We're ready to call to order.

Um, we'll be again with roll call.

Sarah Roth.

Lenny.

Eric Jones.

Um, then we have confirmation of the appropriate board of review and open meeting notices.

Um, just like to confirm Katie that vote took place.

We have been noticed.

Perfect.

And then item four, select the chairperson.

Um, and vice chairperson for the board of review.

I uh I nominate uh Sarah Roth.

As for uh 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?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Perfect.

Um, 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 seventy forty-seven sub seven sub AF Wisconsin statute.

Yes, under City Code three point oh three subsection five.

Thank you.

And then item number seven, review any new laws.

There are no new laws this year.

Perfect.

Um, item number eight adoption of the city of Walkshaw Board of Review Policy.

Um, so we have policy to review and then make a motion on.

Um 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 Walkshaw Board of Review Policy for May twenty twenty-six.

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.

Uh yes, uh, it was electronically submitted to the clerk on the twentieth.

Perfect.

Thank you.

And then item number eleven, review the assessment roll and perform our statutory duties.

Um, so the board will now take the time to examine the role.

Um, was there any errors or discrepancies?

Is that later?

Nope.

Are you talking number twelve or uh number eleven?

So okay, yeah, so we go through that.

Yeah, yeah, we'll we'll get there.

Okay, great.

We'll re examine the role now.

Are you with voting yet?

I'm trying to, but I'm not having a good time here.

Come on.

Okay, yeah, I can't.

Just look over your shoulder.

Well, here you can just take mine.

Um, mine's locked in.

I guess yeah, I can't.

Oops.

Thank you.

I was not to send out too many emails under your name.

I see nothing wrong with the back, it doesn't matter, I suppose.

Oh yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

I'm good.

Okay, the board has examined the roles.

Um we did not find any errors or omissions or double assessed properties.

Uh so we can move on to item number twelve, discussion action, certify all corrections and error under state law.

Uh yes, uh this year we had thirteen uh correction and omissions, twelve 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 thirteen, um, discussion action, verify with the assessor that open book changes are included in the assessment roll.

So for this year we had forty-two um requests during open book, which resulted in sixty properties being reviewed, um, which also included like discoveries that we found out during open book.

Um eighty percent of those resulted in changes, twenty percent did not, and those changes do reflect on the assessment role.

Great, thank you.

And then moving on to item number fourteen, allow taxpayers to examine the assessment data.

Doesn't seem like there's anyone here.

Um we can move on to item number fifteen, the approval of the minutes.

Um so we have the board of review minutes from August July twenty-ninth, twenty twenty-five.

Um I make a motion to approve the minutes.

I'll second.

And then all in favor.

I move on to item number sixteen.

Um, consideration on number A.

Waivers of the required forty-eight-hour notice to intent of intent to file an objection when there is good cause.

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

Okay, and it seems like he's not here to request the waiver of the required forty-eight-hour notice or give reasoning to why, and none was provided.

It doesn't seem like um.

So we can go ahead and make a decision on discuss and make a decision on the waiver of the required forty-eight-hour notice.

I'm gonna actually attorney red.

Do they need a motion if he's not here?

I think they would need a motion.

Okay.

Yeah.

Would it hurt the vote?

Provide a motion.

I mean yeah.

What do you mean?

I don't know.

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

If we would it it would just reinforce.

Yeah, I don't think it would cause it.

Appeal something.

Um so I'll make a motion to um decline the waiver of the 48-hour notice um for RCL investments at 22 Arcadian AV due to no reasoning provided for missing the 48-hour notice.

Yeah, it's um yeah.

The only thing I say is an email.

Um 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.

Um we have the request for waiver of the board of review submitted by Ryan Hart 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.

Uh-huh.

So our first request for waiver is and we need approval for that, right?

Correct.

You would you would have to approve the waiver.

So I think that's this information.

Are there any objections to the waiver um for Reinhardt to the board of or to the circuit court?

No, these uh 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.

Go through.

Perfect.

All right.

Um I'll make a motion to approve the waiver.

I will second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, so council.

And then the next item we have uh request for a waiver submitted by Reinhardt on behalf of Menards Incorporated on Blue Mound Road.

Um, again, any objection to this property is also currently in litigation.

Perfect.

Um, 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.

Um, and then moving on to our next request for waiver of the board of review from Walmart Real Estate Business at 2000 Southwest Avenue.

Um there any objections from the assessor's office for this one?

No, this one's also in litigation.

Perfect.

Um 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.

Okay.

And then moving on to item number C request to testify by telephone or submit one written statement.

We had one request for telephone by LRG LLC.

Um, yeah, that would be an easy if they were out of state.

Yeah, that's state.

Out of state, yeah.

Any discussion or objections?

I have none.

Okay, I'll make a motion to approve the rest 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 evidence.

Other legally allowed required board of review matters.

Is there any 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.

Okay.

So then I believe we can go on break until our first scheduled objection at 10 a.m.

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 Shuitt properties.

If Katie, you can call the case.

The case is for Shuett Properties A315 LLC with Brian Shute.

And we do have an agent authorization on file for Brian.

The property owner resides at W290 S6585 Holiday Road, Waukeshaw, Wisconsin, 53189.

The address for the property 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 58500.

Improvements are 286900 for a total assessment of 35300.

And we will swear in Brian and Joe for the assessors.

Do you have any?

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 file 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.

Um after you finish your testimony, the assessor will then testify next.

Um after which you can ask our you can ask the assessor any test or any questions, and the board will can also ask the assessor any questions that we have.

Um at that time, all evidence that has been submitted under oath.

Um 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, um, and then we will make a decision immediately following that.

Um do you have any questions before we get started?

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

Perfect.

Um great.

Um 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.

Um, 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.

Okay.

Uh Brian Shuett, my home address is W290 S6585 Holiday Road, Waukeshaw, Wisconsin 53189.

Uh, the property in question, uh, which is in the city of Waukeshaw is 315 Arlington Street, Waukeshaw, Wisconsin, 53186.

Uh, and I believe the assessed value should be 255,000, which is what I paid for it 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.

Um, so I I'll give a little bit of background, just I don't know how much everybody knows, but I did speak with Joe uh last week, sent them several pictures as requested.

Um, and we kind of went back and forth, and he did a uh 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 gonna adjust it from 353 300 to 326,800.

Um and I still feel that's far off from what I just purchased it for on September of 2025.

Uh the amount I purchased it for was 255,000.

It was a foresale by owner.

Um, and that was the price they were asking, and that's the price that I paid.

Um it's definitely not a as I told Joe, not a Taj Mahal.

So there's definitely some deferred maintenance that uh was is on the inside and some things on the outside.

Um, so you know, taking into those considerations, I think that's why the price was what the price was uh that I paid for opposed to what it's being assessed for.

Um it does have an older boiler, you know, 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.

You know, it's got the old Crow's foot tub with uh uh half hanging curtain around it, uh unfinished basement.

Um so there's really nothing that sets it um to the level of some of the other houses that you may see that would be maybe in that 350 range that are selling.

Um I also did do some research on the city of Waukesh.

I found three other properties that are very similar that also sold in September or August of 2025.

Uh the particular addresses that I used 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.

Uh another address as a comparable is 206 North Charles Street, five bedroom one bath sale price of 286,000.

Uh another one is 209 Wright Street, which was uh sold in August of 2025, uh five bedroom one and a half bath, uh 245,000 sale price.

So those three properties that I'm referencing are all very similar.

Um, 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.

Um so that's you know that's why I'm here today.

And thank you every thank everyone for their time and I appreciate it.

Uh 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.

Um they didn't.

If you want to bring those up to us, you can.

Um, and then if that concludes your testimony, Joe, if you had any questions for the homeowner at this time.

Uh okay, thank you.

Um, and then the board, if the board has any questions for the homeowner.

Um just uh you said it was uh uh for sale by owner.

Yes, sir.

Uh do you know the owner or are you any way related to him?

Uh I own a property that's near him, and that's how I found out about the the sale.

So I was just driving by that day, and he had the sale the sign out front, and that's how I purchased it.

So you are no way related.

No, no.

Blood marriage.

Nope.

Maybe a hundred times removed, but no, no relation whatsoever.

No.

Okay, thank you.

I just would like to, since you brought that up, and I was gonna bring that up.

Um, but I did talk to the owner and he gave me good information.

And um, and um he did mention that the he's he noticed it was for sale by owner, and that the previous owner um he was in the investing business for a while and didn't want to invest anymore, and the price of the 255 was negotiated.

Um and a lot of times a negotiated price doesn't represent market value.

Yeah, that is accurate.

Okay.

And then you said you did speak um during open book.

You came in and spoke with the assessor's office.

And I did not come in, I did it all via email.

Okay, because I I did not uh 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 he kind of informed me what the process was.

He said get some pictures, so then I submitted those to Joe and Eric because I was under the you know, understand now that Joe 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 I think 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 uh speak to anybody, it was all via phone or email.

Perfect.

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

I have not, no.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Did the um did you pay cash for this?

Uh it's seller financed, so no, I did not.

There's a mortgage note seller finance.

Oh, yeah.

Um, no appraisal was needed for correct.

Okay.

Okay.

And we do like to do um interiors, and the previous owner, um, it sold a while ago in 2018.

And I um I did an interior at that time, and it wasn't in the best condition, and he was gonna fix it up, and he the next year I sent him a letter, and he he didn't let he didn't allow an interior because now he said it's fixed up, and yeah, I guess he was I didn't know it, but he wasn't satisfied with the prior value when it was at poor.

I don't think he told me, but um, so I wasn't able to see it after it was fixed up.

So I um estimated the value as it being done, and um so um, and then and when um 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 have liked to see the interior.

It's probably our best way.

Pictures are good, but the seeing them is one thing, I think, and seeing pictures is another.

So um, and looking at the pictures, I didn't see a house in poor condition anymore.

You know, there I'd seen the kitchen needed the drop ceiling needed some tiles, but if he replaces those tiles, I'm not gonna raise his assessment for it.

And I noticed the flooring in the bathrooms were those little tiles.

You know, 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 I just for the record, I have not done no improvements.

Um, 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 with I mentioned there's a tenant that's living there currently.

Perfect.

Okay, thank you.

Um, any other questions for the homeowner?

Otherwise, okay, we'll close testimony for the homeowner, then and ask Joe to um supply his testimony next.

Okay, so I'll pass these out.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

And just before I start the um, so his original assessment was 353,300, and I reduced it to 326,800.

And that was based on viewing the pictures, and you know, it did indicate maybe there was somewhere in tear, so I did reduce his assessment due to that.

Due to the pictures that he sent.

And I I have a comparable sales sheet, and um, so I I'll start right at the subject property, giving you the details of each, um, starting with the subject and working my way um through comp one through four.

So the subject is 315 Arlington Street.

Um, it's on point two acres of land, two and a half stories because the third level is uh unfinished attic.

Um built in 1910 condition is fair.

Um bedroom count is four, bathroom count one and a half square feet, 2586 basement is full.

Um no air conditioning listed, and um it's got a detached garage.

Comparable one, 135 North West Avenue.

Um 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 two, 329 Harrison Avenue, sale price of 285.

That was March 27th of 2024.13 acres, two-story old style D grade 1917, 1610 square feet full basement, and a detached garage.

Comparable three, 1603 Jefferson Avenue.

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, 2024.16 acres, two story old style D grade, 1900 is the year built, average condition, three bedrooms, one bathroom, 13, 12 square feet, basements 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 2423 sales.

So those sales, I wouldn't have been able to use them.

And um and I'm unf I'd have to do research.

Usually the owners will let us know based on my estimate of value.

I use these comparables.

So and at that time I could have indicated to them that 2025 sales aren't 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, you know, 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.

Okay.

So the the sale, these are all from 2024, um, which is you know, some of them are almost two years old now.

Um, and I feel like a better representation for current values would be sales that were made in 2025, um, which are some of the ones that I provided.

Um, and also a lot of these sale prices 325, 285, 303, 275.

Um, and then I don't really understand the adjusted sale price.

Uh, how how you know that house sold for 285, but your your adjusted sale prices suggesting that it's 331,000, but yet it did sell for 285.

So uh, and I'm just not knowledgeable on that process of why you know the sale price was 285, but on here he's saying it's worth 331.

That that doesn't exactly make sense um on how you would use the higher number as a reference to compare, you know, of the value of 315, which is what we're talking about on Arlington Street.

Um I and I didn't 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 the objection process hearing, and that's why I presented those uh because I felt like those were the most recent, which is almost the exact time when I purchased 315 Arlington Street.

Um so I think those are better representations of value opposed to sales that were two years ago.

So we um 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 going to be identical, so if there's a square feet difference, you have to adjust it, um, and things like that.

So that's what the adjusted sale price is designed for.

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 gonna 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 the reason for the lower square feet is because in your area and in similar areas, there wasn't 2600 square feet comparables.

So these were the best comparables to use.

And okay.

Thank you for clarifying.

Oh, you're welcome.

And I Dike, can I ask another question?

And as far as the the um the sale the 2025 sales, we did a reassessment in 2025, and we by law have to use 20 most current sales, which would be 2024.

Okay.

And we s due to uniformity by law, we need to continue to use use the 2024 sales on to until there's another reassessment.

So would so am I a year too early to request an assessed value adjustment?

I mean, because you're you're basically saying that 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 gonna be a market value 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 it wasn't a negotiated sale, and okay, 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 four 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, uh yeah, because I was like I said, I just saw when I drove by soldier.

Okay, there was never I never saw it online anywhere.

Sure.

Okay.

Um and as a reference point, the comparables that I provided were all listed on the MLS, um, sold by a realtor, purchased by somebody unrelated from what I can tell online.

Oh, sure.

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

Yeah.

Yeah, and it just I don't I'm not familiar with the process, so my apologies for no understanding earlier.

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

I don't have any questions.

No, I do not either.

Okay, perfect.

Um, if that concludes all testimony and questions, we will um close testimony and the board will deliberate amongst ourselves um and come up with a decision.

Okay, so going through the fax determinations decisions.

Um the board finds that there was a recent sale of the subject property.

Yes, yes, there was.

The sale was an arm's length transaction.

Technically, um I don't think it was because it was the forced sale, and we knew the owner.

That's how it was negotiated, I thought.

But well, arms length they didn't know.

Technically, they didn't know.

No, you're correct.

I'm thinking of something else.

Technically, it was arms length.

Yeah, but it just wouldn't be.

I was just reading about it.

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

I don't think so.

I would say no for that one.

Um and then the board finds that the sale supports the assessment.

No.

I'm me.

No.

Um okay.

And number three.

The board of review finds that there are recent sales of the comparable properties.

Um the homeowner brought some comparable sales, but they were from September of 2025.

Correct.

So not able to be used.

Correct.

Um, and then they also had the comparables provided by the assessor's office.

Yes.

Um, and we found C.

Um 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 list the properties and values that the board will review relies on to make its determination.

Um 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 uh fill those in later.

Um 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.

Comparable sales.

All right.

I will make a motion then, exercising its judgment and discretion pursuant to Wisconsin statute 70.47 sub-9 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 proper 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.

Um 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.

Um Sarah Roth, aye.

Lenny Miller, aye.

Okay.

Um can I ask a question?

Obviously, not on the record anymore.

Or not.

Um I'm not sure if you can ask it to us or to Katie.

Or to 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.

Uh sir.

I think did you want to talk?

Oh, I thought they were still going.

Okay.

We are ready to move on to our 1030 appointment for Paul and Joanne Clume at 416 Blue Mound Road.

Um, Katie, if you can call the case.

The case is for Paul and Janelle Clum.

We do have an agent form on file for John.

Is it Nogle to speak regarding the property?

The property owner resides at 6688 North Shawmores Drive, Heartland, Wisconsin, 53029.

The property in question is 416 Blue Mound Road, Waukesha, Wisconsin, 53188.

The tax key number for the property is 096998200.

Classified as commercial.

The value in the assessment role, land is valued at 363, 200.

Improvements are 2 million 23200 for a total assessment of 2 million 386 400, and we will swear in all three for testimony.

I do and for the record, we'll leave Lori Thornan for the remainder of the day.

All right, thank you so much for taking the time to come today.

I'm going to briefly outline how the hearing procedure will work.

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.

And if you have any witnesses at that time, you would present your testimony at that time.

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 testimonies 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?

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?

Right.

Um okay, for the record, if you could state your full known full name and address.

Sorry about that.

Uh my name is Janelle Jordan Clone.

6688.

My home address.

Um, yes, I believe so.

6688 North Shawmores Drive, Hardland, Wisconsin, 53021.

Thank you.

Um, and then what amount in your opinion is the fair market value for your property?

A million six one million six hundred and fifty thousand.

Million.

One million six hundred and fifty thousand.

Thank you.

Um, and you can present any testimony now that you have at this time.

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

Do you any have anything you want to say?

Well, I guess I want to say uh when I first opened up that tax bill in uh December, I just about freaked out when it went up from 20 about 21 something to uh 60,000 something, 68,000 or something like that.

And uh I read it and read it, I I couldn't believe it.

Anyway, I called my tenant and we talked about it.

Um, and then just had a work further, but it ruined my whole Christmas, and I just couldn't understand how you people could do this to somebody.

Okay, I'm uh I'm the 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 uh supporting the valuation?

Uh I'll go ahead.

My name's John Noggle.

Uh I actually I'm the accountant for the tenant at 416 Blue Mount.

Is 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.

Okay.

Do you always say the testimony?

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

So yeah, the 2025 correction was approved.

Uh what will happen is um 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.

Um, but I believe it's gonna be sometime this year that that that will be issued.

But after today, it's gonna be out of our hands and over into the clerk treasurers.

Do we know approximately what the dollar amount is gonna be?

Because I don't I I have never calculated a tax bill in my life.

I do not know.

Um, 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 can I jump in here?

Uh I mean, we're this we're really outside the scope here of what is considered relevant.

Well, but not necessarily.

Your tax bill, your tax bill does not have bearing the board first of all, the board did not assess the property.

And second of all, the board's uh quasi-judicial body, they're here to hear they're here to hear evidence about your assessment.

So I 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 percent, which is better than 265, but because of that error, we had to start doing more researching.

We talked to adjacent tenants, uh, we talked to one that had a sale, and so kind of the 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, Jonel looked at the bill and the assessment letter this time, we would have been assessed again at five million dollars because this is a maintenance year.

Is that correct?

So we'd be stuck with the five million dollars, 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 in the assessment would have been another five million dollars.

Correct.

Okay, so then looking at that, we went back and found another adjacent property, and I know as 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 a million eight, we were assessed at a million three, they sold their property for a million six.

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 gonna represent fair 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 bought for a million six went to two million nine.

So something seems wrong there.

So I guess our biggest evidence is the comparable sales, and the second evidence, as Junel mentioned, is marketability and um fair market value for the tenants.

So this property, if the tenant is gonna be required to pay uh the 72% increase, that makes the property less valuable to them, which in this economy, and I don't know what the vacancy I looked once and saw 27%, and if the owner has to absorb, and again, we're still negotiating that who's gonna 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 million three, 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, those it's it's the comparable sale, and then the fact that the marketability and value of the property is less because of the high increase if at the 72 percent of the uh the new quote new assessment.

So I guess that's that's kind of our position.

Okay.

Okay, so you have the one sale, the Walkshaw 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.

Um, any questions from the assessor's office?

No.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board for the property owners?

Yeah, maybe.

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

No.

Okay.

So I just gotta take a look at something.

Um were the rent rules and the financial information supplied to us or to the assessor's office every year.

I did that, I did that later with Laura.

It was a 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 we that you provided that information?

Pardon?

Do you recall the day you provided that information?

Was that on Wednesday?

Yeah, it was two days ago.

Yeah.

Oops.

And the 1.65 is based primarily off of the Walkshaw veterinary service being sold at 1.6, kind of, and then I guess increasing a little bit.

We didn't, we were one three, they were one eight in prior assessment.

So theoretically, we could have mathematically done it, and that would have made our assessment one two, and that was silly.

But I think more in the range of, and that's about a 30% increase going from our million three to a million six fifty, which I felt was more reasonable.

And then uh you're basing your estimate on uh the sale of Walk Shop Veterinary Clinic or Service.

That's correct.

I'm just looking at Google Lerved here.

Um I don't have any of the particular city of property, but it looks like your building is quite a bit larger than the not quite a bit, but larger than the veterinary clinic.

That's correct.

Then again, we're primarily warehouse, they're gonna be office, but again, from the point of view if an assessor looks at different types, these aren't exactly the same, they're both commercial rental.

Theoretically, their million eight that they have as assessment with our million three, 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.

Your assessment was a million eight that went to two nine, yeah, 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 other reasons.

And again, more difficult to evaluate is the now if let's say this holds that 72 percent 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.

Okay, any other questions?

I have none.

Okay, great.

Um, we're closing testimony from the homeowner, and now we'll open testimony from the assessor's office.

Property owner.

I'm gonna hand them theirs.

Oh, it's going to be thank you.

I can almost read this.

Don't want to leave my friend mic.

Don't want to make that on my so I gave everybody two sheets of information.

One um, well, 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 um breaks out some information, and I'm sorry, my printer was really uh coming down to it, so some are a little bit faded, but um hopefully still legible.

And I do have additional copies if anyone has an issue reading theirs.

Um but that at the top it talks over the property as far as the parcel number, the address, ownership.

There are two lines.

Uh the way the data reads within the assessment system breaks out.

There are two separate buildings on the property.

Um, and within the larger part, there are some offices within uh the warehouse space, but it is primarily to what the agent had described as primarily warehouse, uh, 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.

Um in 2024, this property uh was valued at 1,386 500.

There was a 2025 value put on there, a little over $5 million when the um the tenant had reached out in January asking about that value.

I did stop out there, I think within 24 hours, uh, met with uh the agent and the um uh tenant uh just to talk a little bit, see the building, um, 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.

Um I had added a line above the other one, adding about 8,000 square feet difference, um, which again is an assessor error, hence why this property was put on the correction of error sheet for this year.

Um 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 um tenant, um, 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.

Um, and I I think the same sentiment kind of at least originally was hey, that sounds a lot better than the five million dollars.

We we talked over the correction process as far as at that time.

We didn't know when the border review would be, um, but at that time the correction of error sheet would be provided at that time.

Uh kind of fast forward to more recently, I think we checked in.

Hey, is that still on the on the correction sheet?

We said yes.

That was um essentially where things were left.

And then I believe it was late last week.

Um, I received a call saying, hey, uh, I think this property value should still be adjusted.

At that time, we're during open book.

There were other people ahead of the property owner.

I said, well, we can take a look.

Um, but I have you know provide me something essentially.

Um so kind of bringing uh so what would that be on Monday this past week?

Um I received the same, I believe, communication that you see today just on some of their rationale why.

Um and then we essentially followed up to say that the main difference here being in the um 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 uh much larger facility.

Um I don't believe that those would be comparable properties.

Um then as far as the other cited reason as income, um, 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, um, the opportunity to submit income and expense.

I did not see recorded any income and expense information, um, and I believe that was confirmed by the agent.

Um, although they did offer, hey, that's something that we could try to uh get to you.

Um 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 uh no person may be appeared before the board of review, testify to the board by telephone or object to evaluation if the valuation was made by the assessor or the objector using the income method method, unless no later than seven days before the first meeting of the border review, the person supplied to the assessor, all the income information about income and expense.

So I think the the um kind of the it is very nice that they uh try to provide it, I think just in a timely manner, we were not able to collect review and then appropriately uh make an adjustment at that time, but I do want to cite that they did provide it eventually there.

Um so what I've kind of citing back to that first page, just as far as uh original valuation.

Since there's two uh building usage, and I'm actually throwing a third in there, there's the contractor shop, and I gave um properties within the city that sold within our analysis 2023 and 2024 last year of contractor shops underneath that, just under the title Waukeshaw sales, those would be primarily warehouse use properties per the um agent and the tenant.

Uh 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 uh at least classified warehouse properties.

Um again, given that uh there's office warehouse as kind of a collective category.

Um I provided uh additional uh sales for that as well.

Um that again warehouse uh office space.

So um I just put uh 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, um, and then the broken out dollar per square foot.

Um, as far as the um uh primary building, I'm gonna call it just based on size, um, that is uh a uh uh noted as C quality and in good condition.

Um the prices per square foot of these sales, um, all essentially at least of the um again that primary building comparison of warehouse or warehouse office are noted as average condition.

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, um, which would be um similar to these on this sheet if we're averaging plus an additional adjustment for um 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.

Um there was an additional sale, and I'm I apologize I didn't print it out, um, but I can re uh pull it back up.

In 2023, there was a sale within Waukeshaw 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 and would be deemed appropriate.

Um, and it's sold.

Um, I can look up it's a monomine falls, and it was I think closer to the 168 per square foot, 168 dollars per square foot, and it would be size um comparable as well.

Thank you.

Um 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 be.

Well, when you're doing an assessment, isn't that part of what you consider as other factors in what was to value the property if if there is some, you know, and again, we 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 the vacancy rate in Waukeshoa County, shouldn't that have been taken into consideration?

Well, so there is a difference between what I was noticing as vacancy rate versus what you had cited.

Um 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 um based on the research last year was was one of the lowest uh vacancy rates that we had seen.

Um also it would have to come from market data.

So let's say that there is a larger increase of value due to the 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 would 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.

Any we don't have any more questions.

Okay, perfect.

Any questions from the board for the assessor's office?

No.

Okay, perfect.

Um, if you'd like to give a brief summary of your statement and position, um, we'll be looking at closing up testimony.

Um, so if there's anything further you'd like to say before we close testimony and begin deliberations.

Again, as is Lori mentioned, uh reduction from five million to two three is good, but that's still a 72% increase.

And if the reasonable assessments had been made prior, that 72% increase just doesn't seem to make any sense.

Thank you.

Any final statements from the assessment 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 no.

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.

Okay.

Um we did have sworn testimony by the property owner.

There 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.

Which I don't think is comparable, but it's my opinion.

Blue Mound, perfect.

And were there other factors reasons presented?

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

Was there anything else that you that they mentioned?

No, no, someone sworn testimony, no witnesses.

Okay, and then the sworn testimony by the assessor where recent sales of comparable properties provided, yes.

How many properties were provided?

Um other reasons factors presented by the assessor.

Um I know she mentioned that the that clinics.

Um it also was a sale from last year.

Okay.

Um, so we did find that there were recent sales of comparable properties, um, and we found that those were presented by the assessor.

Correct.

Uh that's correct.

Um 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 valuation.

Correct.

Would you agree?

Yes.

Perfect.

Um, okay.

I will go ahead and make a motion.

Um exercising its judgment and discretion pursuant to Wisconsin statute at 7047 sub-9 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 the land is three hundred sixty-three two hundred and improvements at two million two hundred two million twenty-three thousand two hundred for a total valuation of two million three hundred and eighty-six thousand four hundred dollars.

Second.

And roll call vote, Sarah Roth, aye.

Lenny Miller, I.

Thank you so much for your time.

Oh, okay.

Are you sure?

Yeah, please.

That would be something that I can set.

Oh, I'm glad we got any more we got.

Yeah.

Okay.

Good morning, Wayne.

Are you able to talk and just so you can make sure that we can hear you in the in the chambers here?

Are you able to hear us now or no?

Still nothing quite yet.

Okay.

Sick.

Andrew, can you turn my microphone up?

It's up.

Yeah, I think it's just super quiet.

Thank you.

Oh, yellow.

Wayne, are you able to hear us yet?

All right.

You can hear us, we can't hear you if we're getting closer.

All right, Wayne, could you talk for us one more time just to make sure we can hear you?

It's on our side because we could hear him before.

Right, I can hear him 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.

Um, I don't think so.

Okay.

Um thank you for joining us today.

Um, if we're ready to begin, the we will call the next case for LRG 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 one zero zero five two four one zero zero zero classified as commercial.

The value for the assessment, land is valued at two million thirty-nine nine hundred.

Improvements are four million five sixteen for a total assessment of six million five hundred fifty-five nine hundred.

And we will swear you in, Wayne.

Okay.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give on the matters 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.

Um so to begin today, I'm gonna briefly outline how the hearing procedure will work.

Um so as the one filing the objection, um, Wayne, you'll first testify and present any evidence you have.

Um I believe we have a copy that you submitted to us of the valuation, um, 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.

Um next, the assessor will present their um 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.

Um after all testimonies been given, each side will be given a brief um can make a brief summary of your case to the board of review.

And after the brief summary, um and all testimony will be closed, and the board of review will deliberate and make a decision um right here.

Um do you have any questions before we get started?

I would like to make an opening statement though.

Okay, perfect.

I'll just one moment.

Um I have one statement to make to you before you get started.

Um 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?

Yes.

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

Sure.

Wayne's hand law.

Um can you see the property on your screen that I'm sharing now?

Yes, we can.

Okay, so one nine zero one east Moreland Boulevard.

And what was the last question you asked?

Um, what about what the opinion of value you have of the property is?

One million one hundred and seventy-four thousand hundred and thirty-eight.

Perfect, thank you.

And you can share any any future testimony.

Okay, so I'll go over this briefly in a second, but just as an opening statement.

Uh pretty much in the 30 plus states that I've worked in the last 15 years.

But it just so happens there's 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 years.

So I just want that out there.

That's just my opinion of my experience that you're one of the hardest states on your taxpayers when it comes to these types of hearings in the nation.

But anyway, I'll just move forward.

That's a 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 throughout, you know, like I said, 30 plus states that I have the pleasure to deal with as far as valuation.

And they're one of the most difficult property types to value.

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, and even when you do get a lease, it's for the whole thing, you're not separated sections, and then go on and on why the income approach is, and by the way, hardly any county uses staying home approach anyway.

Um when it comes to the market approach, uh, the majority, I will say, not all of them for sure, but the majority of counties we deal with throughout the nation now actually look at cost as the number one weighted factor 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 appraisal to do that.

But even being that, most counties know that um 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 one of things the only property type that we don't even get a closing statement from our own clients because they have the right to not let us know what's going on, that's their prerogative, but it just makes our job a lot harder.

But luckily, most countries, 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 um 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 prior year value is lower, but I've come to understand that it was supposedly a mistake by the city and lowering the value and sending us 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.

Our cost is coming in at 4,174,000 round or 139 dollars.

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 for the board could lower the value, especially based on lower improvement value.

When it comes to land value of them, it's long enough to know that it's very hard to get land value lower on the cost approach, or just in general.

So I'm gonna 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, it's about 30,120 square feet on 4.46 acres of land.

So the the city has this improvement value at 4,516,000, 1450 a square foot for property that was built in 1990.

Now, we have a much newer effective year, so we're not disagreeing that the effective year should not be much newer.

But even being that, 150 a square foot for dealership property, just the improvements is extremely high in general.

Um, and we'll explain why as we go through our evidence.

So the following is where the subject is located, there's an aerial of the subject, front view, typical Volvo dealership, um, land rowers part of it too.

Uh, but you can see this is the thing about dealerships that make it so difficult.

Most of the money is spent on the showroom area and human remodel in the short 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 a service garage.

A lot of it's metal, which this one is built.

Uh, they don't really remodel them.

It's where they service and the cars, so you can see 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, um, roll up doors.

I mean, look right inside there.

So uh 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 and SLIFT will tell you, and by the way, Marshall and Swift, as you probably know, is by far the the leading um as far as improvement value credited throughout the nation.

This is 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 in all the factors that we have here.

So first thing to notice is that the service garage that was built to 1990, we did not give a newer effective year because we don't believe that has 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 pretty fair, effective year of 2010.

Every other area is effective or 2010.

So taking and to account those effective years, the square feet, see good on the automotive show room, which it's it's good.

Um the rest of the areas are definitely average, and taking the price per square foot per Marshall Swift, you get, for example, an automotive shroom 194 dollars a square foot, the automotive service center, which is the middle section of the dealership at 105 dollars, and automotor's pair garage at 79 dollars.

So there's huge differences in value price per square foot on each area of dealership.

We not only included that price per square foot for Marshall and Swift, we have all the current multipliers, local multipliers, depreciation for Marshall and Swift.

Um we have extra features of over half a million, which is uh hard to understand because uh paving is only a 10 to 15 year life, so I'm not even sure where we got that high number, but that's giving being very conservative.

In fact, we give a 10% entrepreneur profit, or not even know where the profit is since these are owner occupied.

So we gave a 10% on current profit, 550,000 on paving extra features, and all per marginal stuff, and we came up with an improvement value of 2,891,000.

The city, as you can see here, is at 4.5 million.

And to me, that 2.8 million compared to the 4.5, it's actually conservative, or 2.9 million, sorry, compared to 4.5.

And I said that because of how much we can manage your features, not for a profit, and all the factors here.

So, how in the world, if we're at 2.9 per martial swift with all those factors, is the improvement value by a city 4.5?

Right.

It's not possible.

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 pages per martial swift to tell you, oh, how did we get our replacement cost new numbers for each section?

Well, they're right here.

We can go over detail for the service garage, the showroom, etc.

Here's life expectancy guidelines.

Here's the depreciation tables for martial swift.

Here's the multipliers.

So there is zero doubt in how we got our numbers per the most credited and respected improvement value uh service in the world, as far as I'm concerned in most counties.

So again, we give you the proof of how we got on improvement value.

Now on this page, um, and we can go over that more detail if you did.

On this page is our land sales.

Now, don't get me wrong, it's very hard to get land lower in any county.

Um most of these are in Latisha three out of the five land sales, they are commercial land sales, and they did sell for less per square foot.

Uh I mean, one of them doesn't make sense less than a dollar, but a lot of them seem to make sense because they're between 550 in a square foot and a lot of them also about $9 a square foot or higher.

We're at 1050 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 closest, 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 then you take even close to our improvement value, an overall lower cost basis will be there, and the value will end up being lower than what we have currently, which is over 6.5 million.

Uh, and that concludes our presentation.

Thank you so much.

Um, do you is the assessor's office have any questions?

No.

Okay.

And the board.

Does the board have any questions at this time?

Uh not right now.

No.

Okay.

Perfect.

Um great, then we'll have the assessor's office present their testimony next.

I have one time.

If those are for you and Katie.

Okay, we can read this one.

Yeah, so we're gonna put that on a screen so we can see their evidence.

Is that correct?

Um I think that should be possible, or emailed it over.

We obviously have the right thing to see their evidence.

Yes.

Oh, I also want the boards to know that I don't believe we received revenue and they received the Reddit 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 did the board understand that that we provide our evidence like many weeks ago, and the city didn't even bother sending us their evidence.

I just want you to know that.

In all fairness, I believe that's is that correct?

I I I don't know.

I don't know whether that would happen or not.

Oh, well, I think that did you send us your evidence?

Typically, the assessor would provide it at board.

It wouldn't be a typical practice that we would send it in advance.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's typical and typically completely unfair.

Yes.

So we're emailing over that evidence right now.

Okay.com.

Yes.

Okay.

I sent the email.

Let me know when you received it, please.

Okay.

Did they want to do a read receipt to make sure that it's sent to me?

That would probably help.

Then they have proof that they sent it to the right email.

It's in my sent box, so okay.

I do find things that I sent from the City of Walk Shot email has a bit of a delay to it, but it shouldn't be too bad.

That's why.

Okay, so there is a delay.

Yeah, I just got it right.

Perfect.

I heard the little ding.

Okay.

Katie, I think he has it.

I got it.

He hasn't.

All right.

So with that, as everyone else uh received the information.

Um, so this is a um uh car dealership and auto dealership.

So uh for 1901 East Moreland Boulevard, the top of that first sheet here has the breakouts of the different usages or just kind of building types, um primarily is dealership.

There is some auto repair, um just automotive general and and car wash included in here.

So I have some information that kind of touches on all the uh stuff, the information on this first sheet is within the city of Waukesha's um uh analysis from last uh market update year, which would have been last year 2025.

Um, in addition, I have a supplemental again, as I mentioned, uh uh sale uh again from uh Waukeshaw County uh uh typically we start within the municipality itself, it is customary for commercial properties that we can uh widen that net a little bit.

If I do within Waukesha County, I found another um sale that would have been within our analysis years.

This one is from 2023, um, which has a dealership.

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 uh a repair center or car wash and things like that.

If we're kind of looking all inclusive, this 2023 sale um had a uh total square footage as well.

Um of about 38,000 square feet.

Um, and the subject property is about 27,400 square feet, so very similar in size.

Um, and it's sold at 288 a square foot.

So um 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.

Um, but we do typically take a look at again market if there's an income approach that would be appropriate.

Um the system within uh the Waukesha assessor system does put a cost uh valuation as well.

Um again, it is not something outside of new construction that we typically would look at.

Um, but taking a look at what that cost uh value is within the system actually puts it at 6 million, 821200.

Given that is not the value or methodology that we uh 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 um the City of Waukesha's assessment system on a cost methodology.

Um so in I put in here underneath um the information uh just specific to the property, the 2024, 2025, and then any open book changes.

Again, given the assessment year for 2026 as a maintenance year, um, we uh do uh stay uniform to the last market adjustment year, which would have been 2025, hence why I've referenced this information uh from last year.

So other uh 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 uh is about 37,400 if I'm rounding square feet, uh, just giving you some general information as far as just dollar per square foot.

Um I also did just put information from 2025 and now 2026, just uh the opinion of value that I received from the agent and just some uh additional dollar per square foot on that.

Underneath that is the sales that would have been inclusive of the um usages of uh that are comparable um to the subject property, and that would include more automated automotive dealership, uh repair centers, car washes, and then um some information underneath that on just kind of average dollar per square foot per square feet of those buildings sold.

Um 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.

Um there was um some adjustment down during open book uh last year at 6 million 5559, uh where the current role stays.

Um and again, given it's a maintenance year, um, there was no additional information supplied that would have indicated based off of the Wisconsin assessor manual, um, a indication for a value change in the assessment year, uh, which would include things like if there is 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 uh 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 there wasn't something cited to the assessor that would have fallen within that space.

Um again, the the assessor does not look at um 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, uh primarily off of off of the market.

The last statement I will make um based on some testimony from um 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 um would would not indicate just the value um of the of the property.

So let's say that there was um personal property or something like that received within the sale, there is a space where that can be cited on those transfer documents for the for at least the assessor's office to take in consideration of where it might not just be the real estate.

Um 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, um, if there would be other um 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?

We just have rebuttal.

Okay.

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

I do not.

No.

No.

Okay, um, Wayne, if you'd like to uh provide any rebuttal, any questions, closing testimony.

Now is be the time.

Yeah, the two pages, and that's the total of evidence, including just one sale by the city, is quite an injustice to the American taxpayer, period.

What kind of effort is that?

One sale does not make market.

I've heard that since I was a kid.

That's first of all, and they've provided one sale of their dealership.

Number two is if you look at their auto repair sales, like one of them sold they sold for what a hundred and what is it, 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 garage of a dealership, not by itself, is $80 a square foot.

Brand new.

So they're trying to tell you that the auto repair sales somehow should be valued as the dealership is at about 140 or 189 square foot when the actual value of that of a dealership, the service garage, is $80 per square foot.

It's this is double more than double what marginals have gives you as that.

So their current price per square foot, I think I don't know what it was, 150 for the improvements on how can that be if the the service garage, which is the largest section, is $80.

Their total values are 60% 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 during this 15 years and hundreds of dealerships, that sale, the one sale right now, which doesn't make the market, that was 38,000 square feet.

38,000 square feet and sold for 11 million dollars.

I don't care what they put on that report.

There is no doubt in my mind, but I don't know for sure that there was more involved than just landing improvements in that sale.

Okay.

First of all, it was a different city.

What it's in Wisconsin, and you know, maybe this is 290 a square foot without things involved.

We see that maybe in like the most upscale cities uh near Los Angeles or Texas or my point is that that doesn't make any sense to me from all my experience whatsoever.

That would just be land improvements.

Number two is again that's just one sale.

So if they only have one sale, why wouldn't they give some weight to the cost approach?

And given the cost approach, it's obviously proven that they're millions off on the improvements.

So if the board even gives some weight to the cost approach, there'll be a reduction value.

That's all we have.

Thank you.

Um any closing arguments from the assessor's office?

Sure, again, and and to summarize, this is a maintenance year for 2026.

Uh, there wasn't information provided that would have been within the Wisconsin manual uh 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, uh, which would be customary to look within uh similar uh within the county, excuse me, um, for additional supporting evidence.

So that concludes.

Okay, thank you.

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

What was that?

We do not get the final word, is that right?

Um, the assessor is given the chance to make a final summary um at the end.

So they did the final word.

Yes, which is again unlike other countries, but that's fine.

They get the final word and so all righty.

Um does any board of review member believe that the evidence is insufficient to proceed to decision?

I do not okay.

So now the testimony is closed and deliberations are opened.

Um, 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.

Um so I do think that there's a lot of frustration um based on the state's guidance on our decisioning here and how we make our decisions and um 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.

Um was there a recent sale of the subject property?

No.

Were recent sales of comparable properties provided?

Um, no, no recent comparable properties were provided.

There were land sales that were provided to terming a land value.

I believe there were five five or six, um then other factors or reasonings that were presented, um, would have been the cost approach was calculated by valuation.

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 one third 138.58 dollars per square foot?

No, not per square foot.

Um the 1385.

Oh, that's what the total valuation cost approach okay.

Um, any other evidence presented by the property owner?

Yes, there were the photographs of the property in there.

Um then the sworn testimony by the assessor, no recent sale of the subject property.

Did the assessor provide sales of comparable properties?

Yes, and then she presented one recent sale of the automobile ship back in 2023, as well as comparable sales of similar properties, similar use properties, correct?

So there's a total of eight properties, correct?

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

Star reports.

Um the recent sales of comparables presented by the property owner, were the attributes satisfy satisfactorily adjusted for their differences from the subject and their contribution to value.

Um with the land a little bit, um, although the value wasn't determined too much.

And then the assessor also presented recent sales comparables of the market area and made and made attributes to adjust for the differences.

So it's my opinion that because the assessor did provide recent sales, recent comparable sales, and adjust properly for them.

Um and the it's my opinion that the agent did not present sufficient evidence to review the assessor's valuation using the cost approach.

Um we taking sales as the primary indicator of value.

Um that's my opinion.

I concur.

Yeah, I agree too.

All right.

So we find that the assessment should there's no other factors that the assessment should be made on.

Um so we're using the assessor's comparable sales to make our determination of fair market value.

Um 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, um, that the proper use values were applied to the agriculture.

Oops, um, that the property owner did not present sufficient evidence to rebuild 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 million 39,900, improvements at 4 million five hundred sixteen thousand for a total valuation of six million five hundred and fifty-five thousand nine hundred.

Second and roll call vote, Sarah Roth, aye.

Lenny Miller, aye.

Eric Jones dye.

All right.

Great, thank you so much for your time.

That was predictable.

Thank you.

And then we don't have an appearance from Jake at all for 222 Arcadian.

That was denied earlier, yeah.

So perfect.

Then do we need to act on scheduling additional board of review dates?

No, we do not.

Yay.

Any new business before to discuss anything else?

Then I will make a motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.