The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS)
Spring 2016 Data Tables
Question Navigation
« Back to the table of contents | See questionnaire for exact wording
Q30b. Thinking about any appeals of a Board of Review determination to the Michigan Tax Tribunal in the last two years, did your jurisdiction respond to any appeal by stipulating/agreeing to an alternate taxable value with landowner prior to the Tax Tribunal hearing? (Among cities and townships that reported having landowners appeal to the Michigan Tax Tribunal)
Jurisdiction Type Crosstabulation
% within Jurisdiction Type |
|
Jurisdiction Type |
Total |
County |
Township |
City |
Village |
Percentage of jurisdictions that stipulated/agreed to an alternate taxable value with landowner prior to the Tax Tribunal hearing: (Among cities and townships that reported having landowners appeal to the Michigan Tax Tribunal) |
** |
31% |
53% |
** |
37% |
**Counties and villages were not asked this question
Population Size Crosstabulation
% within Population Size |
|
Population Size |
Total |
<1500 |
1500-5000 |
5001-10000 |
10001-30000 |
>30000 |
Percentage of jurisdictions that stipulated/agreed to an alternate taxable value with landowner prior to the Tax Tribunal hearing: (Among cities and townships that reported having landowners appeal to the Michigan Tax Tribunal) |
17% |
31% |
49% |
68% |
46% |
37% |
Region of Michigan Crosstabulation
% within Region of Michigan |
|
Region of Michigan |
Total |
Upper Peninsula |
Northern Lower Peninsula |
West Central Lower Peninsula |
East Central Lower Peninsula |
Southwest Lower Peninsula |
Southeast Lower Peninsula |
Percentage of jurisdictions that stipulated/agreed to an alternate taxable value with landowner prior to the Tax Tribunal hearing: (Among cities and townships that reported having landowners appeal to the Michigan Tax Tribunal) |
21% |
34% |
35% |
31% |
35% |
50% |
37% |