Autozone Development Corp., Petitioner Vs. Township Of Grand Blanc, 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 

Autozone Development Corp, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002079 

 

Grand Blanc Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

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, 2020, through June 30, 2022, at the rate of 4.25%, 

(ii) after June 30, 2022, through December 31, 2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (iii) after 

December 31, 2022, through June 30, 2023, at the rate of 5.65%, (iv) after June 30, 

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

 

1 See MCL 211.27a. 

2 See MCL 205.755.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002079 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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

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

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

8.66%, and (ix) after December 31, 2025, through June 30, 2026, at a rate of 8.48%. 

 

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: February 5, 2026 

sb 

 

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

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

AUTOZONE DEVELOPMENT CORP., 

 

 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-002079 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GRAND BLANC TOWNSHIP, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jason C. Long (P59244) 

WILLIAMS WILLIAMS RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

William E. Delzer (P68488) 

WILLIAM E. DELZER, PC 

8332 Office Park Dr., Ste. B 

Grand Blanc, MI 48439 

(810) 603-1000 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment 

 

1. 

The subject property in this appeal is located in Genesee County. 

 

2. 

The subject property in this appeal is identified as Parcel No. 12-09-526-

053, which is commonly known as 6311 S. Saginaw Street, Grand Blanc, Michigan 

48439 (the “Subject Property”). 

 

3. 

The values for the Subject Property established by Respondent’s Board 

of Review are: 

 

Year True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

 

Taxable Value 

 

2025 $1,418,600 

 

 $709,300 

 

 

 $336,329

Page 2

Page 2 

 

4. 

The values for the Subject Property as stipulated by the parties for 

settlement purposes are: 

 

Year True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

 

Taxable Value 

 

2025 $660,000 

 

 $330,000 

 

 

 $330,000 

 

 

5. 

The parties agree that all refunds shall be issued payable to Petitioner 

and delivered as follows: Williams Williams Rattner & Plunkett, PC, Attn: Jason C. 

Long, 380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300, Birmingham, Michigan 48009. 

 

Wherefore, the parties respectfully request that this honorable Tribunal enter 

a Consent Judgment revising the Subject Property’s 2025 assessment as described in 

this Stipulation. 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

WILLIAMS WILLIAMS RATTNER 

 

WILLIAM E. DELZER, PC 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

 

By: /s/ Jason C. Long 

 

 

By: /s/ William E. Delzer 

 

 Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

 

 

 William E. Delzer (P68488) 

 Jason C. Long (P59244) 

 

 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

 

Dated: February 5, 2026

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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

AUTOZONE DEVELOPMENT CORP., 

 

 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-002079 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GRAND BLANC TOWNSHIP, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jason C. Long (P59244) 

WILLIAMS WILLIAMS RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

William E. Delzer (P68488) 

WILLIAM E. DELZER, PC 

8332 Office Park Dr., Ste. B 

Grand Blanc, MI 48439 

(810) 603-1000 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment 

 

1. 

The subject property in this appeal is located in Genesee County. 

 

2. 

The subject property in this appeal is identified as Parcel No. 12-09-526-

053, which is commonly known as 6311 S. Saginaw Street, Grand Blanc, Michigan 

48439 (the “Subject Property”). 

 

3. 

The values for the Subject Property established by Respondent’s Board 

of Review are: 

 

Year True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

 

Taxable Value 

 

2025 $1,418,600 

 

 $709,300 

 

 

 $336,329

Page 2

Page 2 

 

4. 

The values for the Subject Property as stipulated by the parties for 

settlement purposes are: 

 

Year True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

 

Taxable Value 

 

2025 $660,000 

 

 $330,000 

 

 

 $330,000 

 

 

5. 

The parties agree that all refunds shall be issued payable to Petitioner 

and delivered as follows: Williams Williams Rattner & Plunkett, PC, Attn: Jason C. 

Long, 380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300, Birmingham, Michigan 48009. 

 

Wherefore, the parties respectfully request that this honorable Tribunal enter 

a Consent Judgment revising the Subject Property’s 2025 assessment as described in 

this Stipulation. 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

WILLIAMS WILLIAMS RATTNER 

 

WILLIAM E. DELZER, PC 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

 

By: /s/ Jason C. Long 

 

 

By: /s/ William E. Delzer 

 

 Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

 

 

 William E. Delzer (P68488) 

 Jason C. Long (P59244) 

 

 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

 

Dated: February 5, 2026

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

NOTICE OF JANUARY 4 - 15, 2027 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER 

OF PROCEDURE

Autozone Development Corp.,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

Township Of Grand Blanc,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 25-002079

Please be advised that 25-002079 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General 

Call commencing January 04, 2027. Unless ordered otherwise, parties will be notified 

at least 28 days before they are scheduled to appear. Scheduling will not necessarily 

occur in the order in which the cases are listed below.

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. See TTR 203 and TTR 241.

Users who file documents with the Tribunal are advised that filed documents are 

public records and will appear for public viewing on the Tribunal’s Tax Docket 

Lookup. If a user wishes to file a document for consideration by the Tribunal and 

prevent its publication on the Tax Docket Lookup, the user MUST file a Motion for 

Protective Order under MCR 2.302(C)(8). If a Protective Order is issued, documents 

covered by the order will not be published. Documents filed prior to the issuance of a 

Protective Order will be published.

In accordance with MCR 1.109(D)(9) and TTR 209, 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. A party, representative, or interested 

person (i.e. third party not part of an appeal) may request that the Tribunal redact PII 

contained in a previously filed document by submitting a Request for Redactions. The 

Request for Redactions form is available on the Entire Tribunal and Small Claims pages 

of the Tribunal’s website. 

Please refer to the Tribunal’s FAQs and Glossary of Terms pages on the Tribunal’s 

website for more information.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002079

Page 2 of 3

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 September 8, 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.

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

Statements by September 8, 2026. Witnesses, with the exception of rebuttal 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. See TTR 237. 

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

September 8, 2026, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to 

Compel have been filed, 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 

January 4, 2027, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to Compel 

have been filed, and all requested or ordered discovery has been exchanged by that 

date.

Page 3

MTT Docket No.

Page 4

ST

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

Autozone Development Corp., 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002079

Township Of Grand Blanc,

Respondent.

ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that 

Respondent was held in default on October 16, 2025, and the default has been timely 

cured. The documents curing the default can be reviewed through the docket search 

function on the Tribunal’s website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib by inputting the docket 

number and clicking on the document link next to the line item entry for the documents. 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Default is SET ASIDE.

By_________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: December 3, 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

Page 2

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

Autozone Development Corp., 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002079

Township Of Grand Blanc,

Respondent.

ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that 

Respondent was held in default on October 16, 2025, and the default has been timely 

cured. The documents curing the default can be reviewed through the docket search 

function on the Tribunal’s website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib by inputting the docket 

number and clicking on the document link next to the line item entry for the documents. 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Default is SET ASIDE.

By_________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: December 3, 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

RECEIVED 

RR 

a 

42025 

DELZER 

LEGAL 

NOY gd: 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

October 24, 2025 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.0. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

RE: 

AUTOZONE DEVELOPMENT CORP. v GRAND BLANC TOWNSHIP 

MTT DOCKET NO: 25-002079 

Dear Clerk: 

Enclosed for filing please find Respondent's Property Tax Appeal Answer and Proof of Service in the 

above referenced matter. 

Very truly yours, 

DELZER LEGAL 

William E. Delzer

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

AUTOZONE DEVELOPMENT CORP., 

Docket No. 25-002079 

Petitioner, 

Parcel No. 12-09-526-053 

vs. 

GRAND BLANC TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

Jason C. Long (59244) 

William E. Delzer (P68488) 

Williams, Williams, Rattner 

DELZER LEGAL 

& Plunkett, PC 

Attorney for Respondent 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

8332 Office Park Drive, Suite 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste 300 

Grand Blanc, MI 48439 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(810) 603-1000 

(248) 642-0333 

ANSWER TO PETITION 

NOW COMES Respondent, Grand Blanc Township, by and through their attorney 

William E. Delzer, and in response 

to the Petition in this cause, sets forth to this 

Honorable Tribunal as follows: 

1. 

That as an answer to paragraph 1 of Petition, Respondent neither admits 

nor denies the allegations contained therein and leaves Petitioner to their proofs. 

2. 

That as an answer to paragraph 2 of Petition, Respondent admits the 

allegations contained therein. 

3. 

That as an answer to paragraph 3 of Petition, Respondent neither admits 

nor denies the allegations contained therein and leaves Petitioner to their proofs. 

4. 

That as an answer to paragraph 4 of Petition, Respondent denies as untrue 

the allegations contained therein. 

5. 

That as an answer to paragraph 5 of Petition, Respondent neither admits

Page 3

8. 

That 

as answer 

to paragraph 

8 

of Petition, Respondent admits 

the 

allegations contained therein. 

9. 

That as answer to paragraph 9 of Petition, Respondent denies as untrue the 

allegations contained therein. 

10. 

That as answer to paragraph 10 of Petition, Respondent denies as untrue 

the allegations contained therein. 

11. 

That as answer to paragraph 11 of Petition, Respondent denies as untrue 

the allegations contained therein. 

12. 

That as answer to paragraph 12 of Petition, Respondent denies as untrue 

the allegations contained therein. 

13. 

That as answer to paragraph 13 of Petition, Respondent neither admits nor 

denies the allegations contained therein and leaves Petitioner to their proofs. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent denies Petitioner's prayer for relief and prays that this 

Honorable Tribunal affirm the 2025 assessment and taxable value of the subject property 

and award Respondent cots, attorney fees and any other relief that this Honorable 

Tribunal may deem appropriate. 

October 24, 2025 

Respectfully submitted, 

DELZER LEGAL 

C.. 

William E. Delzer (P68488) 

Attorney for Respondent

Page 4

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Respondent, Grand Blanc Township asserts the following affirmation defenses: 

1 

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

action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief 

2. 

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

py the property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Dev Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 

767 (1981). 

3. 

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). 

4, 

Petitioner has failed to allege that the mode and method of assessing the 

subject property fails to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all other 

properties in Respondent's taxing unit for the year in question. 

5. 

Petitioner failed to show that any factor other than fifty percent (50%) was 

applied to the true cash value of Petitioner's property, as well as others, to arrive at the 

respective assessments appearing on the roll, and also fails to allege specific and sufficient 

facts to support its allegations that the property's taxable value is improper. 

6. 

Petitioner asks the Tribunal to grant it preference by application of a self- 

chosen method of assessment contrary to the intent, purpose and law of this State. 

7. 

Petitioner, in essence, asks the Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by 

application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment of 

other properties in Respondent's taxing unit. 

8. 

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

Page 5

WHEREF

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 

Autozone Development Corp, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002079 

 

Grand Blanc Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

CORRECTED ORDER HOLDING RESPONDENT IN DEFAULT 

 

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in this case and finds that Respondent was held in 

default on September 25, 2025, for failing to file an answer. Upon further review, it was 

discovered that the Tribunal erred in the entry of this order as Respondent was never 

properly served the Order of Default. Consequently, the Tribunal finds it is appropriate 

to reissue the September 25, 2025 Order of Default. 

 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent is held in DEFAULT. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent must complete the following to cure the 

default: file an answer and proof the answer was served on Petitioner with the Tribunal. 

The foregoing must be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this Order.1 

 

Failure to comply with this order will result in Respondent being required to file a motion 

to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee). 

 

 

Entered: October 16, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

kac 

 

 

 

1 “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. 

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a 

holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal 

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002079 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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

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

Autozone Development Corp.,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002079

Township Of Grand Blanc,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that:

Respondent has failed to file an answer. As such, Respondent must file and serve an 

answer to the petition and file proof demonstrating service of the answer within 14 days 

of the entry of this order. See TTR 235 and 227. Tribunal rules and information on 

Entire Tribunal answers can be found on our website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated 

above, within 14 days of the entry of this order.i 

Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a 

motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).

By:_______________________________

Entered: September 25, 2025

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

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

i “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002079

Page 2 of 6

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a 

holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal 

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5)

Page 3

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

Autozone Development Corp.,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002079

Township Of Grand Blanc,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that:

Respondent has failed to file an answer. As such, Respondent must file and serve an 

answer to the petition and file proof demonstrating service of the answer within 14 days 

of the entry of this order. See TTR 235 and 227. Tribunal rules and information on 

Entire Tribunal answers can be found on our website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated 

above, within 14 days of the entry of this order.ii 

Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a 

motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).

By:_______________________________

Entered: September 25, 2025

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

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

ii “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or

Page 4

MTT

Page 5

ST

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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

AUTOZONE DEVELOPMENT CORP., 

Petitioner, 

\2 

Docket No. 25-002079 

GRAND BLANC TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

Jason C. Long (P59244) 

Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Proof of Service of Petition and Notice of Docket Number

Page 2

Proof of Service of Petition and Notice of Docket Number 

Monica Athanas 

states that 

she personally served copies 

of the 

Entire 

Tribunal Property Tax Petition, the Notice of Docket Number, and this Proof of 

Service, on the persons listed below, by the means identified below, by placing those 

documents in duly stamped, addressed envelopes, and placing the envelopes in the 

United States mail on August 

[ 

7 

, 2025. 

PERSONS SERVED: 

Certified Mail 

Clerk 

Grand Blanc Township 

5371 S Saginaw Street 

Grand Blanc, MI 48507 

Assessor 

Grand Blanc Township 

5371 S Saginaw Street 

Grand Blanc, MI 48507 

First Class Mail 

Clerk 

Genesee County 

1101 Beach St. 

Flint MI 48502 

Director of Equalization 

Genesee County 

1101 Beach St., Room 

206 

Flint MI 48502 

Secretary of School Board 

Grand Blanc Community 

School District 

11920 South Saginaw Street 

Grand Blanc, MI 48439 

State Treasurer 

Michigan Dep’t of Treasury 

Austin Building 

430 W. Allegan 

Lansing, MI 

48922 

Menieo A¥herat) 

Monica Athanas 

This Proof of Service was signed and sworn before me on August i" , 2025. 

od 

awl,

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

Page 1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

AUTOZONE DEVELOPMENT CORP., 

 

 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 12-09-526-053 

GRAND BLANC TOWNSHIP, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jason C. Long (P59244) 

Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition 

 

Petitioner Autozone Development Corporation, by and through its attorneys, 

Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, PC, states as follows for its Entire 

Tribunal Property Tax Petition. 

The Parties 

1. 

Petitioner Autozone Development Corporation is a foreign corporation 

with its registered offices in Michigan located at 30600 Telegraph Road, Bingham 

Farms, Michigan 48025. 

2. 

Respondent Grand Blanc Township is a Michigan charter township 

with its primary offices located at 5371 S. Saginaw Street, Grand Blanc, Michigan 

48507.

Page 2

Page 2 

The Subject Property 

3. 

Petitioner is the party in interest in property identified as Parcel No. 

12-09-526-053, which is commonly known as 6311 S. Saginaw Street, Grand Blanc, 

Michigan 48439 (the “Subject Property”). 

4. 

The Subject Property is located in Genesee County and is within the 

Mason public school district. 

5. 

The Subject Property was designed to be used for, and is presently 

used for, retail purposes. 

The 2025 Property Tax Assessment 

6. 

Respondent possesses jurisdiction to assess and collect property taxes 

for the Subject Property. 

7. 

For the 2025 tax year, Respondent classified the Subject Property as 

commercial real property. 

8. 

For the 2025 tax year, Respondent established the Subject Property’s 

assessment for property taxes in the following amounts: 

True cash value 

 

Assessed value 

 

Taxable value 

$1,418,600 

 

$709,300 

 

 

$336,329 

A copy of the Notice of Assessment is attached to this Petition as Exhibit A. 

9. 

Petitioner contends that a lawful assessment of the Subject Property 

for the 2025 tax year cannot exceed the following amounts: 

True cash value 

 

Assessed value 

 

Taxable value 

 $550,000 

 

$225,000 

 

 

$225,000

Page 3

Page 3 

10. 

The amounts in dispute therefore as follows: 

True cash value 

 

Assessed value 

 

Taxable value 

 $868,600 

 

$434,300 

 

 

$111,329 

11. 

This Petition presents issues involving the Subject Property’s 

valuation for property tax assessment purposes. Petitioner does not believe that 

this Petition presents any issues arising out of “additions” or “losses” as the General 

Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq. (the “GPTA”), defines those terms, but reserves 

its right to assert issues involving losses should information supporting such issues 

become available. 

12. 

The Subject Property’s 2025 assessment (a) violates the Michigan 

Constitution, the GPTA, and other Michigan law, (b) is based on erroneous 

principles and information, (c) is based on the misapplication of valuation 

principles, and (d) otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. 

13. 

Petitioner does not assert that the Subject Property’s 2025 assessment 

is not uniform aside from the lack of uniformity resulting from Respondent 

overestimating the Subject Property’s values. 

Conclusion and Request for Relief 

 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this honorable Tribunal 

enter judgment revising the Subject Property’s 2025 assessment to amounts that do 

not exceed the values set forth in Paragraph 9 of this Petition and granting

Page 4

Page 4 

Petitioner all other relief to which it is entitled under Michigan law. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILLIAMS WILLIAMS RATTNER 

 

 

 

 

 

 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Jason C. Long 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Jason C. Long (P59244) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

Dated: May 31, 2025 

 

 

Attorneys for Petitioner

Page 5

Exhibit A

Page 6

THIS

IS

NOT A TAX BILL

L-4400

lift

PARCEL IDENTIFICATION

12-09-526-053

PARCEL NUMBER:

MAR 0 4 2025

PROPERTY ADDRESS:

WILSON & FRANCO

OWNER'S NAME & ADDRESS/PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL:

ACCORDING TO MCL 211.34c THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS:

Commercial

201

Commercial

201

PRIOR YEAR'S CLASSIFICATION:

1.

TAXABLE VALUE:

10,112

2. ASSESSED VALUE:

-3,600

1.000

-3,600

709,300

The 2025 Inflation rate Multiplier is: 1.031

Questions regarding the Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification may be directed to the Following:

March Board of Review Appeal Information. The Board of Review will meet at the

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

Autozone Development Corp., 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002079

Township Of Grand Blanc, 

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: August 8, 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

Page 1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

AUTOZONE DEVELOPMENT CORP., 

 

 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 12-09-526-053 

GRAND BLANC TOWNSHIP, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jason C. Long (P59244) 

Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition 

 

Petitioner Autozone Development Corporation, by and through its attorneys, 

Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, PC, states as follows for its Entire 

Tribunal Property Tax Petition. 

The Parties 

1. 

Petitioner Autozone Development Corporation is a foreign corporation 

with its registered offices in Michigan located at 30600 Telegraph Road, Bingham 

Farms, Michigan 48025. 

2. 

Respondent Grand Blanc Township is a Michigan charter township 

with its primary offices located at 5371 S. Saginaw Street, Grand Blanc, Michigan 

48507.

Page 2

Page 2 

The Subject Property 

3. 

Petitioner is the party in interest in property identified as Parcel No. 

12-09-526-053, which is commonly known as 6311 S. Saginaw Street, Grand Blanc, 

Michigan 48439 (the “Subject Property”). 

4. 

The Subject Property is located in Genesee County and is within the 

Mason public school district. 

5. 

The Subject Property was designed to be used for, and is presently 

used for, retail purposes. 

The 2025 Property Tax Assessment 

6. 

Respondent possesses jurisdiction to assess and collect property taxes 

for the Subject Property. 

7. 

For the 2025 tax year, Respondent classified the Subject Property as 

commercial real property. 

8. 

For the 2025 tax year, Respondent established the Subject Property’s 

assessment for property taxes in the following amounts: 

True cash value 

 

Assessed value 

 

Taxable value 

$1,418,600 

 

$709,300 

 

 

$336,329 

A copy of the Notice of Assessment is attached to this Petition as Exhibit A. 

9. 

Petitioner contends that a lawful assessment of the Subject Property 

for the 2025 tax year cannot exceed the following amounts: 

True cash value 

 

Assessed value 

 

Taxable value 

 $550,000 

 

$225,000 

 

 

$225,000

Page 3

Page 3 

10. 

The amounts in dispute therefore as follows: 

True cash value 

 

Assessed value 

 

Taxable value 

 $868,600 

 

$434,300 

 

 

$111,329 

11. 

This Petition presents issues involving the Subject Property’s 

valuation for property tax assessment purposes. Petitioner does not believe that 

this Petition presents any issues arising out of “additions” or “losses” as the General 

Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq. (the “GPTA”), defines those terms, but reserves 

its right to assert issues involving losses should information supporting such issues 

become available. 

12. 

The Subject Property’s 2025 assessment (a) violates the Michigan 

Constitution, the GPTA, and other Michigan law, (b) is based on erroneous 

principles and information, (c) is based on the misapplication of valuation 

principles, and (d) otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. 

13. 

Petitioner does not assert that the Subject Property’s 2025 assessment 

is not uniform aside from the lack of uniformity resulting from Respondent 

overestimating the Subject Property’s values. 

Conclusion and Request for Relief 

 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this honorable Tribunal 

enter judgment revising the Subject Property’s 2025 assessment to amounts that do 

not exceed the values set forth in Paragraph 9 of this Petition and granting

Page 4

Page 4 

Petitioner all other relief to which it is entitled under Michigan law. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILLIAMS WILLIAMS RATTNER 

 

 

 

 

 

 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Jason C. Long 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Jason C. Long (P59244) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

Dated: May 31, 2025 

 

 

Attorneys for Petitioner

Page 5

Exhibit A

Page 6

THIS

IS

NOT A TAX BILL

L-4400

lift

PARCEL IDENTIFICATION

12-09-526-053

PARCEL NUMBER:

MAR 0 4 2025

PROPERTY ADDRESS:

WILSON & FRANCO

OWNER'S NAME & ADDRESS/PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL:

ACCORDING TO MCL 211.34c THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS:

Commercial

201

Commercial

201

PRIOR YEAR'S CLASSIFICATION:

1.

TAXABLE VALUE:

10,112

2. ASSESSED VALUE:

-3,600

1.000

-3,600

709,300

The 2025 Inflation rate Multiplier is: 1.031

Questions regarding the Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification may be directed to the Following:

March Board of Review Appeal Information. The Board of Review will meet at the

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

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer type: Organization

First Name/Company Name

M.I.

Last Name

Autozone Development Corp.

Home Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

380 N. Old Woodward Ave.

Suite 300

City or Town

birmingham

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48009

Telephone Number

2486420333

Fax Number

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail)

jlong@wwrplaw.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Jason

M.I.

C

Last Name

Long

Firm Name (if any)

Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

380 N Old Woodward Ave

Suite 300

City or Town

Birmingham

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48009

Telephone Number

248-642-0333

Fax Number

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail)

jlong@wwrplaw.com

Section 5: Issue

Please designate one: 

Valuation – Fill out Sections 4, 5, & 6 below

Section 6: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you 

appealing?1

Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) [If multiple, list first property’s address]

6311 S. Saginaw St.

Grand Blanc Twp.

Michigan

48439

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Grand Blanc (GENESEE)

County

Genesee

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? 

(*If no, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel.)

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Section 7: Check which of the following you are appealing (check all that apply)

True Cash and Taxable Values

Section 8: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

12-09-526-053

Classification of Property: Real 

Commercial

Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the Board of Review:

709300

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

336329

What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as True Cash Value)?

550000

Multiply the True Cash Value by 50% and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value).

225000

If you belive the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value.

Section 9: Assessment Information

Type of Tax Assessment(s):

Assessment Number(s):

Check all that is being appealed: 

Check what action prompted this appeal:

If “other,” please explain:

Section 10: Special Assessment Information

Type of Special Assessment:

Did you protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

If Yes, what was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll?

If No, please explain:

Section 11: Classification Information

Parcel Number:

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: 

What do you believe is the property’s classification?

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

If improved property, how is the property currently being used?

If improved property, for what use was the property designed?

Fee Information

The filing fee is based on the greater of State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention. If you are appealing more than one parcel, the parcel with the highest 

State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention will be used to determine your filing fee, plus $25.00 will be added for each additional parcel being appealed.

If the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: Your filing fee is:

 

 $100,000.00 and under $250.00

 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $400.00

 $Over $500,000.00 $600.00

* Plus $25.00 for each additional parcel, not to exceed a total filing fee of $2,000.00.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Special Assessment Appeal.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of an Equalization Tax Appeal.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Non-Property Tax Appeal.

A fee of $150.00 is required for the filing of a Classification Tax Appeal

Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature

Petitioner or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: 

/s/ Jason C Long

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.