Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Appeal Telephone Testimony Waiver topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Green Bay Board of Review denies request to testify by phone for 645 South Erwin appeal
Summary
The Green Bay Board of Review voted 3-1, with one abstention, to deny a taxpayer agent—s request to provide testimony by telephone in an appeal of the assessment for 645 South Erwin after finding required forms and information were missing or inaccurate.
The Green Bay Board of Review voted 3-1, with one abstention, to deny a request to allow telephone testimony in an appeal of the 2025 assessment for 645 South Erwin.
The board concluded the appellant's representative had not submitted the Department of Revenue's required telephonic-testimony form (PA-814) within the 48-hour deadline and that the objection form lacked required information in section 4. Chair Azure announced the board's action: "Okay. K, sir. We've denied the waiver for testimony by telephone. So that concludes, your presentation today." The result prevented the agent from giving testimony by phone at the hearing.
Why it matters: the denial meant the board did not hear the appellant's oral testimony during the public meeting. The clerk and staff told the agent how to file the state form and the local policy criteria the board uses to grant telephonic or sworn written testimony; those criteria appear in the meeting packet under the board's policy on sworn telephone or sworn written testimony (page 7).
Board members debated whether the paperwork and timing justified a waiver. The clerk and assessor's office flagged two problems: that the agent had not filed the state PA-814 telephonic-testimony request in a timely manner and that the objection form's section 4 incorrectly stated there had been no improvements even though the assessor's office says the property was remodeled. The assessor's office representative said, "they lied on the form," referring to the inaccurate entry about recent improvements. Agent Jake Polich of Pivotal Tax told the board his firm handles appeals for the property owner from Arizona and that no qualified representative was available locally.
The roll call on the motion to deny the telephone waiver was: Chair Azure, yes; Tanya Westmoreland, yes; Ron Antonow, yes; Mr. Sharp, no; and Eric Duswicki, abstain. The clerk announced the tally as three yes votes to deny the waiver, one abstention and one no, and declared the motion carried.
The board and clerk explained next steps available to the appellant that were discussed during the meeting: the appellant may submit the PA-814 telephonic-testimony form and supporting information and the board could consider it if filed and properly documented; the clerk provided a direct email contact for submission. The board noted it will remain in session for the statutory two-hour window from the start of the meeting in case additional parties appear in person.
Other appeals: the board's clerk also reported receipt of other appeals (including one for 116 North Military) for which the required waivers or 48-hour notices had not been filed; the board took no action on those items at the meeting because the required forms were missing.
The board's decision applied only to whether phone testimony would be allowed at this meeting; no final valuation decision on the underlying assessment was made at that time.
