Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Muskego assessor outlines 2025 interim market update; reports rise in assessed values, sales reviewed
Summary
Assessor Sam Monroe presented Muskego—s 2025 interim market update, summarizing sales reviewed, permit activity, and methodology changes used in the city—s assessment roll. Board members asked detailed questions about comparable selection and treatment of unusual land features.
Muskego—s assessor on Sept. 4 presented the city—s 2025 interim market update, telling the Board of Review the office had completed a broad review of sales, building permits and field inspections used to prepare the 2025 assessment roll. Sam Monroe, the city—s assessor and a Tyler Technologies representative, said assessors conducted thousands of parcel reviews and field inspections, reviewed several hundred sales for validity and adjusted values to reflect residential and commercial market activity.
Monroe summarized the department—s work: an interim market update was used for 2025, rather than a full revaluation; building permits and resulting on‑the‑ground inspections informed change‑in‑value determinations; ratio studies showed the city—s assessment level trending toward 100 percent of market value after prior years of lower ratios; and vacant‑land sales were limited in some neighborhoods, prompting citywide land‑rate adjustments where local sales were insufficient.
Monroe walked the board through statistics the department uses to test the roll: the number of building permits and new construction parcels reviewed in the year, the count of sales determined to be valid for valuation, and standard quality‑control measures (coefficient of dispersion and price‑related differentials). He also outlined the city—s practice of using multiple valuation approaches — market, cost and regression — and explained why assessors will rely more heavily on the cost approach when the market approach has insufficient or unsuitable comparables.
Board members pressed Monroe on two recurring issues: how comparables are selected and adjusted, and how assessors treat unusual site features such as large storm culverts, easements or long driveways. Monroe said comparisons are limited to similar property styles (for example, condominium pools for condos, ranch for ranches) and that most adjustments are documented in the city—s comparable worksheets. He added that site constraints are handled as a negative influence on land or by specific deductions when evidence shows a legal restriction or an economic misimprovement.
Why it matters: The assessor—s update sets the legal record used by the Board of Review and by taxpayers to evaluate whether assessments reflect current market value. The department—s choice of approach and selection of comparables can materially change a property—s assessment and therefore the property tax burden. Audience members at the open session raised questions about how specific issues — notably culverts and easements that limit frontage or usable acreage — are investigated and recorded so they can be reflected in valuations.
What—s next: Monroe said the department would continue to accept documentation during the first two hours of the Board of Review session, and that the city maintains a record of open‑book discussions and follow‑up project work.
