Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Minocqua Board of Review keeps in‑person hearings, maintains ban on phone testimony and waiver requests
Summary
At its April 30, 2026 meeting the Town of Minocqua Board of Review voted to keep its existing policy prohibiting phone testimony and requests to waive hearings. The board also reappointed Mark Hartzheim as chair and Roben Haggart as vice‑chair and recorded that no hearings were scheduled.
The Town of Minocqua Board of Review voted April 30, 2026, to retain its existing rules that prohibit phone testimony and deny requests to waive in‑person hearings. Chairman Mark Hartzheim called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. in the Minocqua Center; Supervisors Lance Krolczyk and Erika Petersen, Assessor Kitt Koski and Clerk Roben Haggart were present.
Supervisor Erika Petersen moved to approve the agenda; Clerk Roben Haggart seconded and the motion carried by voice vote. Petersen then nominated Mark Hartzheim as chair (seconded by Haggart) and the board approved the nomination by voice vote. Krolczyk seconded the nomination of Roben Haggart as vice‑chair, which also carried.
The board discussed whether to permit phone testimony or to allow property owners to waive a hearing. Petersen moved, and Krolczyk seconded, to maintain the town’s longstanding policy not to allow phone testimony; members approved the motion by voice vote. Krolczyk moved (seconded by Petersen) to continue the adopted policy not to allow requests for waiving of hearings; that motion also carried by voice vote.
Chairman Hartzheim noted the meeting had been posted pursuant to Sec. 70.47(1) of the Wisconsin Statutes; Haggart and Krolczyk confirmed they had completed required Board of Review training and an affidavit was filed with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue as required.
There were no hearings scheduled for this session. Supervisor Petersen moved to adjourn at 11:00 a.m.; Haggart seconded and the motion carried.
The board’s decisions keep hearings in‑person and maintain existing procedural protections and notice requirements for property owners and appellants.
