Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appeals And Votes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants many 48‑hour waivers, hears dozens of appeals and sustains assessor valuations
Summary
The Board granted multiple waivers of the 48‑hour notice for filing objections (for reasons including medical emergencies, mail delays and scheduling conflicts), accepted many requests to testify remotely, and after hearing several owners (including Tracy Foss, Kelly Hazard, Greg Harder and Dean Richard) upheld the assessor’s valuations in each contested case heard on June 6.
The Waukesha Board of Review spent the bulk of its June 6 meeting hearing requests to waive the 48‑hour notice requirement and conducting property appeals. The board granted many waiver requests where petitioners showed prior contact with the clerk or evidence of extenuating circumstances (medical duty, caregiving, late mail delivery) and denied some requests when staff determined petitioners had received sufficient notice.
The board also approved multiple requests by out‑of‑state companies and property owners to testify by telephone or to submit sworn written statements because traveling to Waukesha would have imposed significant burden and expense. Approved remote testimony requests included corporate property owners and agents (motion approvals recorded on the public record).
Several contested appeals were heard in full and decided on the record. In each of the contested hearings the assessor presented sales‑based comparable analyses and the Board concluded the assessor’s evidence was the more credible basis for valuation:
- 2601 Brookstone Court (Tracy Foss): owner submitted a March 13, 2025 property value estimate and argued the assessment should be reduced; the Board found assessor comparables more credible and sustained the assessor’s value (assessment stands at $488,700).
- 1420 Gabriel Drive Unit 3 (Kelly Hazard): owner cited interior and building‑condition problems and requested a lower assessment; after reviewing the assessor’s comparables the Board sustained the assessor’s valuation (motion carried by roll call).
- 827 Conifer Court (Mark and Beth Leverence): owners argued a built‑in LED fireplace should not be treated as a true fireplace and cited nearby sales; the Board found assessor comparables persuasive and sustained the valuation.
- 3027 Tanglewood Drive (Gregory Harder): the owner highlighted easements, drainage constraints and historical relative land values; assessor staff explained adjustments made during open book (including an easement discount) and the Board sustained the assessor’s revised land and building values (land $95,000; building $448,100).
- 1436 Big Bend Road Unit E (Dean Richard): owner presented a spreadsheet averaging multiple condo sales and argued his unit’s fair market value is lower; the assessor presented 2024 sales and the Board sustained the assessor’s revised value of $155,400.
In each contested case the Board advised owners of the right to appeal to circuit court after receiving the written notice of decision.
What happens next: petitioners who were granted waivers were instructed to file objection paperwork before leaving the clerk’s office; the clerk will send hearing notices assigning petitioners to either June 17 or June 24 slots. The Board’s procedural adoption of sworn telephone/written testimony will apply to those impending hearings.
