Taxable value (TV) cap under MCL 211.27a(2); Whether a new roof for petitioner’s commercial building was “new construction” & thus an “addition” for purposes of increasing the TV; MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(iii); Const 1963, art 9, § 3; WPW Acquisition Co v City of Troy; “Replacement construction”; MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(v); “Property,” “real property,” & “personal property”; Appellate jurisdiction; Final order; MCR 7.203(A)(1); MCL 205.753; Tax Tribunal (TT); True cash value (TCV)

Agreeing with the TT that petitioner’s new roof for its commercial building was “new construction” and thus, an “addition,” the court affirmed the TT’s order denying petitioner summary disposition and granting summary disposition for respondent-city. Petitioner replaced the roof on its office building in the city. The city determined that construction of the new roof constituted an “addition” and thus, increased the building’s TV by more than allowed under the general cap on increases. The TT ruled in favor of the city. As a preliminary matter, the court noted that although the TT’s order was not appealable as of right because it was not a “final order,” it was exercising its discretion and treating the appeal as leave granted, in the interest of judicial economy. Turning to the merits, it rejected petitioner’s argument that the trial court erred by finding the new roof was an “addition” for purposes of MCL 211.27a. It instead agreed with the city that “the new, more valuable roof was not in existence on the immediately preceding tax day.” First, petitioner’s “proposed definition of ‘real property’ as only the land and the building which sits upon that land conflicts with the definition of ‘real property’ provided in the statutory scheme.” In addition, a “review of the statutory scheme shows that the Legislature intended to include both real and personal property in the term ‘property’ as used in MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(iii).” Further, a “review of the plain language of MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(iii) and its surrounding statutory text shows that ‘new construction’ includes the new, more valuable roof that replaced an old roof.” With the “exclusion of ‘replacement construction,’ the statute widely defines ‘new construction’ as ‘property not in existence on the immediately preceding tax day.’ The roof meets this definition. It was an entirely new roof that was not in existence on the immediately preceding tax day.” The court noted that “value added by new construction only includes additions that actually increase the selling price of the property.” In addition, “MCL 211.27(2)’s reference to the ‘[TCV]’ without express reference to the [TV] does not render MCL 211.27(2) irrelevant to MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(iii).” Finally, the court found that the new roof “fell within the definition of ‘additions’ in Const 1963, art 9, § 3.” And the statutory “definition of ‘new construction’ does not impermissibly expand the definition of ‘additions’ in contravention of Const 1963, art 9, § 3.”