Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges reassessment after parent’s home taxed at more than $1 million
Summary
A Brown Deer resident told trustees her elderly parents were hit with a sudden, large property assessment — she said the assessor valued the home at $1,021,700 and their annual tax bill rose from about $13,000 to $20,000. She asked the board for reassessment or a refund and raised concerns about assessor communication and methodology.
Toshiba Adams told the Village of Brown Deer Board of Trustees on Jan. 12 that her elderly parents, Basil and Jesse Stewart of Duncheswood Subdivision, received an unexpectedly large property assessment that placed their home at over $1,000,000 and sharply increased their tax bill.
"In a single year, my parents' home was assessed at...$1,021,700 for a 3 bedroom, 3 bathroom house," Adams said. She told the board the assessment rose by roughly $463,000 in one year and that the family’s annual property tax payment grew from about $13,000 to $20,000.
The family, Adams said, tried to reach the village assessor, who did not return her father’s calls; the assessor later called Adams and, she said, conceded there were "holes" in the methodology used to value the home. Adams said the assessment is out of step with neighborhood sales and urged the village to provide transparency, reassessment and a refund where appropriate.
Why it matters: Changing a tax assessment can materially affect an elderly homeowner’s finances. Adams framed the issue as a matter of fairness and elder protection, saying the family’s limited income makes a sudden tax spike especially harmful.
What was said in the meeting: Adams told trustees no other home in the 53223 ZIP code subdivision had sold for more than about $600,000, and that only one house out of 4,500 in the assessor’s dataset was valued over $1,000,000. She said she had discussed methodology with the assessor, who acknowledged gaps. "We need transparency. We need fairness," Adams said.
Board response and next steps: The comment occurred during the public‑comment period; the board did not take an immediate formal action to grant an appeal or refund during the meeting. Adams asked how to follow up; trustees and staff did not announce specific next steps for a formal reassessment or refund during the session.
Clarifying details: Adams identified the assessed value cited ($1,021,700), the reported increase (~$463,000), and the family’s estimated tax increase (from about $13,000 to about $20,000). She said the assessor had not initially returned calls and later spoke with her and acknowledged methodological gaps.
Ending: The board heard the complaint during public comment and did not take a formal vote on the matter at the meeting. Adams asked how to follow up with trustees and staff to seek further review.
