Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waukesha Board of Review adopts testimony policies, approves assessment roll with corrections and upholds multiple property assessments
Summary
At its June 6 meeting the Waukesha City Board of Review adopted procedures for telephone/written testimony, approved the assessment roll subject to 62 corrections and mostly denied late filing relief; the panel sustained assessor valuations in several contested appeals.
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Waukesha City Board of Review on June 6 adopted procedures for sworn telephone and sworn written testimony, approved the city's assessment roll subject to 62 corrections and handled dozens of requests to waive the 48-hour notice requirement for objections. The board also heard contested appeals and sustained assessor valuations in several cases.
The actions affect property owners seeking to appeal 2025 reassessments and set the schedule and process for hearings. Assistant City Attorney Michael Radovich told the board there were no new laws the panel needed to note before business began.
Board members first elected a chair and vice chair, then voted to adopt a Board of Review policy for sworn telephone and sworn written testimony and a separate policy to govern waiver requests for hearings. The board then confirmed receipt of the assessment roll and the affidavits filed by assessors and clerks and approved the roll "subject to the 62 corrections" the assessor marked during open-book review.
After routine items the board considered requests from property owners who missed the 48-hour notice required to reserve a hearing date. The board granted many waivers and denied others after brief explanations from owners or their representatives. Examples of waivers the board approved include: attorney Brian Branca for 823 Northeast Avenue; Amanda Devalde (3611 Hawthorne Hill Drive); Christopher Schafer (1371 Harris Drive); Barton Bender (2001 Brunner Court); Robert Baughto (2315 River Hill Court); Jacinta Henlein (1917 Madera Street and 501 Randall Street); Carrie Johnson (3023 Cone View Lane); Paul Cook (2005 Brunner Court); Dale Moss (2312 and 2314 North Grandview Boulevard); Harold Maddox (three properties listed); and others. The board denied waivers in some cases, including Robert Eastman (449 Dunbar), Joshua Jacobson (312 Harrison Avenue) and Rick Risto (315 Harrison Avenue). Where petitioners had timely filed objections or filed supporting materials at the clerk's office, the board often rescheduled hearings for an upcoming docket rather than deny review.
The board also considered multiple requests to appear by telephone or to submit sworn written statements; the board approved those requests from several out-of-state owners and management companies, including requests listed for Burger King, Lithia Motors, LRG, Realty Income, Wyld Family Limited Partnership and MKJEB LLC.
The board scheduled follow-up hearing dates and asked petitioners whose waivers were approved to file their full objection paperwork by the end of the day; staff said the next hearing dates would be June 17 or June 24, 2025.
Votes at a glance - Adopt Board of Review policy on sworn telephone and sworn written testimony: motion made and approved (voice). - Adopt Board of Review policy for waiver of Board of Review hearing requests: approved (voice). - Approve assessment roll subject to 62 corrections noted by the assessor: approved (voice). - Waivers of 48-hour notice: dozens considered; representative approvals: Brian Branca (823 NE Ave) approved; Amanda Devalde (3611 Hawthorne Hill) approved; Christopher Schafer (1371 Harris Dr.) approved; Barton Bender (2001 Brunner Ct.) approved; Robert Eastman (449 Dunbar) denied; Joshua Jacobson (312 Harrison) denied; Rick Risto (315 Harrison) denied; many others approved as recorded. - Telephone/sworn written requests for out-of-state parties (Burger King, Lithia Motors, Realty Income, Wyld Family LP, MKJEB LLC and others): approved.
Contested appeal outcomes (selected cases heard and decided at this session) - Tracy Foss, 2601 Brookstone Court (residential): Board voted to uphold the assessor's valuation; assessment stands (roll-call vote in favor of assessor). - Kelly Hazard, 1420 Gabriel Drive, Unit 3 (residential condo): Board sustained the assessor's valuation; assessment stands. - Mark and Beth Leverenz, 827 Conifer Court (residential): Board sustained the assessor's valuation of $646,300. - Gregory Harder, 3027 Tanglewood Drive (residential): after open-book adjustment the assessor's revised valuation of $543,100 (land $95,000; improvements $448,100) was sustained by the board. - Dean Richard, 1436 Big Bend Road, Unit E (condo): Board sustained the assessor's revised assessment of $155,400.
What the board said and why it matters Board members repeatedly told petitioners that state law puts the burden of proof on the taxpayer to show the assessor's valuation is incorrect. In multiple hearings the assessor's comparable-sales analysis and the lack of an owner's formal appraisal or comparable-adjusted analysis were the reasons given for sustaining valuations. Assistant City Attorney Michael Radovich told the panel at the start of the session that there were no new laws to report; the board cited Wis. Stat. —70.47 (the Board of Review statute) and the Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual as the governing authorities during motions.
Next steps and appeals Petitioners whose waivers were granted were told to file the remaining objection paperwork immediately; staff said the next Board of Review dates will be June 17 or June 24, 2025. Property owners who disagree with the board's rulings were told they may seek review in circuit court; staff will provide instructions on the appeal process with the written determination notices.
How this was decided Votes on individual waivers and contested appeals were taken either by voice vote or roll call. For contested appeals the board cited the assessor's comparable-sales evidence and statutory standards; when an owner submitted an appraisal or a detailed comparable-adjusted analysis the board considered that evidence, but in the cases decided at this meeting the board concluded the owners had not presented sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of correctness given to assessor valuations under state law.
The board recessed and will reconvene for the scheduled follow-up hearing dates; those petitioners will be notified by the clerk's office.
