Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

we're ready to call the order uh... will be written with roll call sarah off eric dunst uh... that we have confirmation of the appropriate board of review and open meeting notices uh... just like to confirm katie that took place we have been noticed And then item four, select the chairperson and vice chairperson for the Board of Review.

I nominate Sarah Roth as for chairperson. I second.

And then if we can take a vote, all in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. And I nominate Eric Dunst.

as vice chair i'll second the nomination and then we'll take a roll or a vote all in favor item number five verify that a member has met the mandatory training requirements Perfect. Item number six, verify the city has an ordinance for the confidentiality of income and expense information provided to the assessor under section 47 sub 7 sub AF, the Wisconsin statute.

Yes, under city code 3.03 subsection 5.

Thank you. And then item number seven, review any new laws.

There are no new laws this year.

Perfect. Item number eight, adoption of the City of Waukesha Board of Review policy. So we have policy to review and then make a motion on. Did everyone have a chance to review the policy? Yes.

Yes.

Any questions or discussion?

No, no.

All right, I'll make a motion to approve the City of Waukesha Board of Review policy for May 2026. Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Great, moving on to item number nine, receipt of the assessment roll by the clerk from the assessor.

Yeah, yes, it was electronically submitted to the clerk on the 20th.

Perfect, thank you. And then item number 11, review the assessment role and perform our statutory duties. So the board will now take the time to examine the role. Was there any errors or discrepancies? Is that later?

Nope. Are you talking number 12 or?

Number 11. So, okay. Yeah. So we go through with that.

Yeah. We'll get there.

Okay, great. We'll examine the role now.

I'm trying to, but I'm not having a good time here. Come on. Yeah, I can't. I'll just look over your shoulder. Well, here, you can just take mine.

Thank you.

Thank you. I was meant to send out too many emails under your name. I see nothing wrong with the. Do you want this one back? It doesn't matter, I suppose. Goodie, goodie, goodie. I'm good.

Okay, the board has examined the roles. We did not find any errors or omissions or double assessed properties. So we can move on to item number 12, discussion action, certify all corrections and error under state law.

uh yes uh this year we had 13 uh correction and omissions 12 of those were the corrections and there was one uh omission that was added to the role and that has been uh electronically submitted to the clerk okay great thank you um moving on to number 13 um discussion action verify with the assessor that open book changes are included in the assessment role So for this year, we had 42 requests during open book, which resulted in 60 properties being reviewed, which also included discoveries that we found out during open book. 80% of those resulted in changes, 20% did not, and those changes do reflect on the assessment rule.

Great, thank you. And then moving on to item number 14, allow taxpayers to examine the assessment data. Doesn't seem like there's anyone here. We can move on to item number 15, the approval of the minutes. So we have the Board of Review minutes from August, July 29th, 2025. I have a motion to approve those.

I make a motion to approve the minutes. I'll second.

And then all in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Moving on to item number 16, consideration on number A, waivers of the required 48-hour notice of intent to file an objection when there is good cause.

The only objection we received after the 48-hour window is for RCL investments.

Okay, and it seems like he's not here to request the waiver of the required 48-hour notice or give reasoning to why, and none was provided, it doesn't seem like. So we can go ahead and make a decision on, discuss and make a decision on the waiver of the required 48-hour notice.

I'm gonna actually, attorney, do they need a motion if he's not here?

I think they would need a motion.

Okay.

Yeah. Would it hurt to provide a motion?

I mean... Yeah.

What do you mean? I don't know.

It wouldn't cause any problems if we were to do it.

It would just reinforce...

Yeah, I don't think it would cause... So I'll make a motion to decline the waiver of the 48-hour notice for RCL investments at 222 Arcadian Ave. due to no reasoning provided for missing the 48-hour notice.

The only thing I say is an email. It serves as notice, and that's the 902... and no reason why, so I will second the motion.

Okay. All in favor, aye.

Aye. Aye.

All right, moving on to item B, request for waiver of the Board of Review hearing allowing the property owner to appeal directly to the circuit court. We have the request for waiver of the Board of Review submitted by Reinhart on behalf of SBV Fox River LLC for multiple properties on West Sunset Drive. Do I need to read the properties out individually?

I think that's okay. Okay.

And we need approval for that right correct you would you would have to approve the waiver Are there any objections to the waiver for Reinhardt to the board of or to the circuit court I

No, these properties are currently in litigation from 25, and it's been historically done that if they're in litigation, we just let the waivers go through.

Perfect. All right. I'll make a motion to approve the waiver.

I will second.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Okay, so that's all. And then the next item, we have a request for a waiver submitted by Reinhardt on behalf of Menards Incorporated on Blue Mound Road. Again, any objection to?

This property is also currently in litigation.

Perfect. I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the waiver for the Board of Review hearing by Reinhardt on behalf of Menards Incorporated.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

All right. And then moving on to our next request for a waiver of the Board of Review from Walmart Real Estate Business at 2000 Southwest Avenue. Are there any objections from the assessor's office for this one?

No, this one's also in litigation.

Perfect. I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the waiver of the Board of Review hearing for Walmart at 2000 Southwest Avenue.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

And then moving on to item number C requests to testify by telephone or submit sworn written statement We had one request for telephone by LRG LLC Out of state now Any discussion or objections?

I have none.

Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the request for telephone testifying by LRG LLC.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

And moving on to item number D, subpoena requests. Do we have any subpoena requests?

We have no subpoena requests this year.

Great, thank you. And item number E, act on any other legally allowed required Board of Review matters. Is there anything else to act on at this time? Perfect. And then item number 17, review notices of intent to file objection.

All the intents have objections which are scheduled.

Wonderful. OK, so then I believe we can go on break until our first scheduled objection at 10 AM. All right. So we'll go ahead and restart the meeting to move on to item 18 to proceed to hear any objections. And we'll begin with our first objection for Shewitt Properties. If, Katie, you can call the case.

The case is for Shewitt Properties A315 LLC with Brian Schutt. And we do have an agent authorization on file for Brian. The property owner resides at W290S6585 Holiday Road, Waukesha, Wisconsin 53189. The address for the property in questions 315 Arlington Street, Waukesha, Wisconsin 53186. The tax key for the property is 1308455000. It is classified as residential. the value for the property land is valued at 58 500 improvements are 286 900 for a total assessment of 353 300 and we will swear in brian and joe for the assessors yes

Okay, thank you so much for coming today. To begin, I'm gonna briefly outline how the hearing procedure works. So as the property owner, you filed the objection, so you'll testify and present any evidence that you have first. The assessor then will be given the opportunity to ask you any questions, and then the board will be given the opportunity to ask you any questions. If you have any witnesses, then you would call them at that time as well. After you finish your testimony, the assessor will then testify next, after which you can ask the assessor any questions and the board can also ask the assessor any questions that we have. At that time, all evidence that has been submitted under oath, you can give a brief summary of your stance, the assessor as well, and then we'll close testimony and the board will have open deliberations regarding all the information given. and then we will make a decision immediately following that. Do you have any questions before we get started?

Nope. It's all new to me, so thank you for the information. Perfect.

Great. So before we start taking your testimony, the Board of Review wants you to understand that under state law, the Board of Review is required to uphold the assessor's valuation of your property as being correct unless you, by testimony, can show that the assessor's valuation is incorrect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon you as a taxpayer. Do you understand?

Yes, I do.

Perfect. uh... for the record please state your full name and address and then please state what amount in your opinion is the fair market value of your property

Brian Shewitt, my home address is W290S6585, Holiday Road, Waukesha, Wisconsin, 53189. The property in question, which is in the city of Waukesha, is 315 Arlington Street, Waukesha, Wisconsin, 53186. And I believe the assessed value should be $255,000, which is what I paid for in September of 2025.

Okay, great. If you have any other testimony, evidence you'd like to share, now is the time to do so.

Okay. So I'll give a little bit of background. I don't know how much everybody knows, but I did speak with Joel last week, sent him several pictures as requested, and we kind of went back and forth, and he did an adjustment a little bit, let me know what that would be, and then that's why I'm here today objecting to His adjustment, they were going to adjust it from $353,300 to $326,800, and I still feel that's far off from what I just purchased it for on September of 2025. The amount I purchased it for was $255,000. It was a for sale by owner, and that was the price they were asking, and that's the price that I paid. It's definitely not a, as I told Joe, not a Taj Mahal. So there's definitely some deferred maintenance that is on the inside and some things on the outside. So taking into those considerations, I think that's why the price was what the price was. that I paid for it, opposed to what it's being assessed for. It does have an older boiler. Cedar shakes are a little rough on the outside. Kitchen definitely needs to be updated. A lot of the stuff hasn't been updated probably since the 60s maybe. It's got the old crow's foot tub with the half hanging curtain around it, unfinished basement. So there's really nothing that sets it to the level of some of the other houses that you may see that would be maybe in that 350 range that are selling. I also did do some research in the city of Waukesha. I found three other properties that are very similar that also sold in September or August of 2025. The particular addresses that I use as comparables are 204 North Charles Street, which was sold on September of 2025. It's a five-bedroom, one-bath, and the sale price was $240,000. Another address as a comparable is 206 North Charles Street, five-bedroom, one-bath, sale price of $286,000. another one is 209 right street which was sold in august of 2025 a five bedroom one and a half bath uh 245 000 sale price so those three properties that i'm referencing are all very similar in my opinion i'd say from the pictures i saw online on the mls's they're probably in much better shape than my property at 315 Arlington Street. So that's why I'm here today, and thank everyone for their time, and I appreciate it. And I do have some pictures. I don't really have a good way to show them other than what I printed off, but I did send those to Joe, so I don't know if those got shared with everybody or not.

They did, and if you want to bring those up to us, you can. And then if that concludes your testimony, Joe, if you had any questions for the homeowner at this time. Okay, thank you. And then the board, if the board has any questions for the homeowner.

You said it was for sale by owner? Yes, sir. Do you know the owner or are you any way related to him?

I own a property that's near him and that's how I found out about the sale. So I was just driving by that day and he had the sign out front and that's how I purchased it.

But you are no way related? No. Blood, marriage?

Nope, maybe a hundred times removed, but no relation whatsoever, no.

Okay, thank you.

I just would like to, since you brought that up and I was gonna bring that up, but I did talk to the owner and he gave me good information and he did mention that he noticed it was for sale by owner and that the previous owner, he was in the investing business for a while and didn't want to invest anymore and the price of the 255 was negotiated. And a lot of times a negotiated price doesn't represent market value.

Yeah, that is accurate. And then you said you did speak during open book you came in and spoke with the assessors I did not come in I did it all via email because I I did not My fault, but I did it on the Friday the last day and I didn't realize the deadline so I called and I talked to Eric and then You can inform me what the process was. He said get some pictures So then I submitted those to Joe and Eric because I was under you know understand now that Joe's is i guess that side of town and eric is the other side of town um so i sent the pictures and then just corresponded back forth an email and then i talked to joe was it monday uh yeah early in the week monday yeah we we talked and uh he he was gonna review everything and then he just emailed me and told me what the adjustment was and then he said if you wanted to object you know so that was kind of the process i didn't physically come in and and uh speak to anybody it was all via phone or email

Perfect and have you ever had an appraisal done on the home like when you purchased it at all?

I have not, no.

OK, great thank you.

Did the.

Did you pay cash for this seller financed? So no, I did not.

There's a mortgage note seller finance, so yeah, OK, so no appraisal was needed for correct, OK?

And we do like to do interiors and the previous owner, it sold a while ago in 2018 and I did an interior at that time and it wasn't in the best condition and he was gonna fix it up and the next year I sent him a letter and he didn't allow an interior because now he said it's fixed up and I guess he was, I didn't know it, but he wasn't satisfied with the prior value when it was that poor. I don't think he told me. So I wasn't able to see it after it was fixed up. So I estimated the value as it being done. And then when Brian came here, I asked for an interior view, but he said there was... um because of the tenants he didn't feel comfortable asking and i would like to see the interior it's probably our best way pictures are are good but seeing them is one thing i think and seeing pictures is another so um and looking at the pictures i I didn't see a house in poor condition anymore. I'd seen the kitchen needed the drop ceiling, needed some tiles, but if he replaces those tiles, I'm not going to raise his assessment for it. And I noticed the flooring in the bathrooms were those little tiles. I'm thinking the prior owner probably replaced the flooring at that time. But regardless, I never seen it since 2018, and the prior owner indicated that he did fix it up at that time, but just didn't allow me to see it.

Okay.

Yeah, and just for the record, I have not done no improvements. So whatever improvements may have been done in 2018 was the last time anything was improved. So that's eight years ago, roughly.

And there is a tenant, which I mentioned. Correct.

There's a tenant that's still being there currently.

Perfect. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for the homeowner? Otherwise, okay. We'll close testimony for the homeowner then and ask Joe to supply his testimony next.

Okay, so I'll pass these out.

Thank you.

Just before I start, so his original assessment was 353,300, and I reduced it to 326,800, and that was based on viewing the pictures, and it did indicate maybe there was some wear and tear, so I did reduce his assessment due to that. due to the pictures that he sent. And I have a comparable sales sheet, and so I'll start right at the subject property, giving you the details of each, starting with the subject and working my way through comp one through four. So the subject is 315 Arlington Street. It's on .2 acres of land, two and a half stories because the third level is an unfinished attic. Built in 1910, condition is fair. Bedroom count is four, bathroom count one and a half square feet, 2586. Basement is full, no air conditioning listed, and it's got a detached garage. Comparable one, 135 Northwest Avenue. That property has a sale price of 325, 325,000. October 11th of 2024. And that is a two and a half story old style built in 1917, average condition, one and a half baths, 1684 square feet, full basement, air conditioning, and a detached garage. Comparable 2, 329 Harrison Avenue. Sale price of 285. That was March 27th of 2024. 0.13 acres, two-story old style, D grade 1917, 1,610 square feet, full basement. and a detached garage. Comparable three, 1603 Jefferson Avenue. Sale price, $303,600. Sale date, September 24th of 24. .17 acres, two story old style, D grade, 1900 year built. One and a half bathrooms, 1515 square feet. Full basement and a detached garage. And then comparable four, 511 West College Avenue. Sale price, $275,000. Sale date, May 13th, 2024. 0.16 acres, two-story old-style D-grade, 1900 is the year built. Average condition, three bedrooms, one bathroom, 1312 square feet, basement's full, air conditioning, and a detached garage. And I have on the bottom is an adjusted sale price. So after making the adjustments for square feet and quality and things like that, comparable one is 321,300. And comparable two is 331,700. Comparable three is 339,900. And the fourth comparable is 320,100. So the lowest adjusted sale price is 320 and the highest is 339 and that's a difference of 6% and typically when you have an adjusted sale price on four properties that are very close indicates a good market value. And I just wanted to mention on the sales the owner brought in, they are 2025 sales, most of them. And we use, for the reval, reassessment, we use the 24, 23 sales. So those sales, I wouldn't have been able to use them. And... And I'd have to do research. Usually the owners will let us know based on my estimate of value I use these comparables. The owner never mentioned those three comparables to me. And at that time I could have indicated to them that 2025 sales are not used. They're 2024 sales because the reval was done in 2025. And many times when there's low sale prices, like at 204 North Charles or 209, there could be a reason. That's why we like the owners to give us that information so we can look at them and give them feedback.

Any questions from the board or as a property owner? Do you have any questions for the assessor before the board asked questions?

I'm sorry, I just have a general comment question. So the sale, these are all from 2024, which is, you know, some of them are almost two years old now. And I feel like a better representation for current values would be sales that were made in 2025, which are some of the ones that I provided. And also a lot of these sale prices, $325, $285, $303, $275. And then I don't really understand the adjusted sale price, how... That house sold for 285, but your adjusted sale price is suggesting that it's 331,000, but yet it did sell for 285. And I'm just not knowledgeable on that process of why the sale price was 285, but on here he's saying it's worth 331. That doesn't exactly make sense. on how you would use the higher number as a reference to compare the value of 315, which is what we're talking about on Arlington Street. And I did not bring these up. I didn't know at that point I was supposed to do that, and then I read a little bit about the objection process hearing, and that's why I presented those, because I felt like those were the most recent, which is almost the exact time when I purchased 315 Arlington Street. So I think those are better representations of value opposed to sales that were two years ago.

So when we value the properties, we use comparable sales that are the most close in amenities. And any differences in amenities then have to be adjusted because all the houses aren't gonna be identical. So if there's a square feet difference, you have to adjust it and things like that. So that's what the adjusted sale price is designed for. And the 329 Harrison Avenue is, is um 1610 square feet and then your house is 2586 and the grade factor is another one that brings it up and typically a 1600 square feet and a 2600 square feet house they're going to have different grades because the 26 is bigger there's bigger rooms generally with bigger houses they bring in a little more quality when they're built And the reason for the lower square feet is because in your area and in similar areas, there wasn't 2,600 square feet comparables. So these were the best comparables to use. Okay, thank you for clarifying.

Oh, you're welcome. Can I ask another question?

And as far as the 2025 sales, we did a reassessment in 2025, and we, by law, have to use 20 most current sales, which would be 2024. And due to uniformity by law, we need to continue to use the 2024 sales until there's another reassessment.

So am I a year too early to request an assessed value adjustment? I mean, because you're basically saying that, and I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just trying to understand, that my sale price of $255,000 in 2025 has no relevance because you can't use the 2025?

Yeah, kind of how I look at it is it's a negotiated sale, which doesn't fit the definition of a true market value sale. um and then i look at the comparables you know who knows maybe the sale does fit in you know you can buy a house from a relative and it doesn't mean they're not it's not going to be a market value when it ends up but after doing the research i you know looking at it i'm like 255 didn't seem to represent any market value and okay based on the sales and there was a negotiated sale and And I did, you know, I was wondering like how long it was on the market, you know, because it was to my in my view, it's on the market when there's a for sale by owner. And I think you said like you weren't sure, but probably two days or less.

Yeah, it was maybe a week. Yeah, because I was like I said, I just saw when I drove by. So it was never I never saw that line anywhere. Sure. Okay. And as a reference point, the comparables that I provided were all listed on the MLS, sold by a realtor, purchased by somebody unrelated from what I can tell online.

Oh, sure. Okay, and typically, if you would have provided those with me, let's say they were 24 sales, I definitely would have researched them. Okay. And yeah.

Yeah, and I just, I don't, I'm not familiar with the process, so my apologies for, I should have given it to you earlier. Oh, no, I understand.

Okay, does the board have any questions for the assessor's office? I don't have any questions. No, I do not.

I don't either.

Okay, perfect. If that concludes all testimony and questions, we will close testimony and the board will deliberate amongst ourselves and come up with a decision. Okay, so we're going through the facts, determinations, decisions. The board finds that there was a recent sale of the subject property.

Yes, there was.

The sale was an arm's length transaction.

Technically.

I don't think it was because it was the forced sale and he knew the owner. That's how it was negotiated, I thought. Well, arm's length, they didn't know.

Technically, it is arm's length.

No, you're correct. I'm thinking of something else.

Technically, it was arm's length. Yeah. But I was just reading about it.

So then the next one, the sale was representative of the value as of January.

I don't believe so.

I would say no for that one. And then the board finds that the sale supports the assessment.

Nope.

Me. Okay. And number three, the Board of Review finds that there are recent sales of the comparable properties. So the homeowner brought some comparable sales, but they were from September of 2025. Correct. So not able to be used. Correct. And then they also had the comparables provided by the assessor's office. Yes. And we found... Let's see... The assessor did present testimony of recent sales. Were the attributes satisfactorily adjusted for their differences from the subject and their contribution to value? Yes, they were. Comparable. Lists the properties and values that the board view relies on to make its determination. So we're thinking that the assessor's comparables are the ones that we'll use to make our determination.

Can you just put C attached and then?

Yeah, I'll fill those in later. All right, were there any other factors that we find the assessment should be based on?

I don't think so. No.

All right. So most credible evidence presented then was by the assessor.

Correct.

And comparable sales. All right. I will make a motion then. Exercising its judgment and discretion pursuant to Wisconsin Statute 70.47 sub nine sub A, the Board of Review by majority and roll call vote hereby determines that the assessor's evaluation 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 Assessment Manual that the assessor presented evidence of the proper classification of the subject property using assessment methods which conform to the statutory requirements and which are outlined in the Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual, that the property owner did not present sufficient evidence to rebuke 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. So we are making the motion to approve the total assessment at the 326,800 with land at 58,500 and improvements at 268,300. Second. And then we'll do roll call vote. Sarah Roth, aye. Lenny Miller, aye. Thank you so much for taking the time to come.

Can I ask a question? Obviously not on the record anymore. Or not.

um i'm not sure if you can ask us or to katie or do you ask a question still i guess it depends i mean testimony's closed i know we have more other matters to take up uh i think any questions would be best directed to the assessor's office for your assessment for next year okay sounds good thank you for your time

sir I think did you want to talk okay we are ready to move on to our 1030 appointment for Paul and Joanne Klum at 416 Blue Mound Road

Katie if you can call the case the case is for Paul and Janelle clumb We do have an agent form on file for John. Is it no goal to speak? Regarding the property the property owner resides at six six eight eight North Shaw Moores Drive, Heartland, Wisconsin five three zero two nine the property in question is 416 Blue Mound Road Waukesha, Wisconsin five three one eight eight and The tax key number for the property is zero nine six nine nine eight two zero zero zero classified as commercial. The value in the assessment role land is valued at three sixty three two hundred improvements are two million twenty three two hundred for a total assessment of two million three eighty six four hundred and we will swear in all three for testimony.

You have to stand up. I do.

And for the record, we'll leave Lori sworn in for the remainder of the day.

All right. Thank you so much for taking the time to come today. Um, I'm going to briefly outline how the hearing procedure will work. Um, so as the person filing the objection, you will testify and present your evidence first. The assessor can then ask you any questions and then the board of review members can ask you any questions. Um, and if you have any witnesses at that time, you would present your testimony at that time. Um, Next, the assessor will testify, present any witnesses, and you'll then be given an opportunity to ask the assessor any questions, as will the Board of Review. After all testimony is complete, the property owner may make a brief summary of the case to the Board of Review, as well as the assessor, and then we will close testimony, and the Board of Review will deliberate in an open session and make their decision right then. Do you have any questions before we get started? No. Okay, perfect. So I have one statement to make to you before we start. The Board of Review wants you to understand that under state law, the Board of Review is required to uphold the assessor's valuation of your property as being correct unless you, by testimony, can show that the assessor's valuation to be incorrect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon you as a taxpayer. Do you understand?

Okay, for the record if you could state your full known full name and address My name is Janelle Jordan clone 6 6 8 8 My home address. Um, yes, I believe so 6 6 8 8 North Shawmores Drive, Heartland, Wisconsin 5 3 0 2 1

Thank you. And then what amount, in your opinion, is the fair market value for your property?

$1,650,000. $1,650,000. Thank you.

And you can present any testimony now that you have at this time.

I didn't hear that. I'm sorry.

Do you have anything you want to say? Who's he?

Well, I guess I want to say when I first opened up that tax bill in December, I just about freaked out when it went up from about 21-something to 60,000-something, 68,000 or something like that. And I read it and read it. I couldn't believe it. Anyway, I called my tenant and we talked about it. and then just had to work further, but it ruined my whole Christmas. And I just couldn't understand how, how you people could do this to somebody. Okay, I'm a property owner, but my tenants are on a triple net lease and they pay the taxes. You have to plan your businesses, like your expenses for a year or a couple years ahead, and all of a sudden you have this? How do you plan for such a thing? That's what I have to say.

Do you have any evidence that you'd like to share supporting the valuation?

I'll go ahead. My name's John Nagel. Actually, I'm the accountant for the tenant at 416 Blue Mountain. First of all, did the correction get approved? Okay, so now that goes to the state, and the state will send a check for the difference.

So that for the 2025, or even if it's just any, okay.

Hold on.

Yes. Is that for the entirety? Yeah. OK. So yeah, the 2025 correction was approved. What will happen is after the board closes, I will transmit all of the correction data to the clerk treasurer, and then they are going to run their numbers. I don't know what the time frame is, but I believe it's going to be sometime this year that that will be issued. But after today, it's going to be out of our hands and over into the clerk treasurer's.

Do we know approximately what the dollar amount's gonna be?

Because I have never calculated a tax bill in my life. I do not know. I think sometime this summer it might be. Oh, fall.

Okay, so then when can we find out what that refund's gonna be?

Can I jump in here? I mean, we're really outside the scope here of what is considered relevant evidence. Well, but not necessarily. Your tax bill does not have bearing. First of all, the board did not assess the property. And second of all, the board's a quasi-judicial body. They're here to hear evidence about your assessment. So I understand frustrations with tasks, but this isn't relevant.

And that's kind of the next step. So we had a increase of 265%, which now they've reduced to an increase of 72%, which is better than 265. But because of that error, we had to start doing more researching We talked to adjacent tenants. We talked to one that had a sale. And so kind of where this leads into that is with the problem of the assessment, my understanding is that if we hadn't brought it to your attention, fortunately, Jonnell looked at the bill and the assessment letter this time, we would have been assessed again at $5 million because this is a maintenance year. Is that correct? So we'd be stuck with the $5 million. Even though we have determined that that was a mistake. So if we hadn't appealed to you for that part of it, the bill we would have gotten the assessment would have been another $5 million. Correct, OK, so then. Looking at that. We went back and found another. adjacent property, and I know, and I heard your discussion before, everything in the assessment were a warehouse office complex. The vet clinic is going to be more office, but with some labs and stuff. But they were assessed at $1.8 million. We were assessed at $1.3 million. They sold their property for $1.6 million. So I guess our logic is that their assessment was wrong. Their sales price, which they were assessed at higher than we were. And again, I understand you might have a house that's assessed at 300 and you've got a building assessed at 400. But theoretically, if you have the assessors doing the same thing within those niche properties, that is going to represent fair market value. So I think primarily our evidence is that, and I know, and I heard the discussion here, there's the 25, the 26 year, but again, because our assessment was so wrong, and I don't know what happened, and again, that's not our business, we'll talk to them later, but His assessment on a property he bought for $1.6 million went to $2.9 million. So something seems wrong there. So I guess our biggest evidence is the comparable sales. And the second evidence, as Janelle mentioned, is marketability and... fair market value for the tenants. So this property, If the tenant is going to be required to pay the 72% increase, that makes the property less valuable to them, which in this economy, and I don't know what the vacancy, I've looked once and saw 27%. And if the owner has to absorb, and again, we're still negotiating that, who's going to have to pay this big increase? that becomes less advantageous for the owner. So I think the combination, and I don't know if that was figured into the $2.3 million, because I think the value of the property from the tenant's point of view and the owner's point of view is less because of the increase in the assessment, which turns into real estate taxes and dollars. So I think kind of in a nutshell, it's the comparable sale and then the fact that the marketability and value of the property is less because of the high increase at the 72% of the new assessment. So I guess that's kind of our position.

Okay, so you have the one sale, the Waukesha Veterinary Clinic at 360 Blue Mound Road for $1.6 million. Do you know when that sold for? Was that this past year?

October of 25, I believe.

October 25, okay. And that was the only comparable sale that you had mentioned.

And we looked at comparable increases in the area, but we were told they don't apply. But this was an actual sale.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the assessor's office?

No.

Any other questions from the board for the property owners?

Yeah, maybe.

Did you have any sort of valuation or appraisal done on the property within the last year or so?

No.

Okay.

So... I just got to take a look at something.

Were the rent rolls and the financial information supplied to us or to the assessor's office at all?

I did that later with Lori.

It was supplied. I know it says in here that that would be supplied later, but I don't see it in here.

And when did we, I guess, do you recall the day that you provided that information? Pardon? Do you recall the day you provided that information? Was that on Wednesday, two days ago? Yeah, it was, yeah.

And the 1.65 is based primarily off of the Waukesha veterinary service being sold at 1.6 kind of and then We didn't we were one three they were one eight and

In prior assessments, so theoretically, we could have mathematically done it, and that would have made our assessment 1, 2, and that was silly. But I think more in the range of, and that's about a 30% increase. Going from our 1,003 to 1,650, which I felt was more reasonable.

And then you're basing your estimate on. The sale and walk shop veterinary clinic or service.

That's correct.

I'm just looking at Google Earth here. I don't have any of the particulars of your property, but it looks like your building is quite a bit larger than Not quite a bit larger than no veterinary clinic That's correct.

Then again. We're primarily warehouse. They're going to be office, but again from the point of view if an assessor looks at different types. These are exactly the same. They're both commercial rental. Theoretically, their Million 8 that they had as assessment with our Million 3, when they had made that assessment, would have taken those factors into consideration.

So just, yeah. But it's mostly theoretical numbers you're talking about, not actual evidence, factual values.

Their assessment was a million eight that went to two nine, and we were one three compared to their million eight. So, you know, a no increase with the review.

And unfortunately we can't compare assessed value to assessed value. We determine assessed value based on closed sales and other reasons.

And again, more difficult to evaluate is the Now, let's say this holds, that 72% increase in real estate taxes is going to affect the tenant and or the owner. And again, I think that needs to be brought into consideration in terms of the marketability of the property.

Any other questions I have done okay great We're closing testimony from the homeowner, and now we'll open testimony from the assessor's office I'm gonna hand them theirs Oh

All right, so I gave everybody two sheets of information one I'll address them separately But the just to kind of summarize the first sheet here with the title of 416 Blue Mountain Road and the parcel number Breaks out some information and I'm sorry my printer was really slow coming down to it, so some are a little bit faded, but hopefully still legible. And I do have additional copies if anyone has an issue reading theirs. But at the top it talks over the property as far as the parcel number, the address, ownership. There are two lines. The way the data reads within the assessment system breaks out, there are two separate buildings on the property. And within the larger part there are some offices within the warehouse space, but it is primarily to what the agent had described as primarily warehouse, not much office space. But as the category reads, it's still office slash warehouse. And the separate building, second building, is a contractor shop, or at least that's how it's classified within our system. In 2024, this property was valued at 1,386,500. There was a 2025 value put on there, a little over $5 million. When the tenant had reached out in January, asking about that value i did stop out there i think within 24 hours met with the agent and the tenant just to talk a little bit see the building and then go back and take a look at the value and i identified there was an error on the calculation essentially when referencing the square feet Given that there's two lines here, I had added a line above the other one adding about 8,000 square feet difference, which again is an assessor error, hence why this property was put on the correction of error sheet for this year. So at that time, following the same methodology, I just referenced the cell it should have been referencing, which is where we got the corrected $2,386,400. I did relay that information to the tenant, the agent at that time, verbally, and then I followed up with an email also on January 27th. So they've been aware of that corrected value since that time. And I think the same sentiment kind of at least originally was, hey, that sounds a lot better than the $5 million. We talked over the correction process as far as at that time. We didn't know when the Board of Review would be, but at that time, the correction of error sheet would be provided at that time. Kind of fast forward to more recently, I think we checked in, hey, is that still on the correction sheet? We said yes. That was essentially where things were left. And then I believe it was late last week, I received a call saying, hey, I think this property value should still be adjusted. At that time, during open book, there were other people ahead of the property owner. I said, well, we can take a look. But provide me something, essentially. So kind of bringing, so what would that be? On Monday, this past week, I received the same, I believe, communication that you see today just on some of their rationale why. And then we essentially followed up to say that the main difference here being in the sale of the vet clinic, I don't deem as a comparable sale. I think the type of person that would be looking for the use of an office space or a veterinary clinic is very different than what would be looking for primarily warehouse of a much larger facility. I don't believe that those would be comparable properties. And then as far as the other cited reason as income, I did ask if any income had been provided. I did look at the analysis from the prior year. We did send out last year, around January or February, a request to all commercial property owners, the opportunity to submit income and expense. I did not see recorded any income and expense information. And I believe that was confirmed by The agent, although they did offer, hey, that's something that we could try to get to you. Unfortunately, by the time that information did come in, and that's where that second sheet comes in, according to Wisconsin State Statute 7047, Section 7, Subsection AF, There is the citation as far as no person may appear before the Board of Review, testify to the Board by telephone, or object to evaluation if the evaluation was made by the assessor or the objector using the income method unless no later than seven days before the first meeting of the Board of Review, the person supplied to the assessor all the income information about income and expense. So I think it is very nice that they tried to provide it. I think just in a timely manner, we were not able to collect, review, and then appropriately make an adjustment. at that time, but I do want to say they did provide it eventually there. So what I'm kind of citing back to that first page, just as far as original valuation, since there's two building usage, and I'm actually throwing a third in there, there's the contractor shop, And I gave properties within the city that sold within our analysis 2023 and 2024 last year of contractor shops underneath that just under the title Waukesha sales. Those would be primarily warehouse used properties per the agent and the tenant. They said we should really be considered more warehouse, given that's the majority of our use. So I provided sales, again, that would have been within the analysis last year of warehouse, at least classified warehouse properties. Again, given that there is office warehouse as kind of a collective category, I provided additional sales for that as well. Again, warehouse office space. So I just put a bunch of the criteria within there as far as square feet, year built, quality, condition, of course the sale date. For those that were sold in 2023, I do have an adjusted sale value and that would just be if we're using two years worth of sales, often that 2023 timeline gets a adjusted value of a time adjustment. And then the broken out dollar per square foot. As far as the primary building I'm going to call it, just based on size, that is noted as C quality and in good condition. The prices per square foot of these sales, all essentially at least of the, again, that primary building comparison of warehouse or warehouse office are noted as average conditions. So there is an adjustment up on a price per square foot given the condition. So kind of an overall, if I were to average the dollar per square foot currently on that corrected value, it's about $114 a square foot. which would be similar to these on this sheet if we're averaging plus an additional adjustment for condition. I will say often though, if we're looking at different attributes of the building, often that comes down to looking at an income and expense. And again, unfortunately, and so if there were to be an adjustment age, what that rentability is based on, all those things come down to that income and expense, which again, unfortunately, we were unable to collect review in a timely manner in order to make an adjustment for that for this year. There was an additional sale, and I apologize, I didn't print it out, but I can pull it back up. In 2023, there was a sale within Waukesha County of, again, an office warehouse. So just as a supplemental additional, it's not within the city, but it is within the county and would be deemed appropriate. And it sold, I can look up, it's the Menominee Falls, and it was, I think, closer to the 168 per square foot, $168 per square foot. And it would be size comparable as well.

Thank you. Do you have any questions for the assessor, for the assessor's office?

I guess the one question is, let's pretend there is no lease right now, would the increase in real estate taxes to a prospective buyer make the property less valuable to them and therefore should that square footage an adjustment be made in that category?

That would not be something that the assessor would consider.

But when you're doing an assessment, isn't that part of what you consider as other factors in what's the value of the property if there is some, and again, we're talking about expenses, but whether it's the owner or the tenant, there's gonna be a significant increase in expenses, which would make the property less valuable to a tenant because they're gonna have to pay more, and with the vacancy rate in Waukesha County, shouldn't that have been taken into consideration?

So there is a difference between what I was noticing as vacancy rate versus what you had cited. I think you had like 27% and we were seeing for warehouse it was under 3%. So I'm not quite sure where that 27% came in, but warehouse space, based on the research last year, was one of the lowest vacancy rates that we had seen also it would have to come from market data so let's say that there is a larger increase of value due to them from what we had seen right and there is a percentage of increase resulting from that we would have to then see how the sales or the market would be reacting to that and then adjust accordingly after we see that coming out in the market so not to say that that may not be the case we we just don't have that would have yet to be seen It's not something we can forecast and then adjust for something that has not happened.

So I guess similar to the last speaker, next year we need to review the income and expenses prior to this time and look at the impact that that might have.

You can absolutely submit income and expense next year, and we can review that.

We don't have any more questions. Okay, perfect. Any questions from the board for the assessor's office?

No.

Okay, perfect. If you'd like to give a brief summary of your statement and position, we'll be looking at closing up testimony. So if there's anything further you'd like to say before we close testimony and begin deliberations.

Again, as Lori mentioned, reduction from five million to two three is good but that's still a seventy two percent increase and if the reasonable assessments have been made prior that seventy two percent increase just doesn't seem to make any sense thank you any final statements from the assessor's office no thank you thank you okay um does any board of review member believe that the evidence is insufficient to proceed to a decision

If not, I am now closing the testimony to this case, and I will now open up deliberations in this case by asking the Board of Review members to state, based on the sworn testimony presented, whether the assessor's valuation of the property is correct or incorrect. So now we can go through the facts and determinations. Findings. So we did have sworn testimony by the property owner Yes was not a recent sale of the subject property, but they did cite a recent sale of the comparable property Which was the vet clinic?

And were there other factors reasons presented

Yes, they mentioned market evidence, income approach, that their tenant pays the real estate taxes, that those have been increasing, and then the condition of the outbuildings as well.

Was there anything else that they mentioned?

No sworn testimony, no witnesses. Okay, and then the sworn testimony by the assessor. Were recent sales of comparable properties provided? Yes. How many properties were provided? 13.

Attached.

Okay. Any other reasons, factors presented by the assessor? I know she mentioned that the vet clinic uses a comp. It also was a sale from last year. Okay. Okay, so we did find that there were recent sales of comparable properties, and we found that those were presented by the assessor. Correct. That's correct. And so going forward, the Board of Review finds the assessment should, there's no other factors. Okay, there's no other factors to base the assessment on, so we would rely on the assessor's evaluation.

Correct.

Would you agree?

Yes.

Perfect. Okay, I will go ahead and make a motion. Exercising its judgment and discretion pursuant to Wisconsin statute 7047 sub nine sub A, the Board of Review by majority and roll call vote hereby 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 Assessment Manual, that the assessor presented evidence of the proper classification of the subject property using assessment methods which conform to the statutory requirements and which are outlined in the Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual, that the property owner did not present sufficient evidence to rebuke 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. And that value we have of land is $363,200, and improvements at $2,023,200 for a total valuation of $2,386,400.

Second.

And roll call vote. Sarah Roth, aye.

Lenny Miller, aye. Eric Dunst, aye.

Thank you so much for your time.

Oh, okay. I'll get you a cap, please. I'm glad we got in when we got in. Because like I said originally, if we hadn't

Good morning, Wayne. Are you able to talk and just so we can make sure that we can hear you in the chambers here?

All right. Hello?

Morning. Are you able to hear us now or no? Still nothing quite yet. Okay.

Andrew, can you turn my microphone up? It's up. I think it's just super quiet. Thank you. Let's yell.

Wayne, are you able to hear us yet? All right.

You can hear us. We can't hear you.

Get closer.

Get a picture?

All right, when could you talk for us one more time? Just make sure we can hear you. It's on our side because we could hear them before. I can hear them back there at least. Can you hear me now? There we go. Perfect. Can you hear us?

Yes.

Wonderful. All right. I think we're good now. Sorry about that.

No problem. Do you need me on video because sometimes it goes in and out?

I don't think so. Okay. Thank you for joining us today. If we're ready to begin...

the we'll call the next case for allergy llc the agent listed on the objection form is for christopher goodwill a pivotal tax we do have an agent authorization form on file for pivotal tax the property owner resides at two one zero zero frontage road glencoe illinois six zero zero two two property in question is nineteen oh one east moreland boulevard five three one eight six The tax key number for the property is 1 0 0 5 2 4 1 0 0 0 classified as commercial. The value for the assessment land is valued at 2 million 39 900 improvements are 4 million 516 for a total assessment of 6 million. 555 900 and we will swear you in Wayne. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give on the matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

And for the record, Lori and Sam are both sworn in for the assessor's office.

Okay, thank you so much, Katie. So to begin today, I'm going to briefly outline how the hearing procedure will work. So as the one filing the objection, Wayne, you'll first testify and present any evidence you have. I believe we have a copy that you submitted to us of the valuation, but any evidence you'd like to share. with that as well, then the assessor's office and the board will have the opportunity to ask you any questions. Next, the assessor will present their testimony and evidence, and you will then be given the opportunity to ask the assessor's office any questions, as will the board of review. After all testimony has been given, each side will be given a brief, can make a brief summary of your case to the Board of Review. And after the brief summary and all testimony will be closed and the Board of Review will deliberate and make a decision right here. Do you have any questions before we get started? Okay, perfect I'll just one moment I have one statement to make to you before you get started The Board of Review wants you to understand that under state law The Board of Review is required to uphold the assessor's valuation of your property as being correct Unless you by testimony can show the assessor's valuation to be incorrect In other words the burden of proof is upon you as a taxpayer. Do you understand I?

Yes.

Okay, and then if you could begin with your name, the property address, what you believe is the fair market value of the property, and then you can go ahead into testimony.

Sure, Wayne Tannenbaum. Can you see the property on your screen that I'm sharing now?

Yes, we can.

Okay, it's at 1901 East Moreland Boulevard. And what was the last question you asked?

What the opinion of value you have of the property is.

1,174,138.

Perfect. Thank you. And you can share any future testimony.

Okay. So I'll go over this briefly in a second, but just as an opening statement, pretty much in the 30-plus states that I've worked in the last 15 years, the burden is on us to prove our case. But it just so happens there are states that are like Wisconsin and Virginia that seem to be the most unfair and hardest on taxpayers when it comes to values and board decisions, from my experience in the last 15 That's just my opinion of my experience, that you're one of the hardest states on your taxpayers when it comes to these type of hearings in the nation. But anyway, I'll just move forward. That's kind of a relevant point. I understand that. We have a dealership here, and the issue with dealerships is, and we're talking about many hundreds, And whether it's fair or not, it's one of the only property types that we use mainly the cost approach versus other approaches. The income approach, good luck in finding certain areas or certain dealerships that are leased out and you can compare it to a subject property being similar. I mean, good luck with that. These are mainly owner-occupied. When it comes to the market approach, the majority, I will say, not all of them for sure, but the majority of counties we deal with throughout the nation in dealerships because market sales have many problems. Number one, it's such a unique type of property that how do you compare one dealership to another? Well, you probably need a full upgrade to do that. But even being that, most counties know that whether it's fair or not, dealerships tend to sell for millions more involving franchise fees, licensing fees, personal property, inventory, and I can go on about that. It's the only property type that we don't even get a closing statement from our own Let us know what's going on. That's their prerogative. It just makes our job a lot harder. But luckily, most times, not the majority, at least, look at it on cost. Like I said, there's so many issues on the other weighted, as far as values, as far as market or income, that leads us to give more weight to cost, which we have here as our evidence. so the current value and this is something a different issue that we have to deal with the city on but it looks like the priority value was lower but i've come to understand that it was supposedly a By the city and lowering the value and saying it's a notice of that lower value. Which is another whole major problem and issue that we're going to deal with in the future. But the point is that we're just dealing with the value with the board here today. At 6,555,900 or 218 dollars around a square foot. 174,000 around or $139. Yes, that is a little bit low, but then again, it's mainly due to the much lower improvement value we have fairly versus the cities. And obviously it's up to the board to decide whether we're right, they're right, whatever the case is, There seems to be enough room where the board could lower the value, especially based on lower improvement value. When it comes to land value, I've been assigned to know that it's very hard to get land value lower on the cost approach or just in general. So I'm going to go over land briefly. It's mainly about the improvement value and overall cost being lower. Information on the subject, built in 1990, and the building square feet is about 30,120 square feet on 4.46 acres. The city has this improvement value of $4,516,000, $150 a square foot. We're not disagreeing that the effective year should not be much newer, but even being that $150 a square foot for a dealership property, just the improvements, is extremely high in general. And we'll explain why as we go through our evidence. So, following where the subject is located, there's an aerial of the subject, front view, typical Volvo dealership, Land Rover's part of it too. But you can see, this is the thing about dealerships that makes it so difficult. Most of the money is spent on the showroom area and even remodeling the showroom area. But look at the back section. You would say, oh, that's a completely different property. There's no way that this metal type area of buildings is the same ownership or same property as this. But yes, that's because it's the service garage. And they spend very minimal amounts as they can on the service garage. A lot of it's metal. right here. They don't spend a lot of money on construction, quality design whatsoever on that area. I mean, you can see here metal, open air, roll-up doors. I mean, look right inside there. So that's something to keep in mind in general when we're talking about the value. So now, how do you value something on the improvement value when it's so diversified? Well, Marshall the leading, as far as improvement value, accredited throughout the nation. There's no doubt about that. So, per Marshall and Swift, they tell you to take each area individually, not even each building, each area individually of a dealership and value all the factors that we have here. So, first thing to notice is that the service service garage that was built the next night, we did not give a new effective year because we don't believe that it's been highly remodeled whatsoever since that time. The other areas have been remodeled quite a bit, which is why we give it what we consider a pretty fair effective year of 2010. Every other area is effective year 2010. So taking into account those effective years, the square feet, see good on the automotive showroom, which it's good, the rest of the areas are definitely average, and taking the price per square foot per Marshall Swift, So there's huge differences in value price per square foot on each area of the dealership. We not only included that price per square foot for Marshall and Swift, we have all the current multipliers, So I'm not even sure where we got that high number, but that's going to be very conservative. In fact, you need a 10% entrepreneur profit. And I don't even know where the profit is since these are under occupied. So we gave a 10% out of current profit 550,000 on paving extra features and all per margins. And we came up with an improvement value of 2,891,289. The city, as you can see here, is at 4.5 million. And to me, that 2.8 million compared to the 4.5 is actually conservative, or 2.99, sorry, compared to 4.5. And I said that because of how much we manage for features, not for our profit, and all the factors here. So how in the world, if we're at 2.9 per Marshall Swift with all those factors, is the improvement value by a city 4.5? That's all. And by the way, here is the actual evidence that we have. I don't believe the city probably has this for actual evidence, but the actual page is per martial slip to tell you, oh, how did we get our replacement cost to do it? tables commercial service. Here's the multipliers. So, there is zero doubt in how we got our numbers per the most credited and respected improvement value service in the world, as far as I'm concerned, in most counties. So, again, give me the proof of how we got our improvement value. Now, on this page, and we can go over that more detail if needed, on this page is our land sales. Now, don't get me wrong, it's very hard to get land lower in any county. Most of these are in Laquisha, three out of the five but a lot of them also about $9 a square foot or higher. We're at $10.50 a square foot. So we're just trying to show you that there are commercial land sales that are lower, but again, because it's not directly on the main street or as close as, it's very hard to find that. The bottom line is, I understand doing this all these years, that most likely the land value is going to remain the same. But overall, if you take the land value of the city and you take even close to our improvement value, will be there and the value will end up being lower than what we have currently, which is over $6.5 million. And that concludes our presentation.

Thank you so much. Does the assessor's office have any questions?

No.

Okay. And the board? Does the board have any questions at this time?

Not right now. No.

Okay. Perfect. Great. Then we'll have the assessor's office present their testimony next.

If those are for you and Katie.

Thank you.

Hey, we can read this one.

Thank you. I'm going to put that on the screen so you can see the evidence. Is that correct?

I think that should be possible or emailed it over.

We obviously have the right to see their evidence.

Yes.

Oh, I also want the board to know that I don't believe we received their evidence, and they received our evidence a long time ago.

Who would you like me to mail it to or email it to? Oh, just email it to Wayne? Okay.

So didn't the board understand that we provided our evidence many weeks ago, and the city didn't even bother sending us their evidence? I don't know whether that happened or not.

Typically the assessor would provide it at board. It wouldn't be a typical practice that we'd send it in advance.

So we're emailing over that evidence right now.

OK. Are you sending that to Wayne T at DigitalTax.com?

Yes. All right, I sent the email. Let me know when you received it, please.

Did they want to do a read receipt to make

It's in my sent box, so. I do find things that I send from the City of Waukesha email has a bit of a delay to it, but it shouldn't be too bad.

Perfect, I heard the little ding. Katie, I think he has it. He hasn't.

Alright, so with that, as everyone else received the information, so this is a car dealership and auto dealership. So for 1901 East Moreland Blvd, the top of that first sheet here has the breakouts of the different usages or just kind of building types primarily is dealership. There is some auto repair, just automotive general and and car wash included in here. So I have some information that kind of touches on all. The information on this first sheet is within the city of Waukesha's analysis from last market update year, which would have been last year, 2025. In addition, I have a supplemental, again, as I mentioned earlier, sale again from Waukesha County typically we start within the municipality itself it is customary for commercial properties that we can widen that net a little bit if I do within Waukesha County I found another sale that would have been within our analysis years this one is from 2023 which has a So if we're talking kind of all-inclusive instead of just kind of the breakout of all these multiple usages, most dealerships do have some sort of component for a repair center or car wash and things like that. If we're kind of looking all-inclusive, this 2023 sale had a total square footage as well of about 38,000 square feet. And the subject property is about 27,400 square feet. So very similar in size. And it's sold at 288 a square foot. So again, just kind of on a, additional supporting evidence of a sale that would just kind of be an all-inclusive price per square foot, not this kind of breakout of different usage. But we do typically take a look at, again, market, if there's an income approach that would be appropriate. The system within the Waukesha Assessor System does put a cost valuation as well. Again, it is not something outside of new construction that we typically would look at. But taking a look at what that cost value is within the system actually puts it at $6,821,200. Given that is not the value or methodology that we relied on, it is not information that I supplied here today, but I do think it's useful to know that that would be above, at least based on the city of Waukesha's assessment system on a cost methodology. So I put in here underneath the information just specific to the property, the 2024, 2025, and then any open book changes. Again, given the assessment year for 2026 is a maintenance year, we do stay uniform to the last market adjustment year, which would have been 2025, hence why I've referenced this information from last year. So other detailed information just to kind of sum up that top category just in total as I mentioned the total square feet overall of all those different breakouts is about 37,400 if I'm rounding square feet. Just giving you some general information as far as just dollar per square foot. I also did just put information from 2025 and now 2026, the opinion of value that I received from the agent, and just some additional dollar per square foot on that. Underneath that is the sales that would have been inclusive of the usages that are comparable to the subject property, and that would include more automotive sales. dealership, repair centers, car washes, and then some information underneath that on just kind of average dollar per square feet of those buildings sold. So again, the average increase last year was about 38%. This was definitely for the automotive a lot more of a lighter category of change after the open book changes, about a 7% increase overall. There was some adjustment down during open book last year at 6,555,900 where the current role stays. And again, given it's a maintenance year, there was no additional information supply that would have indicated based off of the Wisconsin Assessor Manual, a indication for a value change in the assessment year. which would include things like if there was a classification change, would there have been a renovation or some type of physical improvement on the property, nor was there indication that something was taken or removed from the property. There was no noted fire damage and things of that nature. So as far as keeping uniformity from the last market adjustment year, there wasn't something cited to the assessor that would have fallen within that space. Again, the assessor does not look at value based off of a cost methodology, and the information here would have been supporting information from when the value was set last year in 2025, primarily off of the market. The last statement I will make, based on some testimony from the agent here, is when properties are sold within the transfer document that's submitted through the county and the state and then received by the assessor, there is a spot where they can put outside costs that would... would not indicate just the value of the property. So let's say that there was personal property or something like that received within the sale. There is a space where that can be cited on those transfer documents for at least the assessor's office to take in consideration of where it might not just be the real estate. So we do factor things like that in. So to say that sales wouldn't necessarily be reflective because there's other pieces in that there is an opportunity during the sale for property owners to splice that out so that would have been in consideration when we're reviewing these properties if there would be other items attached to that sale that wouldn't necessarily be appropriate to consider within the sale value thank you um does the property owner have any questions for the assessor's office

Okay, does the board have any questions for the assessor's office at this time?

I do not. No.

No? Okay, Wayne, if you'd like to provide any rebuttal, any questions, closing testimony, now would be the time.

Yeah, the two pages. What kind of effort is that? One sale does not make the market. I've heard that since I was a kid. That's first of all, and at least providing one sale of your dealership. Number two is, if you look at their auto repair sales, like one of them sold, they sold for what, $140 a square foot, $187 a square foot? That's for the repair property you're talking about. Per Marshall and Swift, the auto repair So they're trying to tell you that these auto repair sales somehow should be valued as the dealership is at about $140 or $189 per foot when the actual value of that dollars for the improvements how can that be if the the service garage which is the largest section is 80 dollars their total value is 160. now they're trying to say that they don't use cost but see that's the major problem is that how do you not give all the issues i was talking about and the fact you only have one sale how do you not give at least some weight to cost You know, there's also a matter of, like, what percentage weight do we give on each approach depending on the property? And let me tell you that I've been doing this 15 years with hundreds of dealerships. That sale, the one sale they have, which doesn't make the market, that was 38,000 square feet. 38,000 square feet and sold for $11 million. I don't care what they put on that report. There is no doubt in my mind, but I don't know for sure. maybe this $290 a square foot without things involved, we see that maybe in the most upscale cities near Los Angeles or

Thank you. Any closing arguments from the assessor's office?

Sure, again, and to summarize, this is a maintenance year for 2026. There wasn't information provided that would have been within the Wisconsin manual for assessors that would indicate a value change for this year. And summarizing last year's value, which currently sits today, we do look interior at the city of like properties that sold with supporting information, which would be customary to look within the county for additional supporting evidence. That concludes.

Okay, thank you. At this time, we'll conclude and close testimony, and I will now open up deliberations.

I'm sorry, so the appellant doesn't get the final word, is that correct?

What was that?

The appellant, we do not get the final word, is that right?

The assessor is given the chance to make a final summary at the end.

So they get the final word?

Yes.

Which is, again, unlike other counties, unfair, but that's fine. If they get the final word, then so be it.

Alrighty. Does any Board of Review member believe that the evidence is insufficient to proceed to a decision?

I do not. No.

Okay, so now the testimony is closed and deliberations are opened. I will now open up deliberations by asking the Board of Review members to state, based upon sworn testimony, whether the assessor's valuation of the property is correct or incorrect. So I do think that there's a lot of frustration based on the state's guidance on our decisioning here and how we make our decisions. but we'll go through our facts and determinations and decision packet anyways um so we have sworn testimony by the property owner or in this case their agent was there a recent sale of the subject property no Were recent sales of comparable properties provided? No, no recent comparable properties were provided. There were land sales that were provided. Correct. Determining a land value. I believe there were five. Land value. And then other factors or reasonings that were presented would have been the cost approach was calculated by evaluation. All right, so they did, yes, the cost approach was presented as well. which came out to a total value of $4,174,138, or about, and $138.58 per square foot. No, not per square foot. The $138.58. Oh, okay, I'm sorry. That's the total valuation. No, that's their cost approach. Okay.

Any other evidence presented by the property owner?

Yes, there were the photographs of the property in there Okay, and then the sworn testimony by the assessor No recent sale the subject property did the assessor provide sales of comparable properties? Yes And then she presented one recent sale of the automob dealership and back in 2023, as well as comparable sales of similar properties, similar use properties.

Correct.

There's a total of eight properties.

Correct.

Was there anything else presented by the assessor for the valuation?

Star report.

Yeah.

Coal star report. Coal star.

Yeah. Coal star. Okay, so the recent sales of comparables presented by the property owner, were the attributes satisfactorily adjusted for their differences from the subject and their contribution to value? With the land, a little bit, although the value wasn't determined too much. Just have a list of the land sales here. Okay, so there were adjustments made for size here for the land sales. And then the assessor also presented recent sales comparables of the market area and made attributes to adjust for the differences. Okay. So it's my opinion that because the assessor did provide recent sales, recent comparable sales, and adjust properly for them, and it's my opinion that the agent did not present sufficient evidence to rebuke the assessor's valuation using the cost approach, taking sales as the primary indicator of value. That's my opinion.

I concur. I agree too.

All right. So we find that there's no other factors that the assessment should be made on. So we're using the assessor's comparable sales to make our determination of fair market value. So I'll go ahead and make a motion. Exercising its judgment and discretion pursuant to Wisconsin Statute 70.479A, the Board of Review by majority and roll call vote hereby 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 Assessment Manual. That the assessor presented evidence of the proper classification of the subject property using assessment methods which conform to the statutory requirements and which are outlined in the Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual. that the proper use values were applied to the agriculture, oops, that the property owner did not present sufficient evidence to prohibit 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. And we'll make a motion to approve the final land value at $2,039,900, improvements at $4,516,000 for a total valuation of $6,555,900. Second. And roll call vote. Sarah Roth, aye. Lenny Miller, aye. Eric Dunst, aye. All right. Great. Thank you so much for your time. And then we don't have an appearance from Jake at all for 222 Arcadian. That was denied earlier, yeah, so perfect. And then do we need to act on scheduling additional Board of Review dates?

No, we do not.

Yay. Any new business before we discuss anything else? Then I will make a motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Thank you.