Integris Ventures Ecc LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Ann Arbor, Respondent

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

 

INTEGRIS VENTURES – ECC, LLC, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

ANN ARBOR CHARTER TOWNSHIP, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001978 

Parcel No. I-09-14-480-005 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

MICHELLE (MIKKI) M. SILVEY (P69494) 

ALEX MORSE 

DUCHARME, MCMILLEN, 

& ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(317) 689-6467 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

JOINT MOTION TO HOLD APPEAL IN ABEYANCE 

PENDING MTT DOCKET NO. 24-001970 

 

The parties by and through their respective counsel state the following in support of the 

above captioned Motion: 

1. 

The above captioned appeal concerns the 2025 valuation of commercial property 

located in Washtenaw County—parcel no. I-09-14-480-005. 

2. 

With the exception of the tax year at issue, the parties, property, and issues raised 

in the above captioned appeal are, based on the pleadings, in essence identical to those at issue in 

MTT docket no. 24-001970, an appeal concerning the 2024 tax year. 

3. 

The above captioned 2025 appeal is ready to be placed on a Prehearing General 

Call and Order of Procedure.

Page 2

2 

 

4. 

However, as of the filing of the above captioned Motion, the 2024 reiteration 

(MTT docket no. 24-001970) has not yet been resolved. The 2024 reiteration is proceeding is 

scheduled for Prehearing Conference on January 16-30, 2026. Accordingly, the 2024 reiteration 

will likely not proceed to hearing until the spring of 2026 and a Final Opinion and Judgment will 

likely not be rendered until Fall 2026 at the earliest. 

5. 

A Final Opinion and Judgment from the Tribunal regarding MTT docket no. 24-

001970 could impact this 2025 appeal and the parties’ desire to proceed with this appeal. Thus, it 

could potentially be a waste of time and resources for the parties and the Tribunal to proceed 

with the above captioned appeal when the prior 2024 appeal remains pending. 

6. 

To proceed with this case before a resolution regarding MTT docket no. 24-

001970 has been reached would not constitute an efficient administration of justice. 

7. 

Proceeding with the above captioned appeal will require the parties and the 

Tribunal to expend substantial resources which may ultimately be unnecessary. Placing the 

above captioned appeal in abeyance at this juncture before substantial time and resources have 

been spent—including, but not limited to, the preparation of prehearing statements and valuation 

disclosures—is in the interest of efficiency to all parties involved and judicial economy. 

8. 

As evidenced above, there is good cause for granting this joint Motion to hold the 

above captioned appeal in abeyance pending the resolution of its 2024 iteration, MTT docket no. 

24-001970. 

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request the Tribunal enter an Order holding the 

above captioned appeal in abeyance pending the resolution of MTT docket no. 24-001970.

Page 3

3 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

MICHELLE (MIKKI) M. SILVEY (P69494) 

ALEX MORSE 

DUCHARME, MCMILLEN, 

& ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

 

Dated: October 23, 2025 

 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

Dated: October 23, 2025 

 

 

/s/ Laura M. Hallahan (w/permission-MS) 

/s/ Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey

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 

Integris Ventures ECC LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001978 

 

Ann Arbor Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE 

 

On October 23, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion requesting that the Tribunal hold 

this case in abeyance pending resolution of MTT Docket No. 24-001970, which is 

currently pending before the Tribunal. In the motion, the parties state that (1) MTT 

Docket No. 24-001970 has been placed on the January 16-30, 2026 Prehearing 

General Call; (2) Docket 24-001970 will likely not be resolved until “Fall 2026 at the 

earliest,” which could impact the instant appeal; and (3) “[t]o proceed with this case 

before resolution regarding MTT Docket [N]o. 24-001970 has been reached would not 

constitute an efficient administration of justice.” 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that placing this 

case in abeyance pending resolution of MTT Docket No. 24-001970 will facilitate the 

efficient administration of justice, as that resolution may have a direct bearing on the 

outcome of the instant appeal. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance is GRANTED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall notify the Tribunal in writing within 28 

days of the resolution of MTT Docket No. 24-001970 as to the need for further 

proceedings in this matter. 

 

 

Entered: October 29, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

kac/jcr 

 

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 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

 

INTEGRIS VENTURES – ECC, LLC, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

ANN ARBOR CHARTER TOWNSHIP, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001978 

Parcel No. I-09-14-480-005 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

MICHELLE (MIKKI) M. SILVEY (P69494) 

ALEX MORSE 

DUCHARME, MCMILLEN, 

& ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(317) 689-6467 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

JOINT MOTION TO HOLD APPEAL IN ABEYANCE 

PENDING MTT DOCKET NO. 24-001970 

 

The parties by and through their respective counsel state the following in support of the 

above captioned Motion: 

1. 

The above captioned appeal concerns the 2025 valuation of commercial property 

located in Washtenaw County—parcel no. I-09-14-480-005. 

2. 

With the exception of the tax year at issue, the parties, property, and issues raised 

in the above captioned appeal are, based on the pleadings, in essence identical to those at issue in 

MTT docket no. 24-001970, an appeal concerning the 2024 tax year. 

3. 

The above captioned 2025 appeal is ready to be placed on a Prehearing General 

Call and Order of Procedure.

Page 2

2 

 

4. 

However, as of the filing of the above captioned Motion, the 2024 reiteration 

(MTT docket no. 24-001970) has not yet been resolved. The 2024 reiteration is proceeding is 

scheduled for Prehearing Conference on January 16-30, 2026. Accordingly, the 2024 reiteration 

will likely not proceed to hearing until the spring of 2026 and a Final Opinion and Judgment will 

likely not be rendered until Fall 2026 at the earliest. 

5. 

A Final Opinion and Judgment from the Tribunal regarding MTT docket no. 24-

001970 could impact this 2025 appeal and the parties’ desire to proceed with this appeal. Thus, it 

could potentially be a waste of time and resources for the parties and the Tribunal to proceed 

with the above captioned appeal when the prior 2024 appeal remains pending. 

6. 

To proceed with this case before a resolution regarding MTT docket no. 24-

001970 has been reached would not constitute an efficient administration of justice. 

7. 

Proceeding with the above captioned appeal will require the parties and the 

Tribunal to expend substantial resources which may ultimately be unnecessary. Placing the 

above captioned appeal in abeyance at this juncture before substantial time and resources have 

been spent—including, but not limited to, the preparation of prehearing statements and valuation 

disclosures—is in the interest of efficiency to all parties involved and judicial economy. 

8. 

As evidenced above, there is good cause for granting this joint Motion to hold the 

above captioned appeal in abeyance pending the resolution of its 2024 iteration, MTT docket no. 

24-001970. 

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request the Tribunal enter an Order holding the 

above captioned appeal in abeyance pending the resolution of MTT docket no. 24-001970.

Page 3

3 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

MICHELLE (MIKKI) M. SILVEY (P69494) 

ALEX MORSE 

DUCHARME, MCMILLEN, 

& ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

 

Dated: October 23, 2025 

 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

Dated: October 23, 2025 

 

 

/s/ Laura M. Hallahan (w/permission-MS) 

/s/ Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey

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 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

INTEGRIS VENTURES – ECC, LLC, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

ANN ARBOR CHARTER TOWNSHIP, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001978 

Parcel No. I-09-14-480-005 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

MICHELLE (MIKKI) M. SILVEY (P69494) 

ALEX MORSE 

DUCHARME, MCMILLEN, 

& ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(317) 689-6467 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

ANSWER TO PETITION 

AND 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

ANSWER 

 

Respondent, Ann Arbor Charter Township, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & 

Associates, P.C., 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. 

4. 

Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

5. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 5.

Page 2

2

6. 

Respondent admits no protest was made but neither admits nor denies the necessity 

of such a protest as the General Property Tax Act speaks for itself. 

7. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 7. 

8. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 8. 

9. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 9. 

10. 

Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 10 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

11. 

Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner in Paragraph 11 but denies 

that those issues have merit and further denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 

12. 

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s identification of the 2025 tax year as being 

at issue but denies any issue with the identified tax year. 

13. 

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 

$37,715,200 

$18,857,600 

$18,353,101 

14. 

Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above are as 

follows: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

$37,715,200 

$18,857,600 

$18,353,101 

15. 

The values in dispute are as follows: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

$0 

$0 

$0 

16. 

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 16, and all subsections, for the 

reason that the same are 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

Page 3

3

by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and 

the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. 

17. 

Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph 

of the Petition but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in 

the above Paragraphs. 

 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, Ann Arbor Charter Township, requests the Tribunal dismiss 

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

equalization, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees. 

 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

 

/s/Laura M. Hallahan______________ 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

Dated: October 7, 2025 

 

 

 

(258) 731-3089 

 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

Respondent, Ann Arbor Charter Township, asserts the following affirmative 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 determine the 

property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development 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).

Page 4

4

4. 

Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error 

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

its agents. 

5. 

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. 

6. 

Petitioner has 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 all 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. 

7. 

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. 

8. 

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. 

9. 

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. 

10. 

Any

Page 5

5

13.

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 - Respondent

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 25-001978

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

Township Of Ann Arbor (WASHTENAW)

Local Unit of Government/First Name

M.I.

Last Name

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

City or Town

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

Telephone Number

Fax Number

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

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Laura

M.I.

M

Last Name

Hallahan

Firm Name (if any)

Hallahan & Associates, P.C.

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

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202

City or Town

Bloomfield Hills

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48302

Telephone Number

248-731-3087

Fax Number

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

MTT@hallahanlaw.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Kelsea M. Melcher

/s/

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 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Integris Ventures 

- ECC, LLC 

. 

Petitioner, 

Ann Arbor Charter Township 

Respondent. 

MTT DOCKET NO. 25-001978-TT 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 9t" day of 

September 2025 she served a copy of the Petition upon the following persons by placing 

same in an envelope properly addressed to each via USPS first class thereon: 

Washtenaw County Clerk 

200 North Main 

Ann Arbor, MI 48104 

Samuel C. Spang 

Washtenaw County Equalization Director 

200 N Main St, Suite 210 

Ann Arbor, MI 48104 

Ann Arbor Public Schools Board of Education 

Attn: School Board Secretary 

2555 South State Street 

Ann Arbor, MI 48104 

Michigan State Treasurer 

Department of Treasury 

Treasury Building 

430 West Allegan 

Lansing, MI 48922 

Mi 

SQ 

(02 ((Q 

cy 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Authorized Agent

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Integris Ventures 

- ECC, LLC 

. 

Petitioner, 

MTT DOCKET NO. 25-001978-TT 

Ann Arbor Charter Township 

, 

Respondent. 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 9%" day of 

September 2025 she served a copy of the Petition upon the following persons by placing 

same in an envelope properly addressed to each via certified mail thereon: 

Tina Foley 

Diane O'Connell 

Ann Arbor Charter Township Assessor 

Ann Arbor Charter Township Supervisor 

3792 Pontiac Trail 

3792 Pontiac Trail 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105 

Rena Basch 

Ann Arbor Charter Township Clerk 

3792 Pontiac Trail 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105 

Mica ((@ Doe 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Authorized Agent

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Integris Ventures - ECC, LLC 

. 

MTT Docket No. 25-001978 

 -TT 

Petitioner, 

v 

Ann Arbor Charter Township 

Respondent. 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Alex Morse 

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(317) 689-6467-ofc 

(917) 488-7825-mobile 

msilvey@dmainc.com 

amorse@dmainc.com 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. 

Property Parcel No.: 1-09-14-480-005 

2. 

The property identified above is real 

. 

3. 

Only one parcel of property is the subject of this appeal. 

4. 

Petitioner owns and/or otherwise holds an interest in the parcel of property that is the 

subject of this appeal.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 25-001978 

TT 

Page 2 of 3 

5. 

The property identified above is classified as 201 Commercial-Improved 

6. 

The assessment(s) at issue were not protested to Respondent’s March, July, or December 

Board of Review as a protest was not required. 

7. 

The property or properties at issue are in Washtenaw County. 

8. 

The property or properties’ address is: 

2211 Old Earhart Rd, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 

9. 

The assessment(s) at issue were established by the: Ann Arbor Charter Township 

10. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 

655 Craig Road, Suite 100, Creve Coeur, MO 63141 

11. This appeal involves issues relating to the property or properties’ true cash and taxable 

values and uniformity. 

12. The tax year at issue is: 2025. 

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

of Review are: 

Tax 

True Cash 

Assessed 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

| 

$37,715,200 

| 

$18,857,600 

| 

$18,353,101 

14. Petitioner contends the values for tax year 2025 are no more than the following: 

Tax 

True Cash 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

| 

$18,000,000 

$9,000,000 

$9,000,000 

15. The values in contention for tax year 2025 are: 

Tax 

True Cash 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$19,715,200 

$9,857,600 

$9,353,101

Page 5

MTT Docket No. 25-001978 

TT 

Page 3 of 3 

16. The 2025 assessments imposed on the subject property and the taxes to be levied and 

collected are invalid because: 

(a) The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, exceeds the amount 

permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(b) The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, is at a higher 

percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and 

applicable statutes; 

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

(d) The assessment otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this honorable Tribunal hear this case 

and enter an order reducing the 2025 true cash, state equalized and taxable values and direct 

Respondent to refund to Petitioner any excess taxes, fees, and penalties paid, plus interest and 

costs, and all other relief to which it is entitled under Michigan law and as is appropriate under 

the circumstances. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 

Micalo or 

Dated: May 39, 2025 

By: 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Petitioner’s Representative

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 

Integris Ventures - ECC, LLC 

R 

MTT Docket No. 25- 

Petitioner, 

v 

Ann Arbor Charter Township 

Respondent. 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Alex Morse 

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(317) 689-6467-ofc 

(917) 488-7825-mobile 

msilvey@dmainc.com 

amorse@dmainc.com 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. 

Property Parcel No.: I-09-14-480-005 

2. 

The property identified above is real 

. 

3. 

Only one parcel of property is the subject of this appeal. 

4. 

Petitioner owns and/or otherwise holds an interest in the parcel of property that is the 

subject of this appeal.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25- 

-TT 

Page 2 of 3 

S. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

The property identified above is classified as 201 Commercial-Improved 

The assessment(s) at issue were not protested to Respondent’s March, July, or December 

Board of Review as a protest was not required. 

The property or properties at issue are in Washtenaw County. 

The property or properties’ address is: 

2211 Old Earhart Rd, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 

The assessment(s) at issue were established by the: Ann Arbor Charter Township 

| 

Petitioners legal residence or principal office address is: 

655 Craig Road, Suite 100, Creve Coeur, MO 63141 

This appeal involves issues relating to the property or properties’ true cash and taxable 

values and uniformity. 

The tax year at issue is: 2025. 

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

of Review are: 

Tax 

True Cash 

Assessed 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$37,715,200 

$18,857,600 

$18,353,101 

Petitioner contends the values for tax year 2025 are no more than the following: 

Tax 

True Cash 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$18,000,000 

$9,000,000 

$9,000,000 

The values in contention for tax year 2025 are: 

Tax 

True Cash 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$19,715,200 

$9,857,600 

$9,353,101

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 2-___BBB___-TT 

Page 3 of 3 

 The 202assessments imposed on the subject property and the taxes to be levied and

collected are invalid because:

D The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, exceeds the amount

permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes;

E The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, is at a higher

percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and

applicable statutes;

F The assessment is based on the misapplication of valuation principles, and

G The assessment otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this honorable Tribunal hear this case 

and enter an order reducing the 202true cash, state equalized and taxable values and direct 

Respondent to refund to Petitioner any excess taxes, fees, and penalties paid, plus interest and 

costs, and all other relief to which it is entitled under Michigan law and as is appropriate under 

the circumstances. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 

Dated: May ___, 202

By: 

______________________________ 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Petitioner’s Representative 

30

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

Integris Ventures ECC LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-001978

Township Of Ann Arbor, 

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 5, 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

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Integris Ventures - ECC, LLC 

R 

MTT Docket No. 25- 

Petitioner, 

v 

Ann Arbor Charter Township 

Respondent. 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Alex Morse 

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(317) 689-6467-ofc 

(917) 488-7825-mobile 

msilvey@dmainc.com 

amorse@dmainc.com 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. 

Property Parcel No.: I-09-14-480-005 

2. 

The property identified above is real 

. 

3. 

Only one parcel of property is the subject of this appeal. 

4. 

Petitioner owns and/or otherwise holds an interest in the parcel of property that is the 

subject of this appeal.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25- 

-TT 

Page 2 of 3 

S. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

The property identified above is classified as 201 Commercial-Improved 

The assessment(s) at issue were not protested to Respondent’s March, July, or December 

Board of Review as a protest was not required. 

The property or properties at issue are in Washtenaw County. 

The property or properties’ address is: 

2211 Old Earhart Rd, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 

The assessment(s) at issue were established by the: Ann Arbor Charter Township 

| 

Petitioners legal residence or principal office address is: 

655 Craig Road, Suite 100, Creve Coeur, MO 63141 

This appeal involves issues relating to the property or properties’ true cash and taxable 

values and uniformity. 

The tax year at issue is: 2025. 

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

of Review are: 

Tax 

True Cash 

Assessed 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$37,715,200 

$18,857,600 

$18,353,101 

Petitioner contends the values for tax year 2025 are no more than the following: 

Tax 

True Cash 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$18,000,000 

$9,000,000 

$9,000,000 

The values in contention for tax year 2025 are: 

Tax 

True Cash 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$19,715,200 

$9,857,600 

$9,353,101

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 2-___BBB___-TT 

Page 3 of 3 

 The 202assessments imposed on the subject property and the taxes to be levied and

collected are invalid because:

D The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, exceeds the amount

permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes;

E The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, is at a higher

percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and

applicable statutes;

F The assessment is based on the misapplication of valuation principles, and

G The assessment otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this honorable Tribunal hear this case 

and enter an order reducing the 202true cash, state equalized and taxable values and direct 

Respondent to refund to Petitioner any excess taxes, fees, and penalties paid, plus interest and 

costs, and all other relief to which it is entitled under Michigan law and as is appropriate under 

the circumstances. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 

Dated: May ___, 202

By: 

______________________________ 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Petitioner’s Representative 

30

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

Integris Ventures - ECC, LLC 

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

655 Craig Road, Suite 100

City or Town

Creve Coeur

State

Missouri

ZIP Code

63141

Telephone Number

917-488-7825

Fax Number

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

msilvey@dmainc.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Michelle (Mikki)

M.I.

M

Last Name

Silvey

Firm Name (if any)

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

9229 Delegates Row, Ste 375

City or Town

Indianapolis

State

Indiana

ZIP Code

46240

Telephone Number

317-596-3260

Fax Number

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

msilvey@dmainc.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]

2211 Old Earhart Rd

Ann Arbor

Michigan

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

City Of Ann Arbor (WASHTENAW)

County

Washtenaw

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:

I -09-14-480-005

Classification of Property: Real 

Commercial

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

18857600

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

18353101

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

18000000

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

9000000

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/ Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey

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.