Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kenosha board schedules objection hearings for three commercial parcels including Walgreens and CVS
Summary
The Kenosha Board of Review voted June 18 to schedule objection hearings for three commercial parcels — including properties tied to Walgreens and CVS — after legal counsel said tenants who pay the taxes can have standing to appeal. Each motion passed 4-0.
Kenosha’s Board of Review voted Wednesday to schedule objection hearings for three commercial parcels, including properties linked to Walgreens and CVS, after legal counsel told the board that tenants who pay the taxes can have standing to file appeals.
The decision came during the board’s review of objections that the Board of Assessors had earlier denied for incomplete appeal documentation. Board members voted 4-0 to allow hearings to be scheduled for each parcel rather than returning the matters to the Board of Assessors for further processing.
Legal counsel told the board there is case law allowing a business that is the taxpayer — even if it is a tenant rather than the property owner — to have standing to appeal an assessment. “I think that they do have standing to file an objection,” counsel said. The assessor’s office raised concerns that agent authorization forms sometimes list an agent or tenant rather than the recorded owner, making it difficult for staff to verify who has authority to appeal without additional documentation.
The three parcels discussed in open session included: Parcel 0722224205022 (listed at 1810 Thirtieth Avenue and associated in the packet with Walgreens); a second commercial parcel (listed in the record as 06-123-07-130-020); and Parcel 04-122-12-401-007, where the objection form listed “CVS HealthCo” and included a notation that CVS is the tenant responsible for taxes. Board members and staff discussed that a tenant-stated responsibility for taxes is commonly sufficient to establish standing if supported by case law and documentation.
Board members agreed it was procedurally safest to schedule objection hearings directly with the Board of Review rather than sending the filings back to the Board of Assessors, and noted the parties could later seek a waiver to the circuit court if active litigation existed for the same tax year. Each motion to schedule a hearing carried 4-0.
The votes do not decide the merits of the objections; they only allow the appellant(s) to present evidence at a scheduled review hearing. The board directed staff to set hearing dates and indicated that parties and staff should provide any additional authorization or case-law citations requested at the hearing.
