Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waukesha Board of Review sustains assessor valuations for two auto-dealership properties
Summary
On July 29, 2025 the City of Waukesha Board of Review rejected appeals for two commercial dealership properties — 1603 East Moreland and 1710 South Highway 164 — concluding the assessor's sales-comparable evidence outweighed the owners' cost-based claims. Both motions passed by unanimous roll call of the three-member board.
The City of Waukesha Board of Review on July 29, 2025 voted to uphold assessor valuations for two commercial auto-dealership parcels after hearing evidence from the property agents and the assessor's office.
At a hearing on 1603 East Moreland, the agent (Wayne Tannebaum) asked the board to set the total assessed value at about $5,300,000, citing Marshall & Swift cost calculations, land comparables and photos showing deferred maintenance. The city assessor's analysis used sales comparables and produced an adjusted assessor figure of roughly $5,984,000. Chair Christy D'Angelo said the board must uphold the assessor's valuation unless the taxpayer proves a different specific value; "The burden of proof is on you as the taxpayer to prove a value other than the current assessed value," she told the agent.
After questioning both sides about methodology and market comparables, the board found the assessor's sales-comparison evidence more persuasive and sustained the assessor's valuation by roll call vote (Eric Dunst: aye; Christy D'Angelo: aye; Sarah Roth: aye).
The board reached the same outcome in a successive hearing for 1710 South Highway 164. The same agent again argued for a lower valuation and highlighted a discrepancy in building square footage reported by the assessor's records (the agent cited ~25,386 sq ft; the assessor's record showed ~46,902 sq ft). The assessor explained the choice and weighting of comparables and noted she would update the assessment record if later data warranted. The board concluded the evidence did not meet the taxpayer's burden to rebut the presumption of correctness and sustained the assessor's figure by roll call vote (Eric Dunst: aye; Christy D'Angelo: aye; Sarah Roth: aye).
Agent Wayne Tannebaum argued dealerships are difficult to value and that sales can incorporate non-real-property items such as franchise agreements or personal property, making the sales approach unreliable without careful adjustment. "Sales often include other factors...they usually will sell for even lower cost," he said, arguing for more weight to the cost approach.
Assessor Laurie Swarden and her staff relied on local and regional sales analytics (including CoStar data) and adjusted for building attributes and market conditions. Board members said the scarcity of in-city dealership sales made comparability challenging, but they did not find the agent's evidence strong enough to overturn the assessor.
The board indicated that appeal information will be mailed to appellants who wish to pursue further review.
