Waukesha Board of Review upholds most assessments, lowers one multifamily value to $972,000

Waukesha — The Waukesha Board of Review met July 22 and heard more than a dozen property assessment appeals. After testimony from property owners and presentations from the city assessor, the board sustained the assessor’s valuations for most of the contested parcels but reduced the assessment for one multifamily property at 1917 Madera Street to a new total of $972,000.

The board opened the session with routine instructions that “the burden of proof is on you as the taxpayer” to show a different market value than the assessor’s roll. Property owners presented a mix of arguments during the hearing: income and expense statements, vacancy and tenant-mix data, and descriptions of deferred maintenance or water intrusion. The assessor’s office relied primarily on recent sales comparables and third‑party market data from CoStar to support the roll values.

Why this matters: Board of Review decisions determine this year’s assessed values, which feed the tax roll and can affect owners’ tax bills and financing options. The session highlighted two common threads in commercial and multifamily appeals: owners urged income-based valuation when vacancy or deferred maintenance is present, while the assessor emphasized that state law and local practice prioritize valid sales comparables where available.

Key outcomes

- 1917 Madera St., (12-unit multifamily): The board found the owner’s recent-sales evidence persuasive and concluded the assessor’s roll overstated value. The board lowered the assessment to a total of $972,000 (land $134,900; improvements $837,100). The motion to change the roll cited Wisconsin Stat. § 70.47(9)(a) and passed by roll call vote. The assessor had noted that the building experienced unresolved water intrusion and related interior damage that was not known to the assessor prior to certification of the roll; the board found the owner’s local sales packet sufficiently probative to justify the adjustment.

- 400 Southwest Ave. (Short Term LLC; commercial): The board sustained the assessor’s valuation. The owner argued condition constraints, lack of drive‑in and limited windows and presented market comp comparisons and cap‑rate commentary; the assessor presented sales- and warehouse-comparable data. After deliberation the board found the assessor’s sales-based approach more persuasive and voted to sustain the roll value.

- 2314 and 2312 N. Grandview Blvd. (owner: Dale Mas / Crossroad Investments): The board heard detailed owner testimony about high vacancy in the suburban Waukesha office market, a 49% vacancy rate in one building, increased insurance and refinancing costs and an expert appraisal excerpt. The assessor presented sales comparables and an income model using CoStar benchmarks. The board concluded the assessor presented sufficient evidence and sustained the roll values for both parcels.

- 501 Randall St. (four‑unit multifamily): The owner testified to foundation water intrusion, older windows and an antiquated electrical service requiring replacement. The assessor had presented a set of recent multifamily sales that supported the roll. The board concluded the owner did not provide enough evidence tying the condition items to a specific lower market value and sustained the roll.

- Shepherd Court / Shepherd‑area apartment cluster (multiple LLCs representing several mid‑rise multifamily buildings): The parties asked the board to align the contested units’ per‑unit values with a nearby Longview LLC pair of buildings that had a noticeably lower per‑unit assessment. The assessor explained the city’s analysis (sales comparables expanded to Waukesha County and CoStar market metrics) and kept values in the middle of sales- and income-based indications. The board sustained the assessor’s valuations for the Shepherd Court parcels on the record; it noted that assessed values elsewhere on the roll cannot be used as direct proof of market value.

What the board said about evidence and process

Board members repeatedly reminded owners that the board cannot base a value reduction on in‑room assertions alone; owners must present specific, corroborating evidence (for example, recent arm’s‑length sales comparables, an appraisal with its author present, or income/expense documentation that ties to market cap‑rate evidence). The board also noted limits on hearsay: statements attributed to individuals who were not present for cross‑examination (for example, off‑site appraisers or third‑party advisors not in the room) could not be relied on to overturn the presumption of correctness that attaches to the assessor’s roll.

Quotes from the hearing (attributed)

- “The burden of proof is on you as the taxpayer to prove a number other than the current assessed value,” the hearing officer told objectors at the start of testimony.

- Laurie, presenting for the assessor’s office, said the office used sales comparables and CoStar analytics as primary indicators and that an income approach often yields a lower indicated value for these property types, but the market sales data supported the assessor’s figures in most cases.

What happens next

Decisions are effective on the roll as changed or sustained at today’s session. Owners wishing to contest the board’s ruling were told how to pursue an appeal to the circuit court; the assessor’s office remains available to discuss property‑specific documentation outside of the hearing record. For the property that had its assessment lowered (1917 Madera), the change will be reflected on the final assessment roll consistent with the board’s order.

Ending

The Board of Review completed the afternoon session after hearing all scheduled cases. Several owners were advised to bring more granular, documented evidence (detailed income/expense reports with supporting rent roll, or appraisals with the appraiser present) if they pursue appeals beyond the circuit court or in future review cycles.

(Reporters’ note: this article summarizes the contested assessment decisions taken at the July 22, 2025 Waukesha Board of Review meeting. It does not attempt to predict tax liabilities or future roll changes beyond those decided by the board on the record.)