CITY OF DELAFIELD BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES

Transcription

1 Page 1 of Reconvene the Board of Review to Order Clerk Treasurer Gina Gresch reconvened the meeting at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday,. 2. Roll Call Present Ed McAleer, Mayor Tim Schuenke, Administrator Gerald MacDougall, Alderperson Erv Sadowski, Alderperson Michelle DeYoe, Alderperson Tim Aicher, Alderperson (arrived at 3:30 p.m.) Jeff Krickhahn, Alderperson (arrived at 6:00 p.m.) Gina Gresch, Clerk Treasurer Les Ahren, Assessor Mike Grota, Assessor Kyle Waters, Assessor 3. Select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson G. MACDOUGALL MOVED TO NOMINATE M. DEYOE AS CHAIRPERSON. E. SADOWSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED. E. SADOWSKI MOVED TO NOMINATE G. MACDOUGALL AS VICE CHAIRPERSON. M. DEYOE SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED. 4. Review Notices of Intent to File Objection. M. DeYoe reviewed the notices and the procedures to be used during the meeting. 5. Hearings on Objections filed. The following objections to be heard were noted: ROSE MARIE SCHMIDT S LAPHAM PEAK RD 1:15 PM MICHAEL SMITH SCENIC HEIGHTS DR 1:30 PM KAREN HRLEVICH BURRIES ROAD 1:45 PM KEVIN KREITLOW RIDGE RD 2:00 PM A. WARNER HILLSIDE CT 2:15 PM JEFFREY KEIERLEBER GARRISON CT 2:30 PM DECADE GULFCOAST HOTEL PARTNERS LTD PTN CARRIAGE HILLS DR 2:45 PM JAMES AND JANE ROBINSON STEEPLE POINTE CIR 3:00 PM DONALD AND VALERIE GOTTSCHALK MILWAUKEE ST 3:15 PM GREG AND DEBBIE BURICH MUIR VALLEY RD 3:30 PM KEVIN P & GAIL D MAPLES WOODLAND PARK DR 3:45 PM JERRY & TERESA DUNNICK MILWAUKEE ST UNIT 12 4:00 PM MARGE HACKL MILWAUKEE ST UNIT 11 4:15 PM JAMES & RUTH ANN HYTINEN MILWAUKEE ST UNIT 9

2 Page 2 of 23 4:30 PM DANIEL F & MARY K BURKE MILWAUKEE ST UNIT 8 4:45 PM GAIL M. AUFDERMAUER MILWAUKEE ST UNIT 7 6:00 PM HALFMANN LIVING TRUST MILWAUKEE ST UNIT 5 6:15 PM RICHARD SCHWAAB TRINITY LANE 6:30 PM JOHN HOWLEY WELLS ST 6:45 PM JOHN HOWLEY WELLS ST 7:00 PM CRAIG & KRIS DRETZKA INDIAN SPRING DR 7:15 PM WILLIAM CHAPPIE WEST SHORE DR 7:30 PM KURT AND BETH CHELMINIAK WEST SHORE DR 7:45 PM WILLIAM MASLOWSKI BAY POINT LN 8:00 PM DENNIS VEDDER ONEIDA ST ROSE MARIE SCHMIDT, , 425 S LAPHAM PEAK ROAD L: $145,200 I: $182,800 T: $328,000 Open book changes: L: ($12,100) I: No change T: $315,900 Rose Marie Schmidt (Owner) was present as was the Assessor intending to provide testimony. They were sworn in by Clerk G. Gresch. Rose Marie Schmidt stated her name with her address being 425 S. Lapham Peak Road and Gerald Holton, 485 Lillian Court (hereafter also referred to as Owner ). The Chairperson stated so Owner was aware that the Board of Review wanted the owner to understand that under state law the Board of Review is required to uphold the assessor s valuation of the property as being correct unless you by your testimony can show the assessor s valuation to be incorrect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon you as the taxpayer. Owners understood. The case was presented. G. Holton was present to represent R. Schmidt. He reviewed that the assessment was raised $30,700, most of the increase being on the land. The land went from $145,200 to $182,800. Owner had a discussion with the assessor s office and the land value was reduced due to the fact that Assessor assumed that all property south of I 94 was sewered (it is not). Owner felt that land value should be reduced further. A large portion of Owner s land was put into conservancy after Smart Growth as shown on the GIS presented at this meeting. Due to the fact that the largest part of her land is in conservancy, the land has less value to be saleable because it could not be built on. Additionally, the land was declared as wetland. Comparables included: 499 S. Lapham Peak Road This is a 12.8 acre parcel that had an assessed value of $13,123/acre. Owner s land was assessed at $14,520/acre. He asked for an explanation regarding the difference. The assessor did not have any questions. The assessors presented their case. The initial assessment had a 40% discount for the value of what a ten acre lot would be due to the location and geography features of the stream. Open book resulted in a further discount. The reason the ten acre parcel

3 Page 3 of 23 at 499 S. Lapham Peak did not have a higher per acre value is that this lot is nearly 13 acres. The first acre is the highest value per acre and the rest goes down in contributory value. Comparable reports #1 and #2 supported the assessment of $315,900. The GIS image depicts a two acre lot that could have an assessed value of $123,000; the additional eight acres of wildlife and buffer, there is a contributory value of $10,100. Discussion took place on the contributory values of the land. It was clarified that the present value of the land was $133,100 and that in Assessor s opinion, the two acres plus the additional ten acres are worth approximately $123,000. The property directly to the south of Owner s property was assessed at $13,123 per acre resulting in a difference of $1,397/acre. Assessor stated that they were not sure that the land could perk, the same and similar considerations were given. Owner stated their main concern was resale; the 8 acres was not perkable and if the septic failed, it was questionable as to whether they would be able to get a new septic and what restrictions would be put on it. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place. E. MCALEER MOTIONED TO REDUCE AS FOLLOWS: L: $119,100 I: $182,800 T: $301,900 G. MACDOUGALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. A ROLL CALL VOTE TOOK PLACE: G. MACDOUGALL, AYE; E. MCALEER, AYE; G. GRESCH, AYE; E. SADOWSKI, AYE; T. SCHUENKE, NAY; M. DEYOE, AYE. MOTION CARRIED. MICHAEL SMITH, , 814 SCENIC HEIGHTS DR. L: $142,600 I: $267,800 T: $410,400 Open book changes: L: I: ($17,400) T: $393,000 Michael Smith (Owner) was present and sworn in by Clerk G. Gresch. M. Smith stated his name with his address being 814 Scenic Heights Dr. The Chairperson stated so Owner was aware that the Board of Review wanted the owner to understand that under state law the Board of Review is required to uphold the assessor s valuation of the property as being correct unless you by your testimony can show the assessor s valuation to be incorrect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon you as the taxpayer. Owner understood.

4 Page 4 of 23 Owner presented his case. Documents were presented to the board. Facts presented included: the square footage of the house is inaccurate; current sales in the neighborhood; and recent listing in the nearby area. Square footage calculation Document showing total square footage of the improvement is 2,092. Assessor s information showed that the finished basement was approximately 50% and a full basement was listed as 1,246 sf. This would be 623 sf for a total of 2,715 or a difference of 165 sf. Owner personally measured and came up with 513 sf for a total of 2,605 sf or a difference of 275 sf. A GIS map of neighborhood was presented showing subject property and recent sales. Comparables included: 880 Scenic Heights Drive $340,000 (7/10) 693 Scenic Heights Drive $375,000 (11/09) 905 Woodland Park Drive $300,000 (2009) Listed for 106 days, but no offers were received Using the recent sales, Owner presented a spreadsheet showing comparisons to his home and calculating an improvement value of $199,987 with the land value staying the same with the final price being $342,587. He concluded that based on recent sales in his neighborhood, he felt the fair market price would be $342,587 and he asked the BOR to decrease the improvement price by $15,413 to achieve this. Assessor addressed 905 Woodland Park and it was clarified that this property had not sold. It was clarified that the property at 693 was on Scenic Heights Drive. In regards to 880 Scenic Heights Drive, Assessor questioned if Owner knew why it might have sold for this. Owner was not aware of any circumstance. Assessor stated that 693 Scenic Heights Drive is a foreclosure and is not a valid comparable. The assessors presented their case. He distributed the Public Property Record card, one set of comparables, and the GIS image on the location of the subject property. Comparisons used as a test of the validity of the assessment included: 1989 Hillcrest Drive $365,000 (11/09) 230 Birch Road $500,000 (12/09) 344 W. Cedar Valley Rd. $420,000 (8/09) Adjustments were made to accommodate for differences in the comparable properties to the subject property for lot size, square footage, etc. The Owner did not have any questions. Assessor stated that there was an adjustment for square footage as a result of going out to the property and re measuring resulting in a reduction of $17,400 due to square footage adjustment as well as the removal of a whirlpool tub and other smaller adjustments. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place. It was stated that a lot of weight should be given to the neighborhood s comparables. G. MACDOUGALL MOVED TO UPHOLD THE ASSESSOR S VALUATION. T. SCHUENKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. A ROLL CALL VOTE TOOK PLACE: G. GRESCH, AYE; G. MACDOUGALL, AYE; E. MCALEER, NAY; E. SADOWSKI, AYE; T. SCHUENKE, AYE; M. DEYOE, NAY. MOTION CARRIED.

5 Page 5 of 23 KAREN HRLEVICH, , 2822 BURRIES ROAD L: $15,000 I: $0 T: $15,000 There were no open book changes. Karen Hrlevich (Owner) was present and sworn in by Clerk G. Gresch. K. Hrlevich stated her name with her address being 2822 Burries Road, Hartland. The Chairperson stated so Owner was aware that the Board of Review wanted the owner to understand that under state law the Board of Review is required to uphold the assessor s valuation of the property as being correct unless you by your testimony can show the assessor s valuation to be incorrect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon you as the taxpayer. Owner understood. Owner presented her case. The lot being assessed is a non conforming lot adjacent to land that has been raised approximately 7 ; after every rainfall Owner s lot experiences flooding making land unusable. Photos were submitted as evidence. Her land use had changed significantly as a result of the neighboring lot changes. She met with City Staff who suggested she build a berm to defer water from her property. She did not think this was correct. Nor did she think an increase in land value was fair as the land was not useable. If she had to rebuild, it could not be rebuilt in its current location as a result of this flooding. The value of the lot had historically varied significantly for reasons she was unsure of at this time. The assessor did not have any questions. The board clarified the lot was unbuildable. The assessors presented their case, noting the lot was an irregular shape and the location of the residence was directly south. Value was known to be only to adjoining property. If this land were simply attached to the adjoining lot, the land would have a value of $32,000 and the total value of that larger lot with a residence on it would then be $70,000. Because it was a separate parcel with other issues considered, the assessment was reduced to $15,000. No historical notations were provided regarding the varying lot values over time. Owner stated the lot was difficult to use and she was discouraged and sickened by the ability of the other lot owner to have impacted her lot in this way. The board questioned whether there were any other issues that should impact the land value for this lot. E. McAleer clarified that non conforming was not the same as non buildable. Assessor agreed, however, there were many hurdles, including topography and location that were currently without approval that would be needed to establish the lot as buildable. Assessor stated those were the contributing factors utilized that provided the assessment as presented. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place. T. SCHUENKE MOVED TO SUSTAIN THE ASSESSOR S VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY. E. SADOWSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. A ROLL CALL VOTE TOOK PLACE: G. GRESCH, AYE; G. MACDOUGALL, AYE; E. MCALEER, AYE; E. SADOWSKI AYE; T. SCHUENKE, AYE; M. DEYOE, AYE. MOTION CARRIED. A. WARNER, , 2100 HILLSIDE CT.

6 Page 6 of 23 L: $127,600 I: $302,700 T: $430,300 Open book changes: L: $ I: $(15,900) T: $414,400 Angela?? Warner (Owner) and?? were present and sworn in by Clerk G. Gresch. A. Warner stated her name with her address being 2100 Hillside Ct. The Chairperson stated so Owner was aware that the Board of Review wanted the owner to understand that under state law the Board of Review is required to uphold the assessor s valuation of the property as being correct unless you by your testimony can show the assessor s valuation to be incorrect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon you as the taxpayer. Owners understood. Owners presented their case. The property was assessed in 2006 at $356,900; in 2007 at $379,500; in 2008 at $379,500 (after adjustments); 2010 at $414,400 (after adjustment). Owner felt this amount was improbable given the current market. A number of inaccuracies were found in the property assumptions. Comparables were presented, some in the Town of Delafield and some in the City of Delafield. The percentage reduction on the sold properties was 16% between the assessed price and final selling price. City of Delafield properties were focused on. MLS #17718 Listed for $335,000; sold for $320,000 MLS # Listed for $365,000; sold for $360,000; assessed for $445,000 MLS # Listed for $465,000?? Assessor asked if addresses were available on the comparable properties. He stated that 2009 assessed values may have been different. The board did not have any questions. Assessors presented their case. The basement of the subject property had the garage listed as basement and they considered it a basement garage as reflected in the square footages on the assessment. A GIS handout showing the location of the property was provided. Comparisons included: 3672 Nagawicka Street $805,000 (12/08) 1722 Brookside Court $325,000 (12/08) 3638 Nagawicka Road $470,000 (5/09) Adjustments were made to accommodate for differences in the comparable properties to the subject property for lot size, square footage, etc. Owner clarified that their house operates on a septic system. Discussion took place regarding the comparables and whether they were comparable. E. Sadowski asked Assessor why it was downward adjusted $15,900. Assessor responded that ratings were listed as good relative to its age. However, the only thing that has been done to this property was the exterior decks.

7 Page 7 of 23 Owner summarized and after taking all factors into consideration felt that his property should be valued at $387,000. Assessor cautioned about making percentage comparisons as he believed that some were using incorrect figures, thus an incorrect percentage. The search engine, Zillow, was discussed. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place. M. DeYoe noted that the acreage increased where the land value has decreased; she assumed that this was due to the accessibility issues on this property. The other issue is that it the subject property is unique and may not appeal to a very large segment of the market. E. SADOWSKI MOVED TO SUSTAIN THE ASSESSOR S OPEN BOOK CHANGES OF THE FOLLOWING: L: $127,600 I: $286,800 T: $414,400 G. GRESCH SECONDED THE MOTION. A ROLL CALL VOTE TOOK PLACE: M. DEYOE, AYE; T. SCHUENKE, AYE; E. SADOWSKI, AYE; E. MCALEER, AYE; G. GRESCH, AYE; G. MACDOUGALL, AYE. MOTION CARRIED. It was stated that J. Keierleber and Decade Gulfcoast Hotel Partners Ltd Ptn had rescheduled their hearings. THE BOARD OF REVIEW RECESSED AND WAS RECONVENED. DONALD AND VALERIE GOTTSCHALK, , 1465 MILWAUKEE ST. L: $586,400 I: $411,000 T: $997,400 There were no open book changes. Donald Gottschalk was present with his attorney and was sworn in. D. Gottschalk stated his name with his address being 1465 Milwaukee Street, Delafield. The Chairperson stated so Owner was aware that the Board of Review wanted the owner to understand that under state law the Board of Review is required to uphold the assessor s valuation of the property as being correct unless you by your testimony can show the assessor s valuation to be incorrect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon you as the taxpayer. Owner understood. Owner presented his case. A booklet was prepared which included a variety of exhibits (1 14). Attorney and Owner reviewed the exhibits. The 2010 assessment increased by $60,000 from the 2009 assessment. Although knowledgeable in accounting practices, Owner did not know why the assessment was so much higher. On average, all of the homes on his street had a decrease in the 2010 assessment from 2009 of 8.24%. Owner requested, at a minimum, the same 8.24% decrease on his assessment. An exhibit depicted the sales of nine lake homes showing that the selling prices were substantially lower than the assessed values. A letter to the development within 500 of his property (Trillium Development) regarding contamination in the soils was included in an exhibit. A letter to the Plan Commission that was presented to the Plan Commission on 6/29/10 was reviewed, along with a letter to the Chief of Police and the Chief s response. A punch sheet was prepared and explained by Owner. Owner suggested that the exhibits supported his belief that his total valuation should be $832,870 and that the Grota appraisal for 2010 is in error. The assessor discussed the court cases contained in the exhibit. Owner stated that this set the standard for the Assessor s duties and the duties of the Board in determining the value uniformity. Owner did not feel that there was a rationale basis for the

8 Page 8 of 23 increase in his property values when every single other property compared to his went down. Assessor addressed a sales comparison report that was distributed regarding the three properties on Milwaukee Street and stated that because of vast differences, they would not be comparable. Attorney pointed out that there are percentage decreases across the board for all real estate and although absolute values may not be able to be compared, he thought he established that there is a significant decrease in property value on all lake properties similarly situated and/or comparable either by sales approach or assessment. The comparable located at 1667 Milwaukee Street was reviewed by G. MacDougall and the difference in land size and value was questioned in terms of being a good comparable. Owner explained how adjustments were calculated on the comparables. The assessors presented their case. Comparisons and GIS images were presented showing support for the current assessment at $997,400. Comparisons included: 2023 Evergreen Lane $1,250,000 (4/09) 2035 Evergreen Lane $1,220,000 (8/09) 3348 Nagawicka Ave. $796,000 (5/08) Comparison Report #2 included sales showing support for the current assessment. He stated that all six sales showed support for the current assessment using uniform and equitable assessment practices typical of the appraisal industry. Volume 2 of the Property Assessment Manual was considered along with past standards in applying mass appraisal standards to the individual properties within the City, and it was stated that the International Association of Assessing Officers practices were followed. Assessor confirmed assignment of heavy traffic to 1465 Milwaukee Street and light traffic to the others with adjustments being made for location but not the traffic. Assessor did not believe the comparison had a development similar to the Trillium Development going in near them. Attorney for Owner asked why owner s neighbors assessment decreased. Assessor could not explain prior assessments as he did not formulate them and did feel that it is encumbered on any one year that a previous year would bind an assessor from increasing or decreasing properties since each assessment year stands on its own merits. In making adjustments for the differences, Assessor stated that equity and uniformity is half of the principal of Wisconsin with the other half being market value; both should be considered. Assessor verified that he did not visit the subject property. E. Sadowski addressed the statement that each assessment year stands on its own merits. Assessor stated that each year s market value should be of January 1 of each specific year. E. Sadowski clarified that previous years assessments should not be considered, but should only go on this appraisal. E. Sadowski discussed Exhibit 4 which showed 13 properties in this neighborhood that decreased in value. He explained how subject property went up and 13 went down. Assessor stated that he did not know what considerations were given in the prior assessment but in order to have an increase or decrease it must be compared to a prior assessment. If assessments are starting from scratch there can t be a difference. Assessor did not know why the 13 decreased as he could not explain the prior assessment values. Assessor stated that there are uniformly applied width and depth modifiers to the land and the considerations of the buildings were based on age, quality of construction, size, and amenities. Since a variety of homes were being dealt with (custom built to a seasonal cottage), there are many adjustments that are given for all of those different features which can change with assessment models. Attorney for Owner presented summary and stated that general market conditions dictate the dollar trend in assessed values. He was skeptical that the subject property was evaluated on its own as compared to formulated views. The best evidence is what this body had done before and the fact that there was a decrease with the exception of this subject property. This was good evidence and 2009 is valid. The numbers show a general market decline and in general, all of the people in the neighborhood have decreases that are generally in line with the market decrease, with the exception of subject property. Owner felt assessment was out of line. Assessor stated that on behalf of his office, he had presented six sales that showed support for the assessment. Property owner did not present any appraisals, no certified individual testimony as to valuation, only that of a taxpayer (not an expert), the assessment staff followed uniformity practices typical of the industry and should not be bound by a percentage of increase.

9 Page 9 of 23 Deliberations by the Board of Review took place. E. McAleer commented that Evergreen Lane is not a good comparison for Milwaukee Street as Evergreen Lane is a private road located in a quiet little subdivision whereas Milwaukee Street is a collector street and Owner lives on a main intersection (Main & Milwaukee). Additionally, Attorney and Owner made a compelling case that uniformity was not followed. E. MCALEER MOVED TO REDUCE THE ASSESSMENT BACK TO $860,200 WITH THE RATIO BEING THE SAME AS THE ASSESSMENT. THIS WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: L: $506,600 I: $353,600 T: $860,200 E. SADOWSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. A ROLL CALL VOTE TOOK PLACE: M. DEYOE, AYE; T. SCHUENKE, NAY; E. SADOWSKI, AYE; E. MCALEER, AYE; G. GRESCH, AYE; G. MACDOUGALL, NAY. MOTION CARRIED. GREG AND DEBBIE BURICH, , 109 MUIR VALLEY RD. L: $95,000 I: $265,800 T: $360,800 Open book changes were as follows: L: $ I: $(7,800) T: $353,300 Greg Burich (Owner) was present and sworn in by Clerk G. Gresch. G. Burich stated his name with his address being 109 Muir Valley Rd. The Chairperson stated so Owner was aware that the Board of Review wanted the owner to understand that under state law the Board of Review is required to uphold the assessor s valuation of the property as being correct unless you by your testimony can show the assessor s valuation to be incorrect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon you as the taxpayer. Owner understood. Owner presented his case. Comparables included three sales made in 2009 which ranged from a decrease of $9,600 to $96,000. The houses sold for less than the previously assessed value. The assessor did not have any questions. The board did not have any questions. The assessors presented their case. Subject property sold on 5/22/08 for $368,000 and the current assessment is $353,300. The GIS image of subject property was included. Comparisons included: 110 Muir Valley Road $360,000 (5/09) 840 Devonshire Road $320,000 (5/10) 112 Muir Valley Road $405,000 (2/09)

10 Page 10 of 23 Adjustments were made to accommodate for differences in the comparable properties to the subject property for lot size, square footage, etc. The Owner discussed 112 Muir Valley Road. Assessor stated that the previous assessment was $381,000 (2009) and it is now assessed at $410,300 (2010). The board did not have any questions. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place. E. SADOWSKI MOVED TO SUSTAIN THE OPEN BOOK ASSESSMENT AS FOLLOWS: L: $95,000 I: $258,000 T: $353,000 G. MACDOUGALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. A ROLL CALL VOTE TOOK PLACE: M. DEYOE, AYE; T. SCHUENKE, AYE; E. SADOWSKI, AYE; E. MCALEER, AYE; G. GRESCH, ABSTAINED DUE TO NOT BEING PRESENT DURING TESTIMONY; T. AICHER, AYE; G. MACDOUGALL, AYE. MOTION CARRIED. KEVIN P & GAIL D MAPLES, , 2342 WOODLAND PARK DR. L: $56,600 I: $268,800 T: $325,400 There were no open book changes. Kevin P. Maples (Owner) was present and sworn in by Clerk G. Gresch. K. Maples stated his name with his address being 2342 Woodland Park Dr. The Chairperson stated so Owner was aware that the Board of Review wanted the owner to understand that under state law the Board of Review is required to uphold the assessor s valuation of the property as being correct unless you by your testimony can show the assessor s valuation to be incorrect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon you as the taxpayer. Owner understood. Owner presented his case. Documents were provided. He did not feel his assessment was in line with others. The assessor did not have any questions. The board did not have any questions. The assessors presented their case. A GIS image was provided. Comparisons on Report #1 showed support for the current assessment and included: 598 Garrison Ct. $465,000 (5/10) 1037 Milwaukee Street $380,000 (11/08) 925 Nagawicka Street $268,000 (4/10) Comparison Report #2 had three sales but they were not verbally reviewed.

11 Page 11 of 23 The current assessment on the land went down from $72,100 to $56,600 due Assessor s analysis of lot size, location, and access. Adjustments were made to accommodate for differences in the comparable properties to the subject property for lot size, square footage, etc. Owner discussed comparable properties presented by Assessor and it was clarified that not all had lake access, but adjustments had been made in the land and building values. The referenced property near subject property on Whitman Park Drive sold in March 2006 for $270,000. Owner stated he recently had his house appraised which resulted in a full assessed value was $317,000, however a copy of the document was not available at this time. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place. It was stated that more weight is given to properties in the neighborhood. E. MCALEER MOVED TO REDUCE AS FOLLOWS: L: $56,600 I: $248,400 T: $305,000 M. DEYOE SECONDED THE MOTION. DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE REGARDING ASSESSMENT. A ROLL CALL VOTE TOOK PLACE: T. AICHER, NAY; M. DEYOE, NAY; T. SCHUENKE, NAY; E. SADOWSKI, NAY; E. MCALEER, AYE; G. GRESCH, NAY; G. MACDOUGALL, NAY. MOTION FAILED. E. SADOWSKI MOVED TO SUSTAIN THE ASSESSMENT OF: L: $56,600 I: $268,800 T: $325,400 M. DEYOE SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. A ROLL CALL VOTE TOOK PLACE: E. MCALEER, NAY; G. MACDOUGALL, AYE; G. GRESCH, AYE; T. AICHER, AYE; E. SADOWSKI, AYE; T. SCHUENKE, AYE; M. DEYOE, AYE. MOTION CARRIED. A FIVE MINUTE BREAK WAS TAKEN AT THIS TIME. G. Gresch stated that the following properties were unique situations in that they are six condo units on Milwaukee Street. They would be heard at the same time, with deliberations being done separately. JERRY & TERESA DUNNICK, , 1738 MILWAUKEE ST. UNIT 12 L: $200,000 I: $304,700 T: $504,700 MARGE HACKL, , 1736 MILWAUKEE ST. UNIT 11

12 Page 12 of 23 L: $200,000 I: $224,400 T: $424,400 JAMES & RUTH ANN HYTINEN, , 1732 MILWAUKEE ST. UNIT 9 L: $200,000 I: $350,100 T: $550,100 DANIEL & MARY BURKE, , 1730 MILWAUKEE ST. UNIT 8 L: $200,000 I: $284,500 T: $484,500 GAIL AUFDERMAUER, , 1720 MILWAUKEE ST. UNIT 7 L: $200,000 I: $275,300 T: $475,300 HALFMANN LIVING TRUST, , 1724 MILWAUKEE ST. UNIT 5 L: $200,000 I: $275,300 T: $475,300 None of the six above properties had any open book changes. Ms. Hytinen, (Representative) was present and sworn in by Clerk G. Gresch. Representative stated her name with her address being 1732 Milwaukee Street. G. Gresch noted that Board of Review member E. Sadowski recused himself from this matter. It was noted that verbal confirmation had been received from all of the six above property owners that Ms. Hytinen would be acting as their representative at this meeting. The Chairperson stated that so Owner was aware that the Board of Review wanted the owner to understand that under state law the Board of Review is required to uphold the assessor s valuation of the property as being correct unless you by your testimony can show the assessor s valuation to be incorrect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon you as the taxpayer. Representative understood. Representative presented the cases. Representative stated that not only is she the Treasurer for the condo association but has 30 years of work experience in the financial community. A handout was distributed to the board members reviewing last year s tax assessment values for the six properties. The six unit owners objected to the increase in overall land assessment as South

13 Page 13 of 23 Shore Harbor s the land value increased % from 2009 to The six unit owners did not have objections to the value assessed to the buildings. Comparables included: Water Ridge Condominium (1227B Milwaukee St.) 0% land change in 2010 assessment 16?? Milwaukee St. 27.6% decrease in land in 2010 assessment Lighthouse Condominium Project (1611 Milwaukee St.) 1.7% increase in land in 2010 assessment Harbor Court Condominium (1660?? Drive) 4.4% increase in land in 2010 assessment 1711 Nagawicka Road 11.8% decrease in land in 2010 assessment Nagawicka Shores (3834 Nagawicka Shores Dr.) 2.1% decrease in land in 2010 assessment Home directly next to (part of) South Shore Harbor 25.8% increase in land in 2010 assessment Representative asked for a 25.8% increase in land assessment instead of a % increase. Assessor asked if consideration had been given to listing prices or sale prices. Representative responded that there was a sale in South Shore Harbor of a small unit in 9/09 for $5??,???. In response to a question from Assessor regarding if Representative knew whether the current assessment was above or below what it sold for last year, Representative stated that each individual unit is separate, they were present to discuss land values. Two appraisals for two unit owners were included in the information submitted. Assessor stated that the comparables listed were not within the City or on Lake Nagawicka and the adjustments for off water to having water access and water frontage were discussed. Representative stated that Comp #1 and 2 were off water; Comps #3, 4, 5 were on water. Additionally, discussion took place on costs per square foot; Representative stated again that they were objecting to the land value, not the improvements. G. Gresch stated that the City had allowed other properties to dispute land value. Assessor discussed the effects of changing only one attribute as this would defy the Wisconsin Constitution on the whole purpose of uniform and equitable assessments. G. Gresch stated that the other assessors present at previous Board of Review meetings allowed contesting one value over the other. Assessor stated that they could speak on only the land, but it would be the total value of the property; it was clarified that this is how it was applied. Representative clarified that there are 12 units in the South Shore Harbor Condominiums with a total of 322 feet of frontage. She stated that there is a unit in the complex that has been for sale for over one year. In comparison to other condominiums where they are directly on the water, South Shore has the road between the units and the lake; this definitely decreases the value. The assessors presented their case. Comparisons included: Unit #6 $512, A Milwaukee St. $1.2 million (7/09) 1750?? Drive (9/08) Adjustments were made to accommodate for differences in the comparable properties to the subject property for lot size, square footage, etc. Representative stated that Assessor s Comp #2 & 3 were a much higher level sale and she questioned the adjustments. Assessor stated that there is an adjustment grid in an appraisal type format to adjust for differences in both land and improvements. Board asked about adjustments for neighbors, access to the lake, etc. Assessor replied that in a condominium there is a joint interest in the frontage. Applying a rationalization to lake frontage is not an indicator of the value of the property. He explained the use of residual land analysis and building residual analysis to determine land values. Ultimately it comes down to the sales indicator and how they are partitioned. Assessor responded to a question that the assessed value of the land for the Lighthouse Condominium is $259,000; similarities and differences between this property and subject property were reviewed. The value of individual units in South Shore Harbor were discussed in relation to their front, rear, and side yards. M. DeYoe questioned how each unit could be appraised the same when their yards are very different.

14 Page 14 of 23 Representative discussed Lighthouse Condominiums; they have 101 feet of frontage and their land value is $542,200. Subject properties have a total of 300 feet of frontage with 12 units with subject s assessed value being $2,400,000. Assessor stated that fairness is relative to market value you can t compare a two unit or a single family property to a condominium property without making severe adjustments. Representative stated that they would like the increase in land value to be reconsidered and that they be treated equally with the house and property that is included in their PUD. Assessor stated that historically the assessment on the land have always been the same for each of the units. Consideration is given for differences and utility, but the market in each condominium complex is what will drive the total value and therefore the land in apportionment. This complex has a different utility than some other units. The house that is part of this PUD, but not a condo (located at 1712 Milwaukee Street) was reviewed. It is an independent unit, but is part of the plat and has lake access. Representative stated that there are presently three units within the subject condominium complex that are on the market ranging in asking price from $525,000 $550,000; no offers have been received. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place on unit , Dunnick, Unit 12. E. McAleer addressed the increase amount and compared square footage costs; he did not think that the comparables supported the increase. T. Aicher discussed other condominiums developments. The corner unit yard was address by M. DeYoe who stated that it did not have a front yard and a common driveway; the unit almost has no green space; this should be a major consideration compared to the units that are located further back. E. MCALEER MOVED TO REDUCE THE LAND VALUE BY 25% RESULTING IN: L: $150,000 I: $304,700 T: $454,700 M. DEYOE SECONDED THE MOTION. T. SCHUENKE THOUGHT THAT ACCESSING THE PROPERTY AT $79,900 WASIS TOO LOW. IT WAS STATED THAT CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO HIERARCHY OF WHAT SELLING PRICES ARE AND COMPARABLE PROPERTIES, EVERYTHING ELSE MUST BE CONSIDERED AFTER THAT; THIS IS WHY LAND VALUE SHOULD NOT BE ADDRESSED WITHOUT ADDRESSING PROPERTY VALUE. A ROLL CALL VOTE TOOK PLACE: T. AICHER, AYE; T. SCHUENKE, AYE; M. DEYOE, AYE; E. MCALEER, AYE; G. MACDOUGALL, AYE; G. GRESCH, AYE. MOTION CARRIED AT $454,700. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place on unit , Hackl, Unit 11. G. MCDOUGALL MOVED TO REDUCE THE LAND VALUE BY 25% RESULTING IN: L: $150,000 I: $244,400 T: $394,400 THE MOTIONED WAS SECONDED. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. A ROLL CALL VOTE TOOK PLACE: T. AICHER, AYE; T. SCHUENKE, AYE; M. DEYOE, AYE; E. MCALEER, AYE; G. MACDOUGALL, AYE; G. GRESCH, AYE. MOTION CARRIED AT $394,400. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place on unit , Hytinen, Unit 9 T. SCHUENKE MOVED TO REDUCE THE LAND VALUE AS FOLLOWS: L: $150,000 I: $350,100

15 Page 15 of 23 T: $500,100 M. DEYOE SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. A ROLL CALL VOTE TOOK PLACE: T. AICHER, AYE; T. SCHUENKE, AYE; M. DEYOE, AYE; E. MCALEER, AYE; G. MACDOUGALL, AYE; G. GRESCH, AYE. MOTION CARRIED AT $500,100. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place on unit , Burke, Unit 8. M. DEYOE MOVED TO REDUCE THE LAND VALUE AS FOLLOWS: L: $150,000 I: $284,500 T: $434,500 T. SCHUENKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. A ROLL CALL VOTE TOOK PLACE: T. AICHER, AYE; T. SCHUENKE, AYE; M. DEYOE, AYE; E. MCALEER, AYE; G. MACDOUGALL, AYE; G. GRESCH, AYE. MOTION CARRIED AT $434,500. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place on unit , Aufdermauer, Unit 7. G. GRESCH MOVED TO REDUCE THE LAND VALUE AS FOLLOWS: L: $150,000 I: $275,300 T: $425,300 E. MCALEER SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. A ROLL CALL VOTE TOOK PLACE: T. AICHER, AYE; T. SCHUENKE, AYE; M. DEYOE, AYE; E. MCALEER, AYE; G. MACDOUGALL, AYE; G. GRESCH, AYE. MOTION CARRIED AT $425,300. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place on unit , Halfmann, Unit 6. E. MCALEER MOVED TO REDUCE THE LAND VALUE AS FOLLOWS: L: $150,000 I: $275,300 T: $425,300 M. DEYOE SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. A ROLL CALL VOTE TOOK PLACE: T. AICHER, AYE; T. SCHUENKE, AYE; M. DEYOE, AYE; E. MCALEER, AYE; G. MACDOUGALL, AYE; G. GRESCH, AYE. MOTION CARRIED AT $425,300. Discussion took place regarding the units within this condominium association that did not appeal. The appraiser was directed to review the units next year that did not appeal. Testimony would not be reopened. The meeting adjourned at 5:23 p.m. and was reconvened at 6:15 p.m. (The tape was turned on later in this testimony, I am assuming this was the next hearing. RICHARD SCHWAAB, , 3801 TRINITY LANE

16 Page 16 of 23 L: $ I: $35,600? (This amount was stated later in testimony but was not on the beginning of the tape needs clarity) T: $ There were no open book changes. Richard Schwaab was present and sworn in by Clerk G. Gresch. R. Schwaab stated his name with his address being 3801 Trinity Lane. The Chairperson stated so Owner was aware that the Board of Review wanted the owner to understand that under state law the Board of Review is required to uphold the assessor s valuation of the property as being correct unless you by your testimony can show the assessor s valuation to be incorrect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon you as the taxpayer. Owner understood. Owner presented their case. He shared several comparables with various similarities and differences between the comparables and his property noted. Lake depths and lake views were noted as being determinants for increased cost per lot. The quality of the frontage impacted cost. His property did not have the frontage that the comparables did. He thought $875,000 per lot was more realistic for his property. He shared a fourth comparable listing on Upper Nashotah Lake of $1,000,080 and had been listed for a long time and now the price was significantly reduced. Comparables included: Lot 1 and 2 Siepmann properties (purchased from Nashotah House) Lot 1 $1,000,050 Lot 2 $1,150,000 East shore Nagawicka Lake parcel ending in XXX 958 $(he referenced it was noted on sheet, but never stated) East shore Nagawicka Lake parcel ending in 959 $1,250,000 The assessor did/did not have any questions. The assessor questioned the location and boundaries of the lots referenced in the Siepmann property area in the comparables shared. The board did/did not have any questions. T. Aicher questioned how the cost of each lot in the comparables shared was determined for this review. Clarification was provided by the owner. The assessors presented their case. The assessor stated that comparables should be related to vacant lots in this case Comparisons included: Mission Woods Lot 4 $1,640,000(sold in Feb. 2008) Lot on West side of Upper Nashotah Lake $2,100,000 (sold in April 2006) 3101 Seminary Ridge $1,700,000 (property is for sale as of May 2010 and is assessed at $1,595,000) Adjustments were made to accommodate for differences in the comparable properties to the subject property for lot size, square footage, etc. He felt that the market value of the subject project ranged from $1,100,000 $1,600,000. Using these sales they show a subsequent value of $1,580,000. Owner stated it was his understanding that an appraisal more than a year old was not considered relevant. Assessor stated it was relevant to consider three years ago; however adjustments were considered based on relevance to that time frame. The closer to the current calendar year, the more relevance was given to the amount of the property. Owner stated some of the comparables presented by the Assessor were more than three years old and prior to the market crash was not correct. In addition, bringing in evidence that showed houses for sale was not relevant. Price history for housing sold was factual proof where pricing for housing for sale was not evidentiary of any actual completed transaction and should not be used.

17 Page 17 of 23 The board did/did not have any questions. E. McAleer questioned why a house in Summit with land value of $650,000 was presented. Assessor explained this was included as it was similar in relevancy to Upper Nashotah Lake. It was difficult to show sales in the area for that lake as there were very few historic sales on Upper Nashotah Lake. This supported the value of the Schwaab property in his opinion. M. DeYoe questioned whether a value of an uninhabitable building could be determined. Assessor explained the building had no value. While it had present use, it had no value in a sale. T. Aicher questioned the sales in Mission Woods. Assessor stated some of the lots in Mission Woods should be adjusted based on topography and wetland characteristics as a result of these sales. He believed some of the lots would sell for less than shown due to the location of the lot on the lake and certain advantages and disadvantages associated with the swamp area noted in that area. G. MacDougall questioned whether the owner had requested a change in past years. Assessor stated the property assessment had changed in 2009 from $1,687,000 to $1,386,000 at that time. J. Krickhahn questioned the Assessor about the topography impacts to the lot in question. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place. E. MCALEER MOVED TO REDUCE THE ASSESSMENT TO $1,150,100 WITH $1,150,000 BE FOR LAND AND $100 BE FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS. T. SCHUENKE SECONDED THE MOTION. G. MACDOUGALL CLARIFIED THE AMOUNTS STATED IN THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. A ROLL CALL VOTE TOOK PLACE: G. MACDOUGALL, AYE; J. KRICKHAHN, NAY; E. MCALEER, AYE; T. AICHER, AYE; T. SCHUENKE, AYE; M. DEYOE, AYE. MOTION CARRIED. CRAIG &KRIS DRETZKA , 1322 Indian Spring Drive L: $160,500 I: $324,000 T: $484,500 Open book changes are as follows: L: $(9,200) I: $(1,300) T: Craig Dretzka was present and sworn in by Deputy Clerk E. O Brien. C. Dretzka stated his name with his address being 1322 Indian Spring Drive. The Chairperson stated so Owner was aware that the Board of Review wanted the owner to understand that under state law the Board of Review is required to uphold the assessor s valuation of the property as being correct unless you by your testimony can show the assessor s valuation to be incorrect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon you as the taxpayer. Owner understood. Owner presented his case. He refinanced the subject property in Appraised value was listed as $385,000. The next door neighbor with a similar property was listed as $18,000 different than his property appraisal. The property had not changed and a 3% adjustment had been placed on the house each year. He thought his house should have an appraised value in the high $300,000 s to low $400,000 s. The assessor did not have any questions. The board did not have any questions. The assessors presented their case. Properties with similar acreage and recent sales were few and comparables were sometimes shown as being from 2008 and Comparisons included:

18 Page 18 of Nagawicka Road $470,000 in Indian Spring Road $508,000 Adjustments were made to accommodate for differences in the comparable properties to the subject property for lot size, square footage, etc. The assessor felt that the market value of the subject project ranged from $325,000 $ 470,000. Using these sales they showed support for the assessed value. Owner stated his appraisal had utilized the same comparables as the Assessor and one issue he had that others did not was related to the location to Interstate 94 and its related impacts as a result of being approximately 75 feet from the interstate. Value of the subject property was discussed in comparison with the neighboring property. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place. M. DeYoe questioned whether the property frontage on Interstate 94 would impact the assessment. T. AICHER MOVED AS FOLLOWS: L: $141,600 I: $302,000 T: $443,600 E. MCALEER SECONDED THE MOTION. M. DEYOE CLARIFIED THAT THERE WERE TWO COMPARABLES PROVIDED BY BOTH THE PETITIONER AND ASSESSOR IN THE AMOUNTS OF $428,800 AND $454,000 AND THE AVERAGE OF THOSE TWO RESULTED IN $443,600. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. A ROLL CALL VOTE TOOK PLACE: G. MACDOUGALL, AYE; J. KRICKHAHN, AYE; E. MCALEER, AYE; T. AICHER, AYE; T. SCHUENKE, AYE; AND M. DEYOE, AYE. MOTION CARRIED. WILLIAM CHAPPIE, , 2144 WEST SHORE DRIVE L: $374,500 I: $155,600 T: $530,100 There were no open book changes. William Chappie and Amy Lang were present and sworn in by Deputy Clerk E. O Brien. W. Chappie and A. Lang each stated their address as being 2144 West Shore Drive. The Chairperson stated so Owners were aware that the Board of Review wanted the owner to understand that under state law the Board of Review is required to uphold the assessor s valuation of the property as being correct unless you by your testimony can show the assessor s valuation to be incorrect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon you as the taxpayer. Owners understood. Owners presented their case. The assessed value in 2007 was $350,000 and based on neighboring properties it should be valued at that today. His home would not sell for that amount currently. He had 50 feet of channel frontage and neighboring properties with lake frontage south on West Shore Drive had been reduced in varying amounts. The assessor questioned the square footage and year built. Owner stated it was a cottage with small square footage.

19 Page 19 of 23 The board questioned whether renovations had been done. Owner stated there were no renovations. There were seven recent assessments as comparables, some that were for sale at this time and some that were under assessed. Owner did not have a map showing the floodplain in the area. The assessors presented their case. Assessor noted the location of the property and that the shoreline in the neighborhood undulated on the map shown. M. DeYoe questioned whether the Owner had access to the southern side of the property. Owner stated there was access over another property. Assessor noted the overlay was not perfect and discrepancies were noted. Litigation in the past had taken place regarding certainty of lot lines. Assessor clarified ownership and property lines of subject property. Comparisons included: 2420 Woodland Park Drive $424, West Shore Drive $675, West Shore Drive $799,000 Adjustments were made to accommodate for differences in the comparable properties to the subject property for lot size, square footage, and remodeling. Using these sales they show support for an assessed value of $530,100. The Owner stated the neighboring properties utilized in comparables were different in terms of size and quality of frontage. He further noted the condition of retention ponds and roadways in his neighborhood. The board did not have any questions. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place. E. MCALEER MOVED TO SUSTAIN THE ASSESSED LAND VALUE OF $374,500 AND IMPROVEMENTS VALUE OF $155,600 FOR A TOTAL VALUE OF $530,100. G. MACDOUGALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. A ROLL CALL VOTE TOOK PLACE: G. MACDOUGALL, AYE; J. KRICKHAHN, AYE; E. MCALEER, AYE; T. AICHER, NAY; T. SCHUENKE, AYE; AND M. DEYOE, NAY. MOTION CARRIED. KURT & BETH CHELMINIAK, , 2212 WEST SHORE DRIVE L: $537,800 I: $132,900 T: $670,700 Open book changes resulted in the following: L: $ I: $(14,000) T: $656,700 Kurt and Beth Chelminiak were present and sworn in by Deputy Clerk E. O Brien. K. Chelminiak and B. Chelminiak each stated their name with their address being 2212 West Shore Drive. The Chairperson stated so Owners were aware that the Board of Review wanted the owners to understand that under state law the Board of Review is required to uphold the assessor s valuation of the property as being correct unless you by your testimony can show the assessor s valuation to be incorrect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon you as the taxpayer. Owners understood.