Waukesha Board of Review upholds most reassessments, adopts testimony policies and grants multiple waivers; several appeals scheduled

The Waukesha Board of Review on June 6 adopted procedures for sworn telephone and written testimony, approved the 2025 assessment roll (subject to 62 corrections identified by the assessor) and disposed of a large number of procedural requests and appeals.

The board, which met in Waukesha City Council Chambers, voted to adopt the Board of Review policy on procedures for sworn telephone and sworn written testimony and the policy on waiver of Board of Review hearing requests before taking up the 2025 assessment roll. Chair Christine D'Angelo led the session and conducted roll calls for recorded votes.

Why it matters: The actions finalize how taxpayers may present evidence remotely, set the official assessment roll that drives property tax bills, and resolve timing and hearing logistics for dozens of residential and commercial appeals. Several taxpayers whose objections were accepted were scheduled for later hearing dates; others who failed to meet notice requirements had their appeals denied.

Most important actions and outcomes - Policy adoption: The board voted to adopt the Board of Review policies governing sworn telephone testimony, sworn written testimony and waivers of the 48‑hour notice requirement. - Assessment roll: The board accepted the assessor's 2025 assessment roll “subject to the 62 corrections” the assessor flagged during open book work; the board then certified that statutory duties had been performed and moved to allow hearings on objections. - Waivers and scheduling: The board considered many requests to waive the 48‑hour notice requirement and to reschedule hearings. Some waivers were granted, others denied. Where waivers were granted, the clerk will assign hearings to one of two next session dates the board set (June 17 or June 24). Several taxpayers were directed to file complete objection paperwork before the new hearing date. - Remote testimony approvals: The board granted multiple requests from out‑of‑state commercial property owners or agents to testify by telephone or submit sworn written statements (examples include filings for Burger King, Lithia Motors, Realty Income, Wyld Family Limited Partnership and LRG, LLC).

What the board heard in evidence: selected contested hearings - Tracy Foss, 2601 Brookstone Court (residential). Foss sought a lower assessment. She told the board she purchased the house in November 2021 and submitted a March 2025 refinance appraisal. Foss said the assessor’s automated valuation model returned $444,000 and argued the assessor’s figure overstated the value. The assessor’s comparables and adjusted sales analysis were presented by the assessor; the Board of Review found the assessor’s recent sales evidence the most credible and, by roll call vote, upheld the assessor’s valuation and sustained the assessment as presented.

- Gregory Harder, 3027 Tanglewood Drive (residential). Harder said his assessed value had risen sharply under the 2023 and 2025 revaluations and argued the 2025 assessment should be $477,500. The assessor described adjustments made after open‑book review (a reduction from the initial 2025 figure) and explained the land and improvement rates used in the neighborhood. The board reviewed comparable sales and the assessor's adjustments (including a partial reduction to acreage affected by drainage easements) and voted to sustain the assessor’s valuation as revised during the open‑book process.

- Kelly Hazard, 1420 Gabriel Drive Unit 3 (residential, condominium). Hazard submitted a spreadsheet of recent sales in the condominium complex and argued her unit’s condition and local sales supported a lower value than the assessor’s. The assessor presented 2024 sales for the complex and explained the methodology. The board concluded the assessor’s comparable‑sales evidence was the most credible and sustained the assessor’s valuation.

- Mark and Beth Leverenz, 827 Conifer Court (residential). The Leverenzes asked the board to reduce their assessment and pointed to a near‑identical neighboring unit they said was assessed lower; they also questioned whether an electric appliance in a wall was being treated as a separate fireplace amenity. The assessor presented comparable sales and adjustments; the board sustained the assessor’s valuation.

- Dean Richard, 1436 Big Bend Road Unit E (residential, condominium). Richard provided a spreadsheet of condominium sales and argued his unit’s market value was lower than the assessor’s figure. The assessor presented a set of 2024 sales used to set values in the complex. The board concluded the assessor’s evidence supported the assessed value and sustained it.

Other procedural and scheduling matters - The board handled dozens of walk‑in waiver requests, accepting many (and denying several where it found adequate prior notice or prior opportunity to use open book procedures). The clerk and staff were directed to notify owners of the new hearing dates (June 17 and June 24) and to require completed objection paperwork to be filed for any case rescheduled. - Menards, Inc. requested a waiver to proceed to circuit court (evidently because related litigation is pending). The board granted that procedural waiver so the item will proceed with the matters already before the circuit court.

What the board did not do - The board did not change any assessed values on the record unless the assessor had already adjusted them in open book or the board explicitly voted to change them. In contested hearings the board noted it must uphold assessor valuations unless the taxpayer presents sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness.

Next steps Taxpayers whose waivers were approved will receive notices of the assigned hearing date (June 17 or June 24). Taxpayers who wish to challenge the Board of Review decisions retain the right to appeal to circuit court; the clerk will provide appeal information with each decision notice.

Votes at a glance (selected items) - Adopt Board of Review policy on sworn telephone and sworn written testimony: approved (voice/roll call, motion carried). - Adopt policy on waiver of Board of Review hearing requests: approved (voice/roll call, motion carried). - Accept assessment roll subject to 62 corrections noted by assessor: approved (motion carried). - Waiver requests: dozens considered; examples: Amanda Doubleday — waiver approved; Robert Eastman — waiver denied; Christopher Schafer — waiver approved; Barton Bender — waiver approved; several others approved; clerk to notify and require objection forms for rescheduled hearings. - Requests to testify by telephone or submit sworn written statement (commercial/out‑of‑state owners): multiple approvals (Burger King; Lithia Motors; Realty Income; Wyld Family LP; LRG, LLC; MKJEB LLC; and others). - Contested hearings where board sustained the assessor’s valuation after testimony: Tracy Foss (2601 Brookstone Court) — assessment sustained; Kelly Hazard (1420 Gabriel Dr., Unit 3) — sustained; Mark & Beth Leverenz (827 Conifer Ct.) — sustained; Gregory Harder (3027 Tanglewood Dr.) — sustained; Dean Richard (1436 Big Bend Rd., Unit E) — sustained.

Who said what (short list of speakers quoted or summarized) - Chair Christine D'Angelo, Board of Review — presided over votes and moved findings in debated cases. - Michael Radovich, Assistant City Attorney — provided legal advice (no new laws reported at start of session). - Eric Spathe, Assessor, City of Waukesha — presented comparable‑sales analyses and explained adjustments made during open book. - Tracy Foss, property owner (2601 Brookstone Court) — "I purchased the property, 3 and a half years ago in November of 2021..." (testimony on appraisal and refinance valuation). - Gregory Harder, property owner (3027 Tanglewood Drive) — testified to a requested assessed value of $477,500 and described drainage easements and comparable sales used in his worksheet.

Documents and authorities on the record - City ordinance on confidentiality cited for assessor records: Waukesha City ordinance 3.03, Section 5 (confidentiality of income and expense information) — referenced during procedural confirmations. - Statute cited for Board of Review authority and motions: Wis. Stat. § 70.47(9)(a) (standard motion language read when the board declined to change assessments and sustained assessor valuations).

Meeting context and public access - The meeting was recorded and livestreamed; the clerk confirmed Board of Review and Open Meeting notices were published as required. The clerk and assessor's office provided a SharePoint folder link with assessment roll materials and supporting documentation for board members and the public.

Limitations and next steps for readers - This report summarizes decisions and actions recorded in the board transcript and does not substitute for official minutes or certified decisions to be mailed by the clerk. Taxpayers named in the decisions will receive formal written notices with instructions and appeal rights.