Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

I'm ready when you are. At

this time, we'll call to order the twenty '26 meeting of the Board of Review, and we will open with the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

At this point, roll call of membership has been taken. I believe we are missing Mayor Woodford.

Mayor Woodford and Alderson Smith.

And they are both excused.

Yes.

And that will bring us to item number four, OASO Office for Citizen Board of Review members.

All right. If I could have the citizen members stand and raise your right hand. I also forgot to bring that with, so could

I see one of them?

Thank you. All right. So repeat after me. I, state your name.

Tim Smith.

Having been appointed to the City of Appleton Board of Review

Having been appointed to the City of Appleton Board of Review.

For a term of one year

For a

term of one year.

Swear that I will support the Constitution of The United States

Swear that will support the Constitution of the The United States

and the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin

and the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin

and will faithfully discharge the duties of said office

will faithfully discharge the duties of

to the best of my ability. Thank you. Then if you haven't already, please sign them and just pass them on down to me. Thank you.

All right. At this point, item number five is confirmation of Board of Review member training, and we do have that confirmation in our packet.

Yes. And I did take the training on April 17. Only one member is required to complete that training so that satisfies the requirement for our board of review.

Okay. And that brings us to item number six, select chairperson for the twenty twenty six board of review. Palmerston

Crow.

Thank you, chair. For the twenty twenty six Board of Review, I'd like to nominate Sherry Hartzheim to chair.

Do we need a second? I'll second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second for Alderson Hartzheim to chair the Board Review. Are there any other nominations? Hearing none, congratulations, Alderperson Hartzheim. And we'll turn the meeting over to you.

Thank you. We'll move to item number seven, elect the vice chair for the twenty twenty six Board of Review. Aldeperson Croak.

Thank you, chair. For the twenty twenty six Board of Review, I'd like to nominate Kyle Lobner for vice chair based on his extensive experience chairing this committee.

We have a nomination. Do we need a second? I'd entertain a second.

We

have multiple seconds. Are there any other nominations? There being none, Kyle Lomner is our vice chairperson for the twenty twenty six Board of Review. Moving on to item number eight, approval of the minutes from the previous meeting, number twenty six-five fifty six.

We move.

We have a motion and a second. Are there any changes discussion? There being none all those in favor please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? The minutes are approved. Moving on to item number nine, confirmation of the 2026 Board of Review notices. Item number 2058. This is the notice and open book. I assume we go to assessor Took for

Actually, I am the one who posted those notices so I can Sparkling. Yes. So you'll notice that this year there is both a notice and a revision in your packet. We did publish an original notice on March 26 and posted that. There was a error in the final date of open book. So we published a corrective notice correcting that error on April 22 and also revised the notice and posted that also on April 12. And then the notice is also posted on the door to this meeting now.

Excellent. City Attorney, is there anything else needed for us in that regard? Do we need to vote on that today?

No. No. We first summarized the posting requirements have been met.

Alright. It has been confirmed. We move to item number 10, review of the Board of Review Policies, item number 20 six-five 59.

So there has been an update, to the policies that are included in the packet for everyone, so we will require a vote to adopt these policies. Yes.

Do we need a motion?

Please. Please do.

Just for some explanation, many of you have been on the board for multiple years and recall in past years we had several independent policies that we would review following last year's Board of Review. My office, along with former City Clerk Lynch and input from the city assessor, decided to put together a more formal set of rules that include the various statutory requirements in it as well as those policies that you are familiar with from the past just so it's all in one comprehensive packet, if you will, for for reference. It should be a little bit easier to for the board members then to follow along, understand what the rules are, and should we need to refer to those, we'll have something a little bit more specific to refer to also. Certainly can take up any questions. Otherwise, I would recommend that the board vote to approve adopting this new set of rules and procedures for the board.

I would entertain a motion to accept these new rules.

Second.

Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Questions? There being none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Attentions? Those policies are now approved. Item number 11, presentation of the '20 26 assessment role, omitted role, and correction of error role. Is this then an assessor took?

Yes. We have the '20 26 assessment role available at the back table there in digital form. We do not have any omitted or correction of error role this year. So that is available for the public.

And then we can also move to item 12, confirmation of the assessor from the assessor that open book changes are not included in the assessment role. I believe you just notified us of that.

Correct.

Excellent. Then item number 13, review of the assessment role and perform statutory duties. Clerk Muller, what is expected of us at this point?

I believe at this point, in the past the microphones have been muted. We have an opportunity to go look at the assessment role which, assessor Chuck indicated is on a computer in the back of the room, and we can do that until our first scheduled hearing which is at 09:30.

Should we then proceed through items 14 through 17 before we do that?

We can. As of right now, there have not been any waiver of, hearing requests nor have there been any waiver of forty eight hour notice requests. However, people would have until the end of the two hour period to submit those requests.

And item number 16.

There have not been no requests for telephone or written testimony. And then 17, there are no previously no, not previously scheduled hearings which we would have to schedule at this point.

Excellent. So we can then mute the mics and have a brief period until 09:30 to begin our first object.

Okay. Can you just explain what we're doing just Absolutely. So it's clear on the

So we are going back to item number 12, the confirmation from the assessor that open book changes are included in the assessment role. And Assessor Took just wanted some clarification because it might have been misunderstood earlier.

Yeah, correct. I believe that verbally it was stated that the corrections for open book were not included in the role that is present. That would be incorrect. The way that it's phrased on the agenda item is correct. It says that confirmation that the assessor or from the assessor that open book changes are included in the assessment roll, and that is true. So I just wanted to clear that up.

Perfect. It's on the record.

Thank

you. It's 09:30. We will move to item number 18 on our agenda. Hear testimony from the scheduled objectors. We'll start with item number 26 Dash 0560507 East Greenfield Street. Omari Bess, owner. Parcel number 31Dash6Dash2994Dash00. Clerk Molitor, is the objector present? The objector is not present. That being said, if it is if there is no objection by the board we can leave that item open until the two hour period just to be certain that we can take that up appropriately.

No objections? Alright. We'll go back into recess then until ten a. M. Well, not recess.

Live, but mic's off. Thank you. It is 09:49, but our objector scheduled for ten a. M. Item number 2064 is here and prepared to speak.

The item is 1224 West Palisades Drive, Eric Schmidt, owner, parcel number 3030. Now I believe that the objector is allowed to speak first. Is that correct?

Yes. But I do need to swear in. I'll swear in both of our witnesses, both the assessor and the property owners, before we get started just to get that under control.

Excellent. Thank you.

Assessor Schupp, do you want to stand first? Raise your right hand.

Yep. All right.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony which you shall give in the matter now on hearing that shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

I do. All right. And can

you state your name for the record, please?

Matthew Took. Thank you. Do you want to do me separate?

Yeah, we'll do you separate. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony which you shall give in the matter now I'm hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

I do. Can you Ryan Anderson.

Thank you. And would you guys please stand? And we'll do you one at a time too. Will you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony which you shall give in the matter now I'm hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? And could you state your name for the record, please? Thank you. And do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony which you shall give in the matter now on hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? I do. And could you state your name for the record, Sure. Chelsea Smith? Thank you.

All right. So we can begin then with the objectors, Mr. And Mrs. Smith. We just got it.

Sorry. So we're here because we got this assessment on our new property that we purchased last year. The reason for the change was increased to construction work completed. We have not completed any construction work since we bought the property. So I would like additional clarification on that.

Was stated that there was a $60 increase. The property was original value of $50,000 We actually removed the kitchen due to mold after purchasing the property, so I don't know if that was part of the construction. We also talked about getting a permit for building that has not been issued yet or not been applied for. So I would like some clarification on that. Secondly, the land valuation.

I know this wasn't increased this time, but we are going through flooding right now where the gates aren't opening south of us. And we are in a flood zone, which we have to get flood insurance for. Our dock is fully underwater. And why I state all that is in comparison to our neighbors, there's a property down the road that is an anchor that's fully elevated at least 50 plus feet above the water. They have one acre.

We have 0.32 acres. They're paying $30,000 less not paying their land value is $30,000 less than ours. There's a second property on the same road that also has river access similar to the first one that is the exact same acres, and they pay 50% or their land value is 50% less than us. And again, their lot is on the river at a higher elevation, never going to flood. And both of those lots are fully built.

Our lot is on the water. It's a rectangle. The long portion is along the river, but also it's along the flood zone. And 50% of our lot is not even buildable. Our cabin that we have is actually within a nonbuildable zone.

It's illegal, I believe, grandfathered in residence. So all that to account, I think the land valuation is actually very high comparative to our neighbors. They also get benefits of being in another county and getting brush pickup, which we don't get the benefit that we pay for in our taxes. And then I kinda touched on the third item. Right now, our dock is environmental and financial encumbrance.

Right? We we pay for yearly flood insurance on the property, which we knew going into this, but I have pictures on here that show that when we purchased it, it was two feet underneath the dock. Now I'm almost two feet over the dock, and the dock is probably the highest value of structure on the property. So I don't think that it's fair to take the sale price when I'm going up against Airbnb buyers and the condition of the property now is not even closed without the kitchen, which is on a 400 square foot place without a kitchen. It's extreme, right, difference in what you would pay for it back then versus now.

And then if it was flooded by two feet and my my boat is sitting out there without any dock around it, I don't I don't think that is a fair comparison purely based on sale value. Because the site of construction, I don't believe has ever occurred, the land utility is significantly lower than the neighboring dry parcels. Why we're here is I don't see the $60 improvement cost. And, actually, I would request that the land value is much lower than my neighbors. We do intend to build in the future, and I do intend to get permits if they're approved to build.

And I can see a tax increase due to that reason. But right now, we haven't done anything. We've owned the property for a year so far. I have pictures here if anyone wants to see the kitchen removed or the flooding versus what we saw when we originally bought it and that our portion of the river is not getting any action due to floodgates because there's higher dense population down south or down downstream of the river. Completely understand all that.

But it also shouldn't be valued at the same as other land value on the river if we're willing to be flooded and other people, which are not in the action stage for the last two weeks, but we are in the action stage for the last two weeks, No action is happening on our side. That's my argument. I don't know if I rambled on too long, but thank you.

That's fine. Thank you. Ms. Smit, is there anything that you'd

like to add?

Just as I would echo all of my husband's comments and also just note that the picture of flooding today is actually much higher than what's shown on the photo on page three. So we're starting to encroach into land at this very point. Very happy to supply an updated photo. I was just at our cabin if you'd like to see that as well.

Thank you. The board and the assessor may now ask the owners any questions.

I have several questions. Okay. One, the land that's valued less than yours, is that in the city of Appleton or is that in a different municipality? Is that in the town of Fox Crossing?

Correct. It's the one that also picks all the brush up on the rest of the road. It's I think it's part of Fox Crossing. Fox Crossing. It's not in the Correct. And why I brought that up is there's no other comparative roads. No other roads in Appleton are that low besides large commercial retirement homes and other apartment complex. This is my comparison, right? And I've also been told by our neighbor in the city of Appleton that they compare themselves to the Fox Crossing property during their hearing and they had a positive outcome. So that's why I brought up those outcomes. Okay.

And second, is there was there more than one parcel involved in the sale? Because I see the sale was $340,000 in '25. Is there another you didn't pay how much is there more than one parcel involved with that sale?

Understood. So that's why I brought up that I don't think it was fair to increase property value for construction completed work when no construction completed work was based on the sale. The sale was this is a this is not a dwell this is not a home. No one's gonna live in a 467 square foot place with no kitchen. It was a pure entertainment purpose for our family as part of a cabin purchase.

Right? But we paid $340,000 because it's a $100,000 dock or $50,000 dock, whatever you wanna value it at, and in a different condition of what we bought it for. It was a spontaneous purchase. We'd know for the fact that our competitor that was gonna buy it was a Airbnb commercial unit

Okay.

Which whether or not I don't I don't I'm not a assessor. I I won't take any of that knowledge. But if all of a sudden the city of Appleton said no no Airbnb is allowed at my property, that's then my property value drop not based on a sale. And we have other properties on our road that haven't been sold for thirty five years. So I don't understand the judgment of a

sale No, I price just understand what you're saying. I'm just trying to understand because the sale price was so above both the current assessment and what you're valuing it. I thought sometimes there are sales that it includes a second parcel. And I just wanted clarification that you paid $3.4 for that one parcel?

Absolutely, we did. And I would say that none of the properties on our road, how they were assessed versus what was paid for them, have any correlation. I know a property most of the properties on road can't even be built for the price that they have been assessed at for materials, let alone land or any other condition. I mean, there's a property on a road that is valued at $57,000 for land value on the river. Right?

You can't buy a 57,000 there there's a there's a lot five blocks away from us inland in a in a less populated area that just sold for $75 per lot. And it has to be torn down. The garage has to be torn down too. So I I don't why I justified all that is because I completely understand. We had money cash on hand because we worked out of state away from our family for a long time, And we decided that this was, instead of buying a big truck, that we wanted to purchase this. And we were willing to pay a premium. We didn't think it was assessment value, right? I'm No, not that's fine.

I just want to you know, there was such a difference.

Understood.

That's Completely understood. And I guess I would be interested in you know, if you wanted to pass the photos around. And are they dated? I guess my question is, too, when was it gutted? Was it gutted in 'twenty five? Or was

it was gutted in 'twenty five. I can't get the exact I'm sorry. I can just take them off here.

No, the exact date isn't necessary. I'm just curious what was done prior to January 1 or after.

Correct. Prior to January 1, we ripped it out about a month after because we dug further underneath the cabinets because this was a two day closing, Right? It's a it's a specialty property that people are just gonna purchase quickly at that period of time. We ripped out the cabinets right away because the mold was so bad. Right? I paid $5 to remediate the mold, And we decided just to close-up the wall because of the cost and possible future expansion as what I've discussed with the city about possibly expanding and not putting the kitchen there.

No. Thanks for that. Thank you.

Those flooding photos are pretty recent, so I didn't show my wife the pictures prior to coming into this meeting, but

Okay.

I do have a more up to date photo on my cell phone, but I think that's It's close. Yes.

And I will just mention for the board that the email that you sent I did include in your materials as So that will be exhibit one and then what we're passing around now will be exhibit two for this.

Thank you.

Do any other board members or the assessor have any other questions for the objector?

Yes, I did have a question. I was wondering how you determined your opinion of value. Understood.

Yep. And again, I'm not assessor. I'll say that on the record, as you know. But how I determined it was I felt that $60 increase based on no construction was there. So I thought I would take what I thought it was based on other assessment values on that road. So I don't have my email on what I assessed it at. But the value I took the $60 off because I didn't see any construction completion. If anything, I saw a removal. I didn't deduct that for the removal of the kitchen. But I took that $60 completely off.

And then the land value, judged at a lot that is fully buildable down the road at the same acres, obviously, has less riverfront, which could be positive or negative based on how you view flooding. I took their value. So it's their value of their assessed value or their land assessed value plus the original improvement value of the cabin prior to this increase in 2026.

And those assessments of the other comparables are in Fox Crossing. Is that correct?

Fair. I feel like that's going to hurt me. Yes, you are correct. Can I ask any questions Yeah, you want to ask questions? Sorry.

The assessor will have a chance to present

his case and there

will be similar opportunities, yes. I

did have one other question. What

would

you estimate the cost to cure on the kitchen would be?

I that's a that's a good question. I don't know. $55, I would say. Something. Plumbing. Yeah. And then it had a nice countertop. It had, like, a granite countertop on it. Right? So I would say I could do it with a small contractor for $5,000 Okay.

Thank you.

I was more oh, sorry. I'll wait until Are

there any other board members or anyone Alder Kerr.

Thank you, chair. Just a question about comparables. We heard, I believe, that the comparables referenced and there is reference to some addresses here in this document are in the town of Fox Crossing. Is this the extent of the, call it, evidence of the comparables?

So I have another sheet here that lists all improvement values and land values that I can hand. I only have one sheet of it because I took the ones that I thought were mainly, the point three two acres is very comparable to ours based on just acreage river access. But I do have other ones throughout the whole road that I could present. And

And just for clarification for the record, so there were photo a packet of photos that were circulated earlier. At some point, if the clerk had marked those as exhibit a. And then the second item that's being circulated would be Exhibit B.

Oh, perfect. Yeah. And actually, so there was an email documentation that we had as Exhibit well, I said one, but we like A better. Exhibit one. And then the packet of photos would be exhibit two. This will be exhibit three. Yes. It possible we could get copies of this? Is that Okay if I can

make copies? Yes. So we don't have to sure

We'll await Clerk Malitor.

You can make copies of your document. That's perfect.

I should have had them.

Is there any other board member that has any question in this regard?

The other picture is still circulating.

I think we all have a copy.

Do you

want it?

Do you? Thank you.

Thank you. Quick monitor. So again, are there any other questions from the board or the assessor's office in this regard for the objector? If there are none, we can move then to the assessor and the assessor's witnesses.

Okay. Good morning, everybody. Just by way of introduction, for those that don't know, my name is Matthew Took. I'm the city assessor here in Appleton. I'm a certified appraiser, assessor three with the Department of Revenue, and I've been in the assessment field for about twenty five years. And I'd just like to thank the Board of Review members and also Mr. And Mrs. Smith for being here today. So today we're going to discuss the property that's located at 1224 West Palisades Drive. It's Parcel 30 One-four-nine 30 Six-one.

This property is located on the Fox River. It's directly across from Alicia Park, and it has approximately two zero one feet of riverfrontage. The home is a classic A frame construction. It's built around 1950. It includes one bedroom and one bathroom and about four sixty seven square feet above grade of a living space.

There is no basement. The lot size is roughly 13,939 square feet. The property is located in a floodplain, and it is also subject to the 75 foot setback requirement along the Fox River. And what this means for this property is it definitely does limit future rebuilding possibilities or expansion, etcetera. The home is heated with electric heat.

The property really functions more as a secondary home or a seasonal property rather than a full time residence. For this property, I prepared a packet that is just a little bit different. It focused specifically on the sale of the subject and the attributes of the property. And this is because a recent arm's length sale using the Markarian hierarchy is going to direct us to rely upon that sale of the subject rather than looking at traditionally comparable sales. So some of the home's features include deck, patio, storage shed, and a sizable dock, which was mentioned.

It has a covered electric boat lift. And I was able to personally inspect this property 11/25/2025, with Mr. Smith. And during that inspection, I found the home to be generally in good condition. But Mr.

Smith did point out that after he purchased the property, he did discover mold behind the kitchen sink base cabinets. So as a result, when I was out there, he had removed about six feet of base cabinets with the countertop and sink. So in evaluating this property, I applied a deduction to my overall estimate to account for this of $10,000 And this was to cover not only the cost to replace the base cabinets and the sink, but also the functional obsolescence that's created by not having a kitchen. So also, while completing my inspection, I discovered a permanent dock on the property that per the listing was built in about 2018, and it had never been a part of our records. Because of that, it was added as new construction for assessment purposes, Hence, the reason that the assessment notice stated new construction.

According to Marshall and Swift cost manuals, the cost of a new dock, the replacement cost of that size and quality is probably estimated about $90,000 to $100,000 Based on this, I looked at the depreciated value of the dock and felt that it added 70,000 So both of these factors were considered. First, the removal of the kitchen for a negative 10,000, and then the increase for the discovery of the dock at 70,000. And this is how I came up with the net increase of 60,000. Just to speak a little bit as well about neighboring communities and that, when you're comparing assessments of different communities, they're going to be at different levels of assessment based on when they were last reassessed. And the equalization process is the process that brings all communities up to the level of assessment.

So when you're comparing different communities' assessments, it's not the most accurate way obviously to do that unless you're incorporating that level of assessment. I want to speak a little bit to the sale as well. So this is an arm's length transaction that occurred, and I do have the listing. So this was listed on the market 02/05/2025, accepted offer $2.07 25. The list price on this was 399,000 and the selling price ultimately was $340,000 Someone might ask, why are we not assessing at market value or even the level of assessment, which is currently estimated at 81% of market value?

Currently, the assessment compared to the sale price is 64% of market value. The reason for this is a practice that we don't engage in that is detrimental or talked about in the Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual about chasing sale prices. So we do not engage in that. We only add for things that we were unaware of. And therefore, the next time that we reval in 2028, this will be placed at market value. With that, that concludes my testimony. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Do any board members have any questions for the assessor? Clerk Muller.

Just because it wasn't mentioned earlier, can you tell us what the estimated level of assessment is for this year?

Yes. So it's 81% of market value for 2026.

Thank you.

I'm just curious, was there

a proper permit told when the seller or whoever put the dock in put it in or

Right. Well, it would have been with the previous owner, so it doesn't reflect on the Smith's Right.

Know it

doesn't reflect. Yeah. Not to our knowledge. There's no record of a permit being pulled on that with the city of Appleton. I did check with the building inspector. Because of the electrical for the lift, there would have been a permit required.

They didn't then whoever installed it. And I know it wasn't the buyers, but they did not pull the permit. Okay.

Correct. And that's part of the reason that we never caught it originally.

Assessor Took, for the record, if you are aware of it, do you know when Fox Crossing did their last reassessment?

I'm not aware. I don't know if anybody else.

Not that it's and germane, but then if you could please provide us what were the previous assessments before the 2006 reassessment? Sure. Total, please.

Yep. So previously, in the year tax year 2025, this property, the let's see here. Okay. The previously, the land assessment was 108,300. The building was assessed at a 110,500. Wait.

That's this year.

Oh, that's this year. Sorry about that. I I'm off of here. So let's start over. For 2025, the land was assessed at 108,300. The building at 50,500 for a total of 158,800. And then for the tax year 2026, again, the land was at $108,300 the building or the improvement value, 110,500 for a total of 218,800

Thank you. Do any other board members have any questions for the assessor's office at this time? Okay. Do the objectors have questions for the assessor's office?

I think Matthew clarified quite a few there, so thank you for that. I guess just my last comment there, and you can say something about the permit. Do you think there was a permit?

I think I would like to just do, yeah, do a little bit of research to understand the permitting prop or really understand the permitting process. How could a dock be installed without the permit?

But From a from a legitimate it's one of the major dock companies around here. But Yeah. This is why I brought it here. So I apologize if I wasted any time. I I thought the dock was in there because we knew it was built in 2018. We asked that question before. We bought it in 2025, seven years. I would have assumed that the property was assessed. I mean, in Oshkosh, we do it every five years, and we get a huge tax bill increase. Right? So this is one of the two, I would say, even bigger structure on the property besides this small home. Right? No no one's gonna pay $304,000 for this property without that dock. Right? And as you see in the picture when we bought the property, it was three feet above.

So, I mean, at some point, I have to take on it, right, to then look and level research and make sure the dams get operated continuously between the two, which I find out, nope. The army corps operates the North Dam in Menashin opens up all of them, and then we worry and then we get zero. You you turn on the faucet to a sink that's full and and right? So at what point in time do I take ownership first? Now I'm struggling with that right now, but know, I'm rambling.

No, you're good. No, but I do have a question on that point. Related to the flooding that we're currently incurring, this might be a question for Matthew. How would you evaluate that in terms of assessment?

Yeah. So something like that with flooding or any other kind of thing, we would have to look at, first of all, is there any lasting damage that has occurred, which is possible. I know that in 2024, we had similar water levels. And so that would be something that could be considered that we could look at, sure.

When it comes to the dock itself, it's been underwater for approximately two weeks and is only continuing.

I just want to weigh in on that. Okay. Because we're focusing so much on the sale price. If we whether or not it has damages or not, the sale price was under a condition at the time of sale. Right? It's not under whether or not there was damages from 2024 or not. And, again, whether or not I have ownership on that is is I could be completely wrong. So I'll I'll put that out there. The second thing is the assessment between two counties. I I don't understand unless it's just a time frame like was mentioned.

I don't understand the the great difference between the two. If anything, I get lesser I get lesser services from the city. I don't even get brush pickup at my location. The rest of the residents on that road get brush pickup. So I I get lesser from the city, but I get judged higher than my my neighbors.

I I have to come to that justification at some point in time, but I'm a little bit confused by that. But this all disagreement so that might be the land value side of it, which I think we should be decreased based on my judgment against other properties, especially even my city neighbors in the same location that have fully buildable lots at a higher elevation. But we might just be confused because of the dock situation. We assumed that the dock was in the assessment value are already. And when I say construction completed in 2026 and I had assessment in 2025, I don't see the difference. So that's that's might be the discrepancy. So

Yeah. And unfortunately, we didn't get an opportunity to speak during open book where we could have had an opportunity to kind of go through some of this. Yes.

New to this game.

Yep. No problem.

May I ask a question?

Mr. Lobner, yes.

Just to be clear, if there is flood damage in 2026, that would still not be reflected in this year's assessment, correct? Because it's the property value as of a prior date?

Yeah, correct. Thank you for that clarification. Correct. So that would be something that could be considered for 2027.

Thank you.

And it's not necessarily a question for the assessor's office but perhaps for anyone in the room aware of the city services. Would there be any reason that this property would be excluded from city services of any sort?

Not that I'm aware of unless somebody else has knowledge on that.

Mr. Smith? Been told by our neighbors that have been there for six years that they don't get it and have tried in the past. Right? So we have to put our brush in our neighbors in the Fox Crossing to be able to get anything picked up. So that might not be on factual information. I just want to put that out there. But that was based on our neighbors telling me that we don't have access.

Thank you. Alder Crow.

Thank you, Chair. If I could ask the assessor a question about the value of the dock. You mentioned that you came up with a depreciated value of the dock of $70,000 How was that arrived at? And did that consider any possible damage from previous years?

Well, I had the opportunity to physically look at the dock, and I do have a picture that I took that day that I was out there. And so docks do have a little bit more of depreciation curve than some other types of items.

Weather

quickly. So I felt based on physical inspection that like a 30% depreciation rate on something like that is probably the most appropriate.

Okay. And would that have considered any possible damage from maybe 2024, which was referenced as a high flood year or high water year?

Correct. I mean, so I got a physical view of it. So that would have and it did show a little bit of wear. You can actually perhaps tell a little bit that it does show some wear. So that would have been factored in. There's no real damage, more just, you know, I would say seven years of wear. Okay. Thank you.

To follow-up on that Assessor Took, where would you have started then with the dollar figure in order to figure the depreciated expense of that doc?

Yeah. So I used Marshall and Swift costing manuals. And I did an estimate based on a permanent peer and the quality that I thought was appropriate and estimated that it's going to be between 90,000 and $100,000 new.

Thank you. Do any other board members or the objector have any other questions for the assessor?

That's new in today's value based on that manual?

Actually, it's as of the effective date. So all of our assessments are effective 01/01/2023.

Oh, okay.

So whenever we price something, we backdate everything. So today, I think it would be more expensive.

In 2018, five years prior to that date, it would have been less expensive prior to COVID to build that? Or it doesn't really matter?

It's possible. But that's why I kind of offer a range. Understood.

Yeah. Thank

Any other questions for anyone? All right. There being none, Attorney Barings, are we then proceeding through the findings of fact?

Dan at this point or the board later, too, if you want.

How would the board like to proceed?

I feel like I'm ready to proceed with the findings of

I agree.

All right. Now I will rely on the vice chair to inform me on our MI to proceed through the findings of fact with the board.

I can if you are not prepared to, but I usually just proceeded through and filled in the blanks to see if any members of the board had any disagreement.

All right. I will make an attempt. Thank you for that. We are looking at the review of 1224 West Palisades Drive property owner Eric Schmidt with the land assessed at $108.03 and the improvements at $110.05 with total of 218.8 on today's hearing date. The timely notice was filed and the clerk will make note of the board members present.

There are no board members removed. We will move then to item b sworn testimony by the property owner was included yes there was a recent sale of the property the subject property was sold for $340,000 on 03/14/2025.

03/11/2020.

Am seeing March Okay. I am looking at the actual applicant's information. Does that matter for the record? A few days.

At this point, we are just compiling their testimony.

Excellent. On or about threefourteentwenty twenty five. Recent sales of comparable properties were presented no, were not presented recent values, but not sales. Other factors presented yes. A list of the factors that were presented include in Exhibit A or one, the initial objection from the objector, which showed photos and a basic conclusion by the objector.

Exhibit B, additional photos, etcetera.

I

apologize. Exhibit C, from the objector, a list of properties and their valuations along the same roadway? Three. Let me get this one right. Exhibit four.

Actually, that was not presented by the objector. But it was presented by the assessor's office. That is the subject property information presented from assessor took. Sworn testimony on behalf of the property owner.

Before we move on to two, I would like to add some items to the list from C.

Yes.

At that time, we were also made aware of incomplete construction work. The kitchen had been removed, but no permit had been pulled to replace it. And we were also given testimony regarding the flood risk, which is incompatible with neighboring or which is not the same as what is experienced by neighboring properties.

Thank you. Anyone else have anything to add there?

Just the testimony also stated that the cost to cure was $5,000 if they were to repair the kitchen.

Thank you.

And this is probably also a good place to note that we were presented the assessments for 1516 West Palisades and 1427 West Palisades in Fox Crossing which are different from this property.

Thank you. Sworn testimony on behalf of the property owner objector was presented by the following witnesses, Mr. Eric Schmidt and Ms. I apologize. Your first name is Chelsea.

Chelsea Smith. Summary of the testimony was provided very well in Exhibits one, two, and three, and in the added items that were just noted by Mr. Lobner. Sworn testimony by the assessor is mister Matthew Took. The assessment level for the current year is 81%.

Recent sale of the subject property, yes, in on or about 03/14/2025 for $340,000 There were no recent sales of comparable properties presented. And other factors were presented by the assessor's office that is exhibit four. Any further items to add?

Dock construction.

Missed dock construction from previous assessments. Does the board have anything further to add to that?

Dot depreciation.

Depreciation value, current depreciation value, our depreciated value.

And a $10,000 deduction for the obsolescence kitchen.

Kitchen obsolescence reduction. Sworn testimony on behalf of the assessor, the assessor himself. Summary of testimony from other witnesses for the assessor is NA. All right. We'll move on to item C, the determinations.

The assessor's estimated level of assessment of the municipality has been determined to be 81%. Item B, the following individuals were sworn as witness. We have the two objectors and the assessor and mister Anderson as well. Oops. I'm sorry. I'm moving on to the wrong thing. Turn the page, Sherry. Item two. The board finds that there was a recent sale of the subject property. The sale was an arm's length transaction.

Yes. The sale was representative of the value as of January. Yes. The board finds that the sale supports the assessment.

Just to clarify, I think for B, it is important that we note that the sale price is different from the assessed value, at least in part because of the 81% factor. So the sale is representative of the value once modified for that 81%.

Important clarification. Thank you, Mr. Lautner. The board finds that the sale supports the assessment. Yes, based on what was just noted. And D, if all answers are yes, what was the sale price? 340,000. What if any adjustments should be made?

I think all adjustments were already made.

In the assessed value that was presented by the assessor's office. Must we clarify each of them independently, Attorney Barron? Okay. Then what is the full taxable value? 218,800.

Item three, the board of review finds that are there are recent sales of comparable properties. That is a no.

Do we based on the hierarchy where the recent sale is the first factor to consider, do we need to go through item three, the recent sales of comparable properties? Because even if there were, they would be moved in the presence of item two.

It does say if responses in two through 2C were yes, upon completion of the section proceed to Section D.

Move to Section D. Thank you. We are now on to Section D, the decision.

May I make a motion, Chair? Please do. I move, exercising its judgment and discretion pursuant to Wisconsin Statute 70.47 a, border review determines that the assessor's valuation is correct, that the assessor presented evidence of the fair market value of the subject property using assessment methods which conform to the statutory requirements and which are outlined in the Wisconsin property

the property

owner owner did did not not present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness granted by law to the assessor, that the assessor's valuation is reasonable in light of all the relevant evidence and sustains the same valuation as set by the assessor. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Do we need a discussion period? The board may discuss now. Anything to add?

I'd just like to make a couple comments. One, when possible, if the assessor is out inspecting a sale and they find something significantly different from what's on their records, I was wondering if at that point in time they can notify or let the buyer know that it's significant that basically the seller did some significant work without pulling the proper permits. I think that would be beneficial in the future for other cases. And I guess that's it.

Thank you. Anything further from the board? There being none, the clerk will call a roll call vote.

Alderperson Hartzheim? Yes. Alderperson Croak?

Aye.

Board Member Smith? Aye. Board Member Morgan?

Aye.

Board Member Lobner? Aye. And Clerk Molitor, myself, aye.

That motion has passed. Thank you. We are still remaining open for, our item that was to be taken up at 09:30AM. Clerk Meuler, what? At what time at 11AM would be us?

Yes, they have until 11AM. We are required to be meeting for two hours, so 9AM to 11AM. And the objector would have an opportunity to come and complete his form schedule his hearing before then.

Thank you. So the board will be in a non recess recess with the mics off.

Non recess recess.

Because there No. Isn't

And and and actually, we don't want to. It's probably

a tip too right away.

Because if we know that one Well, don't we're to appeal it again. Right.

All right. We are reopening or well we have never closed or never opened or closed item number 26Dash0560 For 507 East Greenfield Street, Rimari Bess, owner, parcel number 31Dash6Dash2994Dash00. The objector is not present, and there are no other folks present to represent the objector. So I would entertain a motion from the board to dismiss the objection.

So moved. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion?

Also note that the information presented was not complete.

Thank you, Attorney Barron. The information presented

to the

board in the objection was incomplete, which would be, I assume then, the reason for the objection or for the dismissal by the mover and the seconder?

Correct.

Excellent. Any other discussion? There being none, all those in favor of the dismissal of this objection, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed?

That objection passes. We have already presumed number 19 to be completed. So I would entertain item number two.

Adjourn. Second.

Motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. We are adjourned.