax Tribunal. 

Very truly yours, 

gent for Astera Credit Union 

JA/ac 

Cc: Assessor, City of Lansing

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEMS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Property Tax Consultants for: Astera Credit Union, 

Petitioner, 

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002338 

City of Lansing, 

Respondent. 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

AND CONSENT JUDGMENT 

1. 

The case is pending in the 

_x__ 

Entire Tribunal OR Small Claims 

Division. 

2. 

Property Parcel No: 33-01-01-33-452-011. 

(If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel 

Stipulation Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

3. 

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 

2025 

$2,146,200 

$1,073,100 

$866,040 

4. 

The values for the property identified above as stipulated by the parties for 

settlement purposes are:

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 25-002338 

Consent Judgment, Page 2 of 2 

5. 

Ifstipulation addresses tax years other than the tax year originally appealed 

or tax years added through motions to amend that have been granted by the 

Tribunal, list the separate facts upon which the parties rely to invoke the 

Tribunal’s authority over those tax year or years (attach additional page if 

necessary): 

6. 

List separately any special terms or conditions being proposed by the parties 

that would affect the execution of this Consent Judgment including, but not 

limited to, the joint payment of the refund, the waiver of interest, etc. (attach 

additional page if necessary): 

Signature of Potifol's Autusoed Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

Jon Na Tax Consultants 

Date: 

lo [6 [a5 

Signature of Regpondent’s 

dlithorizgl 

representative: 

Assessor, City of Lansing 

Date: 

JO-~ 14-75 

[Consent Judgment will be prepared by the Tribunal.]

Page 4

obs 

PROPERTY TAX 

CONSULTANTS 

Ave SE 

5 

s, 

MI 48506 

@ 

269.366.0300 

Clerk of the Court 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, M1 48909 

Jeitiijhegpgdegiyhy pad jjiiigjeiiadpadjijejeis 

ij 

ij

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

RECEIVED 

0CT 29 2025 

aly 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

PROPERTY TAX 

CONSULTANTS 

YOUR PROPERTY TAX EXPERTS SINCE 1989 

October 21, 2025 

Clerk of the Court 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

RE: 

Property Tax Consultants for Astera Credit Union 

Parcel # 33-01-01-33-452-011, v. City of Lansing 

Docket # 25-002338 

Dear Clerk, 

Regarding the above matter, enclosed please find the STIPULATION TO CONSENT 

JUDGEMENT fully authorized by the petitioner and the respondent. 

We hope that this meets with the approval of the Michigan Tax Tribunal. 

Very truly yours, 

gent for Astera Credit Union 

JA/ac 

Cc: Assessor, City of Lansing

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEMS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Property Tax Consultants for: Astera Credit Union, 

Petitioner, 

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002338 

City of Lansing, 

Respondent. 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

AND CONSENT JUDGMENT 

1. 

The case is pending in the 

_x__ 

Entire Tribunal OR Small Claims 

Division. 

2. 

Property Parcel No: 33-01-01-33-452-011. 

(If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel 

Stipulation Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

3. 

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 

2025 

$2,146,200 

$1,073,100 

$866,040 

4. 

The values for the property identified above as stipulated by the parties for 

settlement purposes are:

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 25-002338 

Consent Judgment, Page 2 of 2 

5. 

Ifstipulation addresses tax years other than the tax year originally appealed 

or tax years added through motions to amend that have been granted by the 

Tribunal, list the separate facts upon which the parties rely to invoke the 

Tribunal’s authority over those tax year or years (attach additional page if 

necessary): 

6. 

List separately any special terms or conditions being proposed by the parties 

that would affect the execution of this Consent Judgment including, but not 

limited to, the joint payment of the refund, the waiver of interest, etc. (attach 

additional page if necessary): 

Signature of Potifol's Autusoed Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

Jon Na Tax Consultants 

Date: 

lo [6 [a5 

Signature of Regpondent’s 

dlithorizgl 

representative: 

Assessor, City of Lansing 

Date: 

JO-~ 14-75 

[Consent Judgment will be prepared by the Tribunal.]

Page 4

obs 

PROPERTY TAX 

CONSULTANTS 

Ave SE 

5 

s, 

MI 48506 

@ 

269.366.0300 

Clerk of the Court 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, M1 48909 

Jeitiijhegpgdegiyhy pad jjiiigjeiiadpadjijejeis 

ij 

ij

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

ACTING DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N GRAND RIVER AVE, LANSING, MI 48906

NOTICE OF AUGUST 17 - 31, 2026 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER 

OF PROCEDURE

Astera Credit Union,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

City Of Lansing,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 25-002338

Please be advised that 25-002338 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General 

Call commencing August 17, 2026. Parties will be notified at least one week before 

they are scheduled to appear.

Parties are required to submit a valuation disclosure or written notification that no 

valuation disclosure is required by the dates indicated herein. A “valuation disclosure” 

is defined as documentary or other tangible evidence in a property tax proceeding that a 

party relies upon in support of the party’s contention as to the true cash value of the 

subject property or any portion thereof and contains the party’s value conclusion and 

data, valuation methodology, analysis or reasoning, as provided by TTR 237.

In accordance with MCR 1.109(D)(9), as of January 1, 2021, the responsibility for 

excluding or redacting personal identifying information (PII) from all documents filed with 

or offered to the Tribunal rests solely with the parties and their attorneys. The 

Tribunal is not responsible for or required to review, redact, or screen documents at the 

time of filing for PII whether filed electronically or on paper. Please refer to the 

Tribunal’s FAQs and Glossary of Terms pages on our website for more information.

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall:

a. If no valuation disclosure is required, notify the Tribunal and the opposing parties 

in writing within 21 days of entry of this Order that no valuation disclosure is 

being filed. The notice shall indicate the reason or reasons why no valuation 

disclosure is required (i.e., exemption claim, etc.).

b. If a valuation disclosure is required, file and exchange their valuation disclosures 

by April 20, 2026. Valuation disclosures will not be admitted into evidence unless 

disclosed and furnished in accordance with this Order (even though admissible) 

except upon a finding of good cause by the Tribunal.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002338

Page 2 of 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file and exchange their Prehearing 

Statements by April 20, 2026. Witnesses will not be allowed to testify unless disclosed 

in the Prehearing Statement and the Prehearing Statement is furnished in accordance 

with this Order except upon a finding of good cause by the Tribunal. Failure to file the 

Prehearing Statement may result in holding a party or parties in default, as provided by 

TTR 237. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Pre-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is CLOSED on 

April 20, 2026, which means all discovery has been requested, all motions to compel 

have been filed and resolved, and all requested or ordered discovery has been 

exchanged by that date. Discovery relative to the valuation disclosure prepared for 

purposes of litigating this case or the valuation expert that prepared that valuation 

disclosure is not permitted during “Pre-Valuation Disclosure” discovery.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Post-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is CLOSED on 

August 17, 2026, which means all discovery has been requested, all motions to compel 

have been filed and resolved, and all requested or ordered discovery has been 

exchanged by that date. “Post-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is limited to the 

opposing party’s valuation disclosure, the opposing party’s valuation expert, and the 

witnesses identified on the opposing party’s Prehearing Statement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if this case is not scheduled for a date certain 

Prehearing Conference during the time frame indicated it may be scheduled for a date 

certain Prehearing Conference at any time subsequent to the completion date for this 

Prehearing General Call. Parties will, however, be notified in writing approximately one 

week before they are scheduled to appear. 

By:_____________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: September 16, 2025 

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

ACTING DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N GRAND RIVER AVE, LANSING, MI 48906

NOTICE OF AUGUST 17 - 31, 2026 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER 

OF PROCEDURE

Astera Credit Union,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

City Of Lansing,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 25-002338

Please be advised that 25-002338 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General 

Call commencing August 17, 2026. Parties will be notified at least one week before 

they are scheduled to appear.

Parties are required to submit a valuation disclosure or written notification that no 

valuation disclosure is required by the dates indicated herein. A “valuation disclosure” 

is defined as documentary or other tangible evidence in a property tax proceeding that a 

party relies upon in support of the party’s contention as to the true cash value of the 

subject property or any portion thereof and contains the party’s value conclusion and 

data, valuation methodology, analysis or reasoning, as provided by TTR 237.

In accordance with MCR 1.109(D)(9), as of January 1, 2021, the responsibility for 

excluding or redacting personal identifying information (PII) from all documents filed with 

or offered to the

Page 4

MTT

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

RECEIVED 

JUL 08 205 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

ASTERA CREDIT UNION 

Petitioner 

Vv 

MOAHR Docket 25-002338 

Parcel No. 33-01-01-33-452-011 

CITY OF LANSING, 

Respondent 

Jennifer Czeiszperger, MMAO 

City Assessor 

124 W. Michigan Avenue 

3rd Floor, City Hall 

Lansing, MI 48933 

(517) 483-4136 

Jennifer.czeiszperger@lansingmi.gov 

RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S PETITION 

AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

RESPONDENT, the City of Lansing, through its Assessor, Jennifer Czeiszperger, hereby 

responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition 

as follows: 

1. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1 

2. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 

3. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3.

Page 2

MTT Docket # 25-002338 

7. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 7. 

8. 

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 for the reason that it is untrue. In further 

answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted 

amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by law, were correctly 

determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values and 

Respondent’s mode of assessment are constitutional. 

10. 

The 2025 values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board 

of Review are: 

Parcel Number 

True Cash Value 

| Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

33-01-01-33-452-011 | $2,146,200 

$1,073,100 

$866,040 

Respondent contends that the 2025 values for the property identified above are: 

Parcel Number 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

33-01-01-33-452-011 | $2,146,200 

$1,073,100 

$866,040 

The 2025 values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

Parcel Number 

True Cash Value | Assessed Value 

| Taxable Value 

33-01-01-33-452-011 

$0 

$0 

$0 

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 10 for the reason that it is untrue. In 

further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted 

amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by law, were correctly 

determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values and 

Respondent’s mode of assessment are constitutional. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Lansing respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal 

dismiss the Petition; affirm Respondent’s assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state 

equalization., and award Respondent its cost and attorney fees.

Page 3

MTT Docket # 25-002338 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Respondent City of Lansing will rely on the 

following affirmative defenses: 

A. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action 

against the Respondent and to support Petitioner’s claim for relief. 

B. 

The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the 

property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767 (1981). 

C. 

Petitioner has the burden of establishing the property’s true cash value. See MCL 

205.737(3) and Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1974). 

B. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, 

discrimination, and application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the Respondent or 

its agents. 

C. 

Petitioner fails to allege the mode and method of assessing the subject property 

failed to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all properties within the 

Respondent’s taxing unit for the tax year in questions. 

D. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts needed to establish the true 

cash value, assessed and taxable value for the subject property. 

E. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that 

the assessed value of the subject property, as equalized, is at a level other than 50% and it also 

fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the subject property’s

Page 4

MTT Docket # 25-002338 

G. 

Petitioner asks this Tribunal to grant it illegal preference by application of a method 

of assessment different from that utilized in the assessment of other properties in the Respondent’s 

taxing unit, thereby shifting an otherwise equitable tax burden to the City’s remaining taxpayers. 

H. 

Petitioner, in essence, seeks by petition to challenge the process of county and state 

equalization as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. 

I 

Any decrease in the value of Petitioner’s property was a result of its own intentional 

acts and/or negligence and cannot be allowed to reduce Petitioner’s otherwise equitable tax burden. 

1. 

Respondent 

has 

properly 

and 

lawfully 

assessed 

Petitioner’s 

property 

and 

established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 

K. 

Respondent reserves the right to add affirmative defenses which may become 

known during the course of informal or formal discovery proceedings. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent denies that the Petitioner 

is entitled 

to any relief and 

respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessed and taxable values for the year under appeal 

be affirmed and the Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that the Respondent be 

granted all attorney fees and cost wrongfully sustained. 

OFFICE OF THE CITY ASSESSOR 

malts 

enfpifer Czelszperger (MMAO/ 

” 

City Assessor, City of Lansing 

3d Floor, City Hall 

124 W Michigan Ave 

Lansing, Michigan 48933 

Telephone: (517) 483-4136

Page 5

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

ASTERA CREDIT UNION 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No.25-002338 

CITY OF LANSING 

, 

Respondent(s) 

PROOF OF SERVICE

Page 6

City of

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

RECEIVED 

AW 

JUL 10 2025 

PROPERTY TAX 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

CONSULTANTS 

YOUR PROPERTY TAX EXPERTS SINCE 1989 

July 8, 2025 

RE: 

Notice of Docket Number for Entire Tribunal petition at Michigan Tax Tribunal 

MTT Docket # __ 25-003 33) 

Enclosed please find a copy of the petition containing the docket number assigned by the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal, proof of service and copies of additional required documentation for the 

above captioned matter. 

Very truly yours, 

Co 

pono 

JA/ac 

Enclosures

Page 2

RECEIVED 

ala 

MAY 21 2025 

PROPERTY TAX 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

CONSULTANTS 

YOUR PROPERTY TAX EXPERTS SINCE 1989 

May 21, 2025 

Clerk of the Court 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

RE: 

Property Tax Consultants for Astera Credit Union 

Parcel # 33-01-01-33-452-011, v. City of Lansing 

Dear Clerk, 

Enclosed please find Petitioner's Petition and Proof of Service for filing in the above captioned matter. 

Also enclosed is our check in the amount of $400.00 representing the filing fee in this matter. 

Enclosures

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Property Tax Consultants for Astera Credit Union. 

MTT Docket No. 25-002338 

v 

City of Lansing, 

PETITION 

Petitioner, Astera Credit Union, through their agent, Property Tax Consultants, petitions this Tribunal as 

follows: 

1. 

Petitioner is Astera Credit Union whose principal office or address is 111 S Waverly Rd, 

Lansing, MI 48917. 

2. 

Respondent, City of Lansing, establishes, levies and collects the property taxes on the subject 

property. 

3. 

The property identification is # 33-01-01-33-452-011 and the subject property address is 301 E 

Jolly Rd, Lansing, MI 48910. The property is classified as commercial real property. Petitioner's 

Property is presently used for commercial. Petitioner believes that Petitioner’s Property was 

originally designed to be used for commercial. 

4. 

The property is located in Ingham County and the school districts of Lansing Public and the 

Ingham Intermediate School District and Lansing Community College. 

5. 

This matter involves issues relating to the true cash and taxable values for the parcel referenced 

above for the 2025 tax year. 

6. 

For tax year 2025, Respondent’s Board of Review determined an assessed value of $1,073,100 a 

state equalized value of $1,073,100 and a taxable value of $866,040. 

7. 

Petitioner is filing directly with the Michigan Tax Tribunal. 

8. 

The 2025 values set by the respondent are invalid and unlawful as they exceed the amount 

allowed by Michigan law and the Michigan Constitution and do not reflect the true cash value of 

the fee simple interest as of the applicable tax date. 

9. 

Petitioner contends the true cash value of the subject property is $1,400,000 which would yield a 

state equalized value of $700,000 and the taxable value is $700,000. The amount in contention is

Page 4

Dated: May 21, 2025 

By: 

Jon aiswold, Property Tax Consultants 

861 Pinecrest Ave SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49506 

269-366-0300 

| jack@skylinepropertytax.com

Page 5

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Property Tax Consultants for: Astera Credit Union 

Petitioner 

v 

PETITION 

MTT Docket # 25-002338 

City of Lansing 

Respondent 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Jon Aylsworth, deposes and says that on July 8, 2025 he served a copy of the Petition relative to the 

above-captioned matter upon: 

Assessor, City of Lansing 

124 W Michigan Ave, Lansing, MI 48933 

Clerk, City of Lansing 

124 

W Michigan Ave, Lansing, MI 48933 

Via United States First-Class mail with proper postage affixed thereto. 

Clerk, Ingham County 

341 S Jefferson, Mason, MI 48854 

Director of Equalization, Ingham County 

P.O. Box 319, Mason, MI 48854 

Secretary of School Board, Lansing Public School District 

519 West Kalamazoo Street, Lansing, MI 48933 

Secretary of School Board, Ingham Intermediate School District 

2630 W Howell Rd, Mason, MI 48854 

State Treasurer, Michigan Department of Treasury 

430 W. Allegan, Lansing, MI 48922 

Clerk of the Court, Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232, Lansing, MI 48909 

0

Page 6

Cm 

Grand Rapids, MI 49606 

unal 

ATTN: Clerk of the Court 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

SE 

1 

PROPERTY TAX 

CONSULTANTS 

YOUR PROPERTY TAX EXPERTS SINCE 1989 

May 21, 2025 

RECEIVED 

MAY 21 2025 (jy. T- 

Clerk of the Court 

A D 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

MICHIGAN TA 

P.O. Box 30232 

X TRIBUNAL 

Lansing, MI 48909 

RE: 

Property Tax Consultants for Astera Credit Union 

Parcel # 33-01-01-33-452-011, v. City of Lansing 

Dear Clerk, 

Enclosed please find Petitioner's Petition and Proof of Service for filing in the above captioned matter. 

Also enclosed is our check in the amount of $400.00 representing the filing fee in this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

Enclosures

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Property Tax Consultants for Astera Credit Union, 

v 

MTT Docket No. 

City of Lansing, 

PETITION 

Petitioner, Astera Credit Union, through their agent, Property Tax Consultants, petitions this Tribunal as 

follows: 

Petitioner is Astera Credit Union whose principal office or address is 

111 8 Waverly Rd, 

Lansing, MI 48917. 

Respondent, City of Lansing, establishes, levies and collects the property taxes on the subject 

property. 

The property identification is # 33-01-01-33-452-011 and the subject property address is 301 E 

Jolly Rd, Lansing, MI 48910. The property is classified as commercial real property. Petitioner’s 

Property is presently used for commercial. Petitioner believes that Petitioner’s Property was 

originally designed to be used for commercial. 

The property is located in Ingham County and the school districts of Lansing Public and the 

Ingham Intermediate School District and Lansing Community College. 

This matter involves issues relating to the true cash and taxable values for the parcel referenced 

above for the 2025 tax year. 

For tax year 2025, Respondent’s Board of Review determined an assessed value of $1,073,100 a 

state equalized value of $1,073,100 and a taxable value of $866,040. 

Petitioner is filing directly with the Michigan Tax Tribunal. 

The 2025 values set by the respondent are invalid and unlawful as they exceed the amount 

allowed by Michigan law and the Michigan Constitution and do not reflect the true cash value of 

the fee simple interest as of the applicable tax date. 

Petitioner contends the true cash value of the subject property is $1,400,000 which would yield a 

state equalized value of $700,000 and the taxable value is $700,000. The amount in contention is

Page 3

Dated: May 21, 2025 

By: 

7 

Jon Ayléworth, Property Tax Consultants 

861 Pinecrest Ave SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49506 

269-366-0300 

| jack@skylinepropertytax.com

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Property Tax Consultants for: Astera Credit Union 

Petitioner 

A% 

PETITION 

City of Lansing 

Respondent 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Jon Aylsworth, deposes and says that on May 21, 2025 he served a copy of the Petition relative to the 

above-captioned matter upon: 

Clerk of the Court, Michigan Tax Tribunal 

Via Hand Delivery 

I 

Ja Alsworth

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

Astera Credit Union, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002338

City Of Lansing, 

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that an Entire Tribunal petition has been filed and the above-noted 

docket number has been assigned to that petition. This docket number shall be noted 

on the petition and the petition shall be served within 45 days of the issuance of 

this Notice, as required by TTR 227 and MCL 205.735a, even if the petition was served 

when filed. A proof of service shall also be filed with the Tribunal within 45 days of the 

issuance of this Notice evidencing the service of the petition. 

If you submitted a proof of service with the petition, you must still serve the petition and 

file a second proof of service including the docket number, pursuant to this Notice. 

Failure to serve the petition and file a proof of service within 45 days of the issuance of 

the Notice may result in the dismissal of this case.

Under TTR 235(1), “[t]he respondent shall file an answer or responsive motion within 28 

days after the date of service of the petition with noted docket number.” Failure to do so 

will result in Respondent being placed in default.

The docket number also needs to be noted on all other documents submitted in this 

case. Further, the assignment of the docket number does not mean that the Tribunal 

has authority over the petition or that the petition complies with statutory requirements 

or the Tribunal’s rules.

By: __Tribunal Clerk________

Entered: June 10, 2025

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

SE 

1 

PROPERTY TAX 

CONSULTANTS 

YOUR PROPERTY TAX EXPERTS SINCE 1989 

May 21, 2025 

RECEIVED 

MAY 21 2025 (jy. T- 

Clerk of the Court 

A D 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

MICHIGAN TA 

P.O. Box 30232 

X TRIBUNAL 

Lansing, MI 48909 

RE: 

Property Tax Consultants for Astera Credit Union 

Parcel # 33-01-01-33-452-011, v. City of Lansing 

Dear Clerk, 

Enclosed please find Petitioner's Petition and Proof of Service for filing in the above captioned matter. 

Also enclosed is our check in the amount of $400.00 representing the filing fee in this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

Enclosures

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Property Tax Consultants for Astera Credit Union, 

v 

MTT Docket No. 

City of Lansing, 

PETITION 

Petitioner, Astera Credit Union, through their agent, Property Tax Consultants, petitions this Tribunal as 

follows: 

Petitioner is Astera Credit Union whose principal office or address is 

111 8 Waverly Rd, 

Lansing, MI 48917. 

Respondent, City of Lansing, establishes, levies and collects the property taxes on the subject 

property. 

The property identification is # 33-01-01-33-452-011 and the subject property address is 301 E 

Jolly Rd, Lansing, MI 48910. The property is classified as commercial real property. Petitioner’s 

Property is presently used for commercial. Petitioner believes that Petitioner’s Property was 

originally designed to be used for commercial. 

The property is located in Ingham County and the school districts of Lansing Public and the 

Ingham Intermediate School District and Lansing Community College. 

This matter involves issues relating to the true cash and taxable values for the parcel referenced 

above for the 2025 tax year. 

For tax year 2025, Respondent’s Board of Review determined an assessed value of $1,073,100 a 

state equalized value of $1,073,100 and a taxable value of $866,040. 

Petitioner is filing directly with the Michigan Tax Tribunal. 

The 2025 values set by the respondent are invalid and unlawful as they exceed the amount 

allowed by Michigan law and the Michigan Constitution and do not reflect the true cash value of 

the fee simple interest as of the applicable tax date. 

Petitioner contends the true cash value of the subject property is $1,400,000 which would yield a 

state equalized value of $700,000 and the taxable value is $700,000. The amount in contention is

Page 3

Dated: May 21, 2025 

By: 

7 

Jon Ayléworth, Property Tax Consultants 

861 Pinecrest Ave SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49506 

269-366-0300 

| jack@skylinepropertytax.com

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Property Tax Consultants for: Astera Credit Union 

Petitioner 

A% 

PETITION 

City of Lansing 

Respondent 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Jon Aylsworth, deposes and says that on May 21, 2025 he served a copy of the Petition relative to the 

above-captioned matter upon: 

Clerk of the Court, Michigan Tax Tribunal 

Via Hand Delivery 

I 

Ja Alsworth

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.