Waukesha Board of Review upholds most assessments, reduces one multifamily valuation on Madera Street

Waukesha City’s Board of Review on July 22, 2025 heard multiple taxpayer objections to 2025 property assessments and upheld most of the assessor’s values, but reduced the assessment for one multifamily property at 1917 Madera Street to $972,000.

The hearing included repeated instructions from the board that “by law we must uphold the valuation given by the assessor unless you can prove by testimony and evidence that the assessor’s value is incorrect,” language the clerk read aloud at the start of the session. Property owners and their representatives presented evidence, and the assessor’s staff summarized the sales- and income‑based analyses used to set the values.

Why it matters: city assessments determine tax bills and influence owners’ options for refinancing or sale. The board’s decision preserves most of the assessor’s roll for 2025, but approval of a lower valuation for the Madera Street property shows the panel will change values when owners produce contemporaneous sales and credible condition evidence.

What the board decided

- 1917 Madera St.: The board found the assessor’s valuation should be changed. After reviewing owner-submitted sales comps of nearby Madera Street apartment trades, an appraisal and testimony about roof and water‑intrusion problems, the board voted to set the new assessment at land $134,900; improvements $837,100; total $972,000. The motion cited Wisconsin Statutes section 70.47(9)(a) (the standard motion language was read into the record). The vote was recorded as Lenny — aye; Eric — aye; Christy D’Angelo — aye; Sarah Roth — aye.

- Short Term LLC / 400 Southwest Ave. (tax key 1334127, classified commercial): The property owner, Christian R. Lavanca, argued the assessor’s $492,000 total assessment overstated market value and offered recent sale comparables and market experience. The assessor presented local sales and a warehouse/office blended analysis. The board sustained the assessor’s valuation (roll call: Lenny — aye; Eric — aye; Christy — aye; Sarah — aye).

- Crossroad Investments / 2314 North Grandview Blvd. (tax key 975,321) and 2312 North Grandview Blvd. (tax key 0975321): Owner Dale Mas presented income and rent‑roll data, arguing the office market’s weak occupancy and higher expenses justified a lower assessment. The assessor explained that sales comparables remained the predominant indicator of market value and also presented an income approach for comparison. The board sustained the assessor’s valuations for both parcels (each vote recorded in favor of the assessor).

- 501 Randall St. (four‑unit multifamily): Owner testimony described basement water intrusion, window and electrical problems and produced cost estimates for repairs. The assessor presented sales comparables and noted the assessor’s office had not been aware of the deferred‑maintenance issues prior to roll closing. The board sustained the assessor’s valuation for that property.

- Shepherd Court / related multifamily parcels (multiple LLCs owning contiguous apartment buildings on Shepherd Court and nearby East Main): Owners represented by tenant/manager witnesses argued their product lacked amenities present in higher‑priced comparables and cited lower average rents. The assessor presented county and regional sales used to derive a price‑per‑unit for 24+ unit properties and reported that the assessed values lie between an income approach and the market sales approach. After deliberation the board sustained the assessor’s valuations on the Shepherd Court parcels called at the hearing.

How the board weighed evidence

Board members repeatedly referred to statute and the Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual in explaining their standard of review. The assessor’s office repeatedly emphasized that, per state statute, “sales are the most predominant indication of market value” and that income approaches are a secondary check when good sales exist. Owners who relied principally on income‑and‑expense figures or appraisals not produced for cross‑examination were generally unable to overcome the legal presumption that the assessor’s value is correct unless they produced contemporaneous, directly comparable sales or clear condition evidence that was documented and verifiable.

Owner arguments and assessor responses

- Owners’ claims: Several owners pressed that higher vacancies, deferred maintenance (roof leaks and basement water intrusion), or lower‑amenity unit mixes made their properties worth materially less than the assessor’s figures. Some owners offered cost estimates for specific repairs and an expert appraisal or local sale prices for similar, recently traded complexes.

- Assessor’s response: Assessor staff confirmed they consider sales, income and cost approaches, but treat valid market sales as the primary indicator. Where owners provided rent rolls and operating statements the assessor ran an income model for comparison; in multiple cases that analysis still supported the assessor’s dollar‑per‑unit conclusions. The assessor’s office also noted when condition issues were raised after the roll was closed it flags properties for future review and for re‑inspection if evidence supports that step.

What owners can do next

The board informed owners that appeal options remain, including circuit‑court review, and encouraged property owners to supply detailed, contemporaneous evidence—sale contracts, itemized capital cost estimates, contractor bids, or income documentation—at an earlier stage (open book or prior to the roll close) to support changes in future years.

Ending note: The Board of Review convened for several hours, heard multiple objections, and issued its decisions on the record. The single substantive reduction approved (1917 Madera St.) was supported by contemporaneous local sales and specific condition testimony; other objections were denied where the board found sales comparables and the assessor’s reconciliation of approaches to be the stronger evidence.