CITY OF DELAFIELD BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES. Mayor Ed McAleer called the meeting to order at 5:01 P.M. on Thursday, June 28, 2012.

Transcription

1 Page 1 of Call the Board of Review to Order Mayor Ed McAleer called the meeting to order at 5:01 P.M. on Thursday,. 2. Roll Call Present Ed McAleer, Mayor Tim Aicher, Alderperson Jim Behrend, Alderperson Jeff Krickhahn, Alderperson Jane Lazynski, Alderperson Gerry MacDougall, Alderperson Gina Gresch, Clerk-Treasurer James Young, Assessor of Grota Appraisal Absent 3. Select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson E. MCALEER MOVED TO HAVE T. AICHER ACT AS CHAIRPERSON FOR THIS MEETING. G. MACDOUGALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED. E. MCALEER MOVED TO HAVE J. BEHREND AS VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR THIS MEETING. G. MACDOUGALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED. 4. Review Notices of Intent to File Objection All notices of Intent to File Objections had been received and were included in the Board binder of information for this meeting. 5. Hearings on Objections filed. The following objections were to be heard: Time Owner Tax Key Address 6:00 PM Kohl's Department Store Golf Road 6:15 PM Janet Vincent Milwaukee Street 6:30 PM St. John's Northwestern Military Academy Genesee Street 7:00 PM James & Alice Robinson West Shore Drive 7:15 PM James & Alice Robinson West Shore Drive 7:30 PM James & Alice Robinson West Shore Drive 7:45 PM James & Alice Robinson West Shore Drive 8:00 PM Beth Witte-Cleary Lake Drive 8:15 PM Kristopher Kiefer Peninsula Drive 8:30 PM Heidi Bloom Kruchoski Oneida Street 8:45 PM Andrew and Nancy Hagen Oneida Street 9:00 PM Dennis and Marjorie Vedder Oneida Street

2 Page 2 of 18 KOHL S DEPARTMENT STORE, , 3105 GOLF ROAD G. Gresch stated this case had been withdrawn. JANET VINCENT, , 628 MILWAUKEE STREET The Assessment as of January 1, 2011 was: L: $85, I: $352, T: $437, There were no open book changes. Objections were filed in a timely manner, no Board members were removed from the hearing, and Owner was present. Janet Vincent, Owner, 628 Milwaukee Street, and James Young, Assessor from Grota Appraisals, N88 W16573 Main St Menomonee Falls, WI 53051, were present and sworn in by Clerk G. Gresch 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. J. Vincent stated she was present to contest the age of her house and the condition listed as part of her assessment. In 2010 the improvements portion of the assessment had decreased to $314, and it was currently $352, The assessor s record indicated the house was built in 1890 and when she researched the house, she learned that it was built in 1851 and was owned by Mr. Dopkins. The house had not changed through the years except for the windows. The walls were 15 inches thick and had no insulation. The flooring had three inch wide boards and did not have a full basement. Just before December 25, 2011, the electrical outlets in certain portions of the house required replacement. In 2012 the assessment stated improvements had been made to the house. She indicated the electrical work n 2011 and asphalt being placed in 2008 were the only improvements done to the house. She had moved into the house in Since that time, she had many issues with water on her property due to the pitch of the alley way. She had spoken with City Department of Public Works Staff in 2003 regarding the way the alley pitched toward her property and she was told that little could be done. As a result, she had dealt with a wet basement. To remedy this she had the driveway re-graded and built a wall to assist in stopping the water from coming across her property. She stated the cost of this work was $6, and she would not have had to do this if the City had remedied the problem as should have been done. Now this was considered an asset worth $2, and she was being assessed for it. She did not think this was right. In addition, she also explained she owned the store on the premises and did get money from the rent; however, the store sat empty in the last three months. She had reduced the rent to $ in order to attract a new renter. She thought the store was of benefit to the City; however, the house was old and needed costly repairs. She thought the assessment should be approximately $375, to $400,000.00, not the current value assessed. J. Young questioned whether there was a concrete patio behind the residence. J. Vincent explained that the patio had always been there. E. McAleer questioned how the Owner had arrived at the value of her property. J. Vincent stated she had gone through the Open Book process before and the improvement value had been reduced to $314, which made her total assessment approximately $400, Now the total assessment was $437, Because her house was so old and it took a great deal of money to keep it up so that the store could function, she thought her assessment should be reduced. Her store did not generate the same income that other stores in the area did and it was expensive to maintain her property. In response to a question from T. Aicher, J. Vincent explained her prior rent was $ With reduction, it was now $ The Assessor presented the case noting the property had a total value that equated to $94.13 per square foot (sf). The property included three sections; a retail section, a residence, and a storage area near the attached garage and

3 Page 3 of 18 concrete patio. There was a value for paved services on commercial properties and this was included in replacement reserves that gave utility to the property. He went on to explain that as a result of discrepancies found at the Open Book meeting in 2010, he had visited the property to verify the dimensions of the spaces in 2011 and conducted a walk-through of the property. During this visit it was determined that the square footages represented in the 2011 assessment were correct and that was the reason for the change in value at that time. The changes in valuation were due to a larger retail portion and the record update represents the correction to the record. He then reviewed several comparable properties noting the sales information was introduced in 2010 and was used for review of the sales data in the City and in the review of the subject property revaluation. The property on Main Street was most similar to the subject property. Adjustments were made to accommodate for differences in the comparable properties to the subject property for lot size, square footage, etc. Indicated values were stated in the comparisons: Address $/sf 417 Genesee St., Delafield $ sf 600 Milwaukee St; Delafield $ sf 622 Main St., Delafield $ sf 606 Genesee St., Delafield $ sf He also noted other more recent sales, including the following properties: Address $/sf 113 W. Wisconsin Ave., Oconomowoc $92.00 sf 145 E. Wisconsin Ave., Oconomowoc $86.06 sf 850 E. Summit Ave., Oconomowoc $ sf J. Young also stated the subject property records indicated the origin of the house being 1890; however the retail portion was built in An assessment examined the effective age of a property for the economic benefit of the property. This property would most likely yield approximately 20 additional years of life as these properties typically had a retail life of 40 years, although they lasted longer with maintenance and good care. Despite having the age of the house dated back to 1852, the property value would not be impacted as it would not change the quality of the buildings constructed. There were many amenities that also impacted the value of this property. For all these reasons, the value should be sustained. The Owner did not have any questions. The Board did not have any questions. J. Vincent stated her property cost a great deal of money to maintain. She would not have done the driveway if she had known she would have been assessed for the action. J. Young stated he had explained the reason for the change in value in this case. Even if the changes suggested were utilized, the values were supported in this case. J. Vincent stated she did not think the comparables utilized were anything like her house. G. MacDougall questioned the impact to the valuation for the interior and exterior changes. J. Young explained that there was no adjustment for having thick walls as the effect on the property would be minimal. Even if the highest and best use of the property was as a rental unit, it would not impact the value. J. Behrend questioned whether the rent being collected was taken into account in this case. J. Young explained in this case the best evidence of value was the sales comparison approach used and there was a great deal of sales data to support the comparison. In addition, he stated when the house was re-measured, the square footage was only off by seven feet. THE RECORD IS CLOSED, NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place.

4 Page 4 of 18 J. Behrend stated the property owner had done a good job of researching the property and he thought her facts to be correct. For that reason, someone might be willing to pay more for the property as it was historically significant. He had seen sales around town that supported the square footage formula presented, but no one would know what it would be worth before it sold. G. MacDougall stated the age of the property did not seem to impact the assessment value in this case. J. KRICKHAHN MOVED THAT, EXERCISING ITS JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION, PURSUANT TO SECTION (9)(A), WIS. STATS., THE BOARD OF REVIEW, BY MAJORITY AND ROLL CALL VOTE HEREBY DETERMINES THAT THE ASSESSOR S VALUE 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 TAXPAYER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF ACCURACY GRANTED BY LAW TO THE ASSESSOR, THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS REASONABLE IN LIGHT OF ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE, AND SUSTAINS THE SAME AS SET BY THE ASSESSOR. J. BEHREND SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. MOTION CARRIED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: J. KRICKHAHN AYE E. MCALEER NAY T. AICHER AYE J. BEHREND AYE G. MACDOUGALL AYE J. LAZYNSKI AYE G. GRESCH AYE ST. JOHN S NORTHWESTERN MILITARY ACADEMY, , 925 GENESEE STREET The Assessment as of January 1, 2011 was: L: $265, I: $773, T: $1,039, G. Gresch stated a stipulated amount had been agreed upon in this case. J. Young explained the appropriate rental/lease data for postal locations had been provided from tax representatives that warranted a change in the valuation. J. BEHREND MOVED TO ACCEPT THE STIPULATION PRESENTED FOR PARCEL FOR LAND VALUED AT $265, AND IMPROVEMENTS VALUED AT $582, FOR A TOTAL VALUE OF $847, J. KRICKHAHN SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. MOTION CARRIED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: J. KRICKHAHN AYE E. MCALEER AYE T. AICHER AYE J. BEHREND AYE G. MACDOUGALL AYE J. LAZYNSKI AYE G. GRESCH AYE

5 Page 5 of 18 BETH WITTE-CLEARY, , 923 LAKE STREET The Assessment as of January 1, 2011 was: L: $582, I: $308, T: $890, There were no open book changes. Objections were filed in a timely manner, no Board members were removed from the hearing, and Owner was present. Beth Witte-Cleary, Owner, 923 Lake Street, and James Young, Assessor from Grota Appraisals, N88 W16573 Main St Menomonee Falls, WI 53051, were present and sworn in by Clerk G. Gresch 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. B. Witte-Cleary stated she had purchased the property in September, 2011, after the house had been on the market for 3.5 years with a listing price of $819, At the time of purchase, the property sold for $780, She then distributed two comparables to the Board for consideration in this case. Comparables included: see packet Address $List Price/ Sold Price 2107 Evergreen Ln., Delafield $769,000.00/$740, W. Shore Dr., Delafield $775,000.00/$725, She noted the time on the market for each of the comparables and noted that both of these houses sold for less than what she paid for her property. She had Grota Appraisals staff review her property and they reduced the valuation to $890, at that time. With her second request for consideration, they were unwilling to adjust the assessment further. She thought the assessment should be reduced to the purchase price based on the length of time on the market and comparables presented as well as the fact that her purchase included a willing buyer and seller. The Assessor did not have any questions. T. Aicher questioned whether the comparables presented were similar to the subject property. B. Witte-Cleary stated they were similar to her property. The Assessor presented the case, noting the amenities and ratings for the subject property. J. Young explained Kyle Waters of Grota Appraisals had visited the property and changed the bathroom counts and square footage to accurately reflect the property measurements. Mr. Grota also reviewed the property and the value was changed based on corrections to the record, not due to valuation after the sale date. He then reviewed several properties for comparative purposes. Indicated values of comparisons included: Address $ 3348 Nagawicka Avenue $948, Sylvester Dr. $838, W. Shore Dr. $968, Adjustments had been made to accommodate for differences in the comparable properties to the subject property for lot size, square footage, etc. J. Young stated this was the first time he had seen the listing information presented by the Owner and he did not see adjustments made for the comparable properties. The second comparable presented by the Owner was the third sales comparisons he utilized, and with the modeling adjustments the indicated value of

6 Page 6 of 18 the same property was $968, For these reasons, he thought the assessed value established at Open Book should be sustained. The Owner did not have any questions. J. Behrend stated the sale of the subject property was considered the best evidence of value for a property. He questioned how the assessment could result in a different value. J. Young explained that the State says that the valuation date was January 1 of any given year. The City doesn t do annual valuation updates and the last full value update was completed in When assessors get new information subsequent to the valuation date, they cannot chase the property and also cannot change the models to create inequities. There are certain things that can be changed in maintenance years; however, the practice was not to chase sales as those go up too. T. Aicher questioned how the value discrepancy was reconciled on the matching comparable utilized. J. Young stated the information was based on a model of 2010 valuation with adjustments to the model made from sales before the time of subject property sale and sales made after the time of the subject property sale with a valuation the result. He clarified that the Year was 2012; however, the value from 2010 carries forward until such time as the City opts to revalue all properties. Also, the Department of Revenue provides an analysis rating of sales data. For example, in 2009, the rating given was 99% and in 2010, the rating would be 102%. When comparing the 2011 sales data with 2012, assessments show % rating as a reflection in growth in value. The properties that sold will not be updated for this year to sales prices, because then it would create inaccurate valuations. G. MacDougall stated with equalized value in the housing, all paid a fair share. Just because a house sold at a lower price did not mean everything should revert to sale prices. If properties were valued at 2010 prices then everyone pays an equal share of the tax load. J. Young stated that was the theory behind assessments and the job of the assessor was to ensure a fair share for all in the City. THE RECORD IS CLOSED, NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place. J. Behrend stated the location should be a factor as the location was only shared by a few houses in the City near the access. T. AICHER MOVED THAT, EXERCISING ITS JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION, PURSUANT TO SECTION (9)(a), WIS. STATS., THE BOARD OF REVIEW, BY MAJORITY AND ROLL CALL VOTE HEREBY DETERMINES THAT THE ASSESSOR S VALUATION IS INCORRECT, THAT THE TAXPAYER HAS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF ACCURACY GRANTED BY LAW TO THE ASSESSOR; THAT THE TAXPAYER ASSESSMENT IS REASONABLE IN LIGHT OF ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE, AND HEREBY SETS THE NEW ASSESSMENT AT LAND VALUED AT $510, AND IMPROVEMENT VALUE AT $270, FOR A TOTAL VALUE OF $780, E. MCALEER SECONDED THE MOTION. J. KRICKHAHN EXPLAINED THAT A REDUCTION IN THE VALUATION BY APPROXIMATELY 12% WOULD CREATE PRESSURE ON THE CITY BASED ON THE ASSESSOR S EXPLANATION OF EQUALIZED VALUE. J. BEHREND STATED HE THOUGHT AN ADJUSTMENT WAS DUE BASED ON THE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. MOTION CARRIED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: J. KRICKHAHN AYE E. MCALEER AYE T. AICHER AYE G. MACDOUGALL NAY G. GRESCH NAY J. LAZYNSKI AYE J. BEHREND NAY

7 Page 7 of 18 James and Alice Robinson, ; ; ; AND , 2030 West Shore Drive and 2036 West Shore Drive Alice Robinson, Owner, requested cases regarding parcels and be heard together at this time. The Assessment for Parcel as of January 1, 2011 was: L: $385, I: $197, T: $583, The Assessment for Parcel as of January 1, 2011 was: L: $217, I: $- T: $217, There were no open book changes on either property. Objections were filed in a timely manner, no Board members were removed from the hearing, and Owner was present. Alice Robinson, Owner, 2036 W. Shore Dr.; Michele Krause, 936 Main St., Delafield, WI; Jeff Robinson, 411 Augusta Dr., Mukwonago, WI 53149; Owner s son, and James Young, Assessor from Grota Appraisals, N88 W16573 Main St Menomonee Falls, WI 53051, were present and sworn in by Clerk G. Gresch. 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 the case. A. Robinson questioned whether there were any new Board members present this year. She had presented her case last year before the Board of Review. Last year she did not feel as though she had ample time to research her case and present her information as part of the Open Book process, so she viewed this year s information as a rebuttal to last year s review. She explained that at the 2011 hearing on her property, she had an appraisal done in 2010 by the bank. In 2011, during the hearing process, she was informed that bank appraisals were not part of the review process for assessments. She was surprised by this as the prior assessor had utilized this type of appraisal and reduced her valuation in years past. In addition, she had contacted several other people that had valuations reduced utilizing this information in other municipalities. At the Open Book meeting, J. Young had not taken the time to review the appraisal or he could have determined that the same methodology was utilized by the bank for determining fair market value. A. Robinson then explained that issue related to her property seemed to be that there was not a vacant lot associated with her property. There were two separate tax key numbers for 2030 West Shore Drive and 2036 West Shore Drive. She had purchased the two parcels as one lot with house spanning the two parcels. She had been advised to combine the two lots at the last Board of Review hearing. There were no deeds to be transferred as there were two lots sold as one in this case. Also, researching the guidelines for tax assessment, she stated she could not find anything in the guidelines that allowed assessors to assess properties at a premium because the owners had failed to combine the tax key numbers into one parcel. She went on to explain that two lots functioned as one 100-foot lot on her property. She had contacted Michele Krause of North Shore Bank regarding the appraisal done by the bank for determination of fair market value of her property. M. Krause stated she had done the appraisal as one lot as it encroached over two parcels and could not be sold separately. She also noted the value had gone down since A. Robinson stated she had researched the matter and did not find that she would be penalized if the two lots were not combined into one for assessment purposes; however, if the parcels were valued as one lot, the assessment would result in a different value. She also questioned the legality of handling her assessment in this manner as an estimate of market value of property was simply a matter of determining the price most people would pay in its present condition. The present condition of her property included having the two parcels function as one lot with one house.

8 Page 8 of 18 A. Robinson stated, for these reasons, it was her opinion that the total property value should be $420, for these two parcels. She then provided two different options for valuation of her property based on the past assessment value. She was not contesting the value on the improvements, only on the land. Because the value of the improvements was approximately $198, each, the land value would then be approximately $420, for both lots. The assessed value for both lots was $602,300.00, thus the difference between the appraisal and the assessment was approximately $182, Thus, she thought each lot s assessed valuation should be lowered by $91, making the fair market value of the parcel ending in 039 equal to $492, This would bring the assessment in line with the Appraiser s valuation which was $618, A second alternative would be to use the 2007 value of the Parcel ending in 040 as that assessor valued the property as a 100 foot lot which was the current use. This 2007 value of this lot was $82, The Parcel ending in 039 was valued at $385, by the current assessor. Other lots with 100% usage of frontage were valued at $363, on West Shore Drive. If she applied this value of $363, and the building value of $197,900.00, the resulting total for the parcel ending in 039 was $561, If the parcel ending in 040 was then added on to that value, using the 2007 assessed value of $82, the total assessment would be $618,000.00, which would be approximately $26, above the real estate appraiser s 2010 value of $618, The Assessor questioned M. Krause whether she had been hired to conduct an appraisal. M. Krause stated she had been hired to do so. J. Young questioned whether M. Krause was aware that Standards one and two were utilized in a bank appraisal and mass appraisals were done under Standard six. M. Krause stated she was not certain of this standard s use. J. Young questioned whether she was aware that there were different standards for different uses. M. Krause responded affirmatively. J. Young questioned whether A. Robinson had been explained the land valuation modeling done for the appraisal. M. Krause stated she did not differentiate the number of lots and the property was considered as a whole. She could not get into detail about how the valuation model was handled as she was not an assessor. G. Gresch questioned why the tax key numbers were not yet combined for the records. A. Robinson stated the parcels and associated tax key numbers had been around since No one had done it to date, so she didn t think it was a big deal. There was no premium because the two lots were listed and when she bought the house she bought it as one piece of property. T. Aicher questioned whether the property would be worth less if it were one tax key number instead of two. A. Robinson stated it would be worth less if a single tax key number were assigned to it. T. Aicher questioned what she thought the value would be for the property. A. Robinson stated approximately $618, The Assessor presented the case, noting the second parcel was valued at land in excess of 55 feet. He had to legally assess the property as two parcels but he could assign a diminished rate for square footage. His records indicated accurate information as a result of the information shared last year as part of this process. He had to legally segregate the property but value them as one piece of property with two separate parcels. He then noted the dimensions of the lot, construction grade and amenities for the property. J. Young explained he had only worked with A. Robinson on this case at the Board of Review hearings; however, other Grota Appraisal Staff had worked with her in the past. J. Young stated he was aware of the standards for assessment as he taught them to others in his classes on the subject. He explained there were different standards utilized in assessment and bank appraisals. He was required to follow and apply the assessment valuation models and standards to sales in the community. Indicated values of comparisons for this property included: Address $ 2126 W. Shore Dr. $660, Milwaukee St. $577, Milwaukee St. $600, Milwaukee St. $538,100.00

9 Page 9 of 18 J. Young also noted the Board did sustain the value last year with stratified land values applied to the first 55 square feet and then different values after that. Based on testimony and lack of specific comparables or expert testimony from the Owner s appraiser, he recommended sustaining the value. The Owner questioned what value would be placed on the property if it were to be valued as one 100 foot lot. J. Young stated, the land value would include the additional 55 feet by 400 feet as adjunct to excess land so the value would be the same for that portion of the property. If the two tax key parcels were to be combined, he would value the parcel based on a measurement of 110 feet by 400 linear feet and would come up with the same value of more than $600, for the land. J. Robinson questioned whether the mass appraisal model took into consideration the swamp land that was unusable on the property. J. Young stated there was a negative 10% adjustment made for the land as it was wet and low. He also clarified the rating hierarchy for the buildings, noting a fair rating was below average. J. Behrend questioned the formula and separate set of comparables for the land that was in excess of 50 feet for this property. J. Young explained there was no separate modeling for adjunct land to compare. The land was valued on its own even though it wouldn t be bought and sold on its own because there were two separate tax keys listed so each required a value. J. Behrend clarified the value of the house and the land to be valued would be as it was for a 100 foot lot and should be approximately $550, $600, T. Aicher questioned whether there was a lot similar to this property where there was 110 feet of frontage to provide a comparison. J. Young stated he had utilized 100 front feet and classified it as subprime lake frontage so there was a reduction for this. He then reviewed various records to determine if a similar property could be found for comparison. He found a property nearby that was similar in characteristics that had a similar negative adjustment at 2218 West Shore Drive. This comparable also had a negative adjustment for the quality of land and frontage. A. Robinson stated she still thought the bank appraisal to be more accurate determination of value in this case. She noted the report was specific and followed the uniform appraisal guidelines. J. Robinson stated the bank appraisal was accepted by the County as an indicator of fair market value in other municipalities. THE RECORD IS CLOSED, NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place. J. Behrend stated it was his understanding that in the City of Delafield, as long as there were two separate tax keys, it constituted a buildable lot and does have value. If combined the Owner would be shortchanging herself in the long run as perhaps into the future someone could demonstrate that it was not buildable and then it would make sense to combine the lots. Now the option still remained to have two dwellings so it was more valuable. He thought the assessment to still be fair because there were two lots in this case. The additional lot still retained value under City ordinance. T. Aicher stated the formula came up with the same value if the assessor used one lot with 100 feet of frontage instead of the current configuration. G. Gresch agreed; however, she stated it seemed as though the assessment devalued the entire value of the other lot in this case. T. Aicher clarified the land value would remain and adding a vacant lot with adjunct value was difficult for the assessor to ascertain for a comparable. J. BEHREND MOVED THAT, EXERCISING ITS JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION, PURSUANT TO SECTION (9)(A), WIS. STATS., THE BOARD OF REVIEW, BY MAJORITY AND ROLL CALL VOTE HEREBY DETERMINES THAT THE ASSESSOR S VALUE 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 TAXPAYER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF ACCURACY GRANTED BY LAW TO THE ASSESSOR, THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR PARCELS AND IS REASONABLE IN LIGHT OF ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE, AND SUSTAINS THE SAME AS

10 Page 10 of 18 SET BY THE ASSESSOR. G. MACDOUGALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. MOTION CARRIED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: J. KRICKHAHN AYE E. MCALEER AYE T. AICHER AYE G. MACDOUGALL AYE G. GRESCH AYE J. LAZYNSKI AYE J. BEHREND AYE T. Aicher recessed the meeting at 8:18 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:26 P.M. Alice Robinson, Owner, requested parcels and be heard together at this time. The Assessment for Parcel as of January 1, 2011 was: L: $218, I: $- T: $218, The Assessment for Parcel as of January 1, 2011 was: L: $363, I: $55, T: $418, A. Robinson was the owner of the parcels being discussed and had already been sworn in earlier in the prior hearing. A. Robinson explained this case was similar to the last set of parcels in the last hearing; however, this cabin had been built in It had always been listed in poor condition and like her other house, spanned both lots. The land value was in question in this case. She went on to explain that the improvement value was reduced to $55,200.00; however she still contended that if this property were treated as a 100 foot lot, the total assessment would be different. She was unable to transfer deeds between properties as the two parcels worked together with the house spanning them. Each time a real estate transaction took place for the property both lots were considered as a single 100 foot lot. In the last case, she noted the total tax assessment was $618, for both parcels with $420, for the land value and $198, for the improvement value. Using that same application, she thought the land value for these two parcels should be considered at $420, Because there were two lots, this amount should be divided in half with the value of each of these two parcels being $210, J. Robinson stated he thought if people were to visit the property and see the swamp land, it would make sense to reduce the valuation in this case. The Assessor did not have any questions. The Board did not have any questions. The Assessor presented the case noted the parcel ending in 038 was considered an adjunct parcel with an odd shaped configuration. The parcel ending in 037 had a valued determined after the 50 front feet just as in the last case, and there was also a negative 10% adjustment made for wet soils. For the parcel ending in 038, he noted there was an adjustment made for having a long and narrow lot space toward the lake. The building on the parcels was noted as being built in 1928 with no cooling system in place currently. There was also a small metal utility shed on the property that had no value. J. Young then went on to note the amenities and grade of construction for the building. An exterior review had been done and the Assessor had met with the Owner in the past regarding water issues and basement flooding impacts. The value of the property had been reduced from $432, to $428,800.00, and again

11 Page 11 of 18 to $418, That value had been retained for the 2012 valuation as well. The other parcel was valued as an adjunct property. The Assessor also noted various comparables for this property. Indicated values of the comparisons included: Address $ 1325 Nagawicka St. $478, W. shore Dr. $314, Milwaukee St. $373, Milwaukee St. $413, Milwaukee St. $435, Adjustments were made to accommodate for differences in the comparable properties to the subject property for lot size, square footage, etc. Based on the testimony and comparable sales information, the assessor thought the assessment value of the subject project should be sustained for both parcels. J. Robinson stated these were old properties with swamp land. He questioned whether the model took into account the land and old buildings on properties when considering assessments. J. Young explained the models adjusted accordingly and the values adjust based on ratings and overall condition of the property, including desirability and utility of the property. These properties had also been adjusted for location and lake frontage. The low part of one lot had been considered. J. Robinson stated he did not think someone would pay that much money for an old cabin on swamp land. J. Krickhahn clarified the overall land value for the properties. THE RECORD IS CLOSED, NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place. J. Krickhahn stated there was a $40, discrepancy in considering the land value as two parcels or as one parcel. J. Behrend stated that looking at the comparables, it would seem that the land value was the issue. While it seemed it messed up the formula a bit, he thought it might work to adjust the property downward a slight amount. E. MCALEER MOVED THAT, EXERCISING ITS JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION, PURSUANT TO SECTION (9)(A), WIS. STATS., THE BOARD OF REVIEW, BY MAJORITY AND ROLL CALL VOTE HEREBY DETERMINES THAT THE ASSESSOR S VALUE 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 TAXPAYER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF ACCURACY GRANTED BY LAW TO THE ASSESSOR, THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR PARCELS AND IS REASONABLE IN LIGHT OF ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE, AND SUSTAINS THE SAME AS SET BY THE ASSESSOR. G. GRESCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. MOTION CARRIED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: J. KRICKHAHN NAY E. MCALEER AYE T. AICHER AYE G. MACDOUGALL AYE G. GRESCH AYE J. LAZYNSKI AYE J. BEHREND AYE J. Behrend stated that valuable property costs a lot to hang onto over time. He suggested A. Robinson contact the appraiser for a review regarding wetland properties and whether it would be better to combine the lots. He further suggested A. Robinson spend some time researching what she owned for its potential as it would be helpful to have that data in two years time.

12 Page 12 of 18 KRISTOPHER KIEFER, , 2806 PENINSULA DRIVE The Assessment as of January 1, 2011 was: L: $415, I: $293, T: $708, There were no open book changes. Objections were filed in a timely manner, no Board members were removed from the hearing, and Owner was present. Kristopher Kiefer, Owner 2806 Peninsula Avenue, and James Young, Assessor from Grota Appraisals, N88 W16573 Main St Menomonee Falls, WI 53051, were present and sworn in by Clerk G. Gresch. 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. K. Kiefer presented the case, noting there were two recent appraisals done on the property on January 20, 2011 and again on January 5, These were two separate appraisals done by two separate companies. He had researched five properties which indicated that the total assessed value for his property should be approximately $560, All comparables provided were part of his appraisal reports and included adjusted values as followed: Address (2011 report) $ 600 Companier Dr., Pewaukee $495, Sylvester Dr., Delafield $626, Park Ave., Delafield $562, Address (2012 report) $ 1325 Nagawicka $548, N38 W32639 Edgewood Ct. Nashotah $550, Milwaukee St., Delafield $545, Milwaukee St., Delafield $598, W. Shore Dr., Delafield $684, K. Kiefer stated, given there were two separate appraisals done at two distinctly different times approximately one year apart from the current date, the information demonstrated that his property should not be valued at $708, The Assessor questioned whether K. Kiefer had ever contacted the Assessor s office about his valuation and whether he believed his property record to be accurate. K. Kiefer stated he had contacted the Assessor s office a month ago, but did not discuss any information at that time. He believed his records to be accurate. J. Young stated that his records indicated a visit to the property had not taken place. He questioned how long K. Kiefer had owned the property. K. Kiefer stated he bought the property a year and a half ago. J. Young questioned whether the property had been purchased in August, K. Kiefer stated he bought the property in January, J. Young questioned the transfer of warranty deed date, noting the sale of the property seemed to be a relocation sale as it was purchased in one year and then transferred several months later into the next year. J. Young also questioned whether an appraiser had accompanied K. Kiefer to this hearing to testify in this matter about the appraisals conducted. K. Kiefer stated no appraiser accompanied him and a land value had been estimated at $235, as part of his appraisal reports. J. Young noted appraisals were done for bank purposes in this case and not for assessment. He also questioned the comparables shared by K. Kiefer as part of his appraisal reports. K. Kiefer stated the Nagawicka Lake area competed for buyers as the area residents competed for public access and beaches in the area so he believed his comparables to be equitable

13 Page 13 of 18 J. Krickhahn requested clarification on the purchase date of the property. K. Kiefer stated the property was purchased as a standard transaction without short sale or foreclosure. The Assessor presented the case, noting the amenities and condition ratings for the property. He stated the values were based on the high water mark information from the GIS data. The records for the property indicated the house sold on August 14, 2010 and the deed was recorded in March, The timing of these actions made him think it was a relocation sale where they signed off on the transfer of the property in August and then subsequently continued to market the property. The property was then sold in January or February with the transfer of property being recorded in March, He did not think this was a true market transaction as there may have been some duress on the seller s part. He would need to research this matter further in order to make a definite determination of the sale. Adjustments were made to accommodate for differences in the comparable properties to the subject property for lot size, square footage, etc. He noted these were similar lake properties. Indicated value for comparable properties were noted as: Address $ 2107 Evergreen Lane $616, Nagawicka St. $768, Key Point Ln. $711, At the request of K. Kiefer, J. Young provided clarification on the adjustments made in the property comparables. G. MacDougall questioned the purchase process and why the price of the appraisal had gone up when other properties had gone down. J. Young explained that it seemed the property was purchased in January, 2011 for $540, When the transfer came to his office it showed being sold by the seller as of August 14, 2010, yet the property owner said he purchased the property in January, The sale price was the same in his information but there was no recording date until 2011 with the actual sale date of August 14, This would lead him to believe this was a relocation situation where the relocation company took possession of the property and facilitated the transition to a new property in the months in between. A relocation sale was considered an atypical sale for residential property. J. Lazynski questioned whether K. Kiefer was relocating to this property. J. Behrend stated it would seem the seller was relocating. K. Kiefer explained that he had two different appraisals done at two different times that indicated the property was only worth $550, $560, He stated that if the appraisals had been done by one company or had gotten another opinion, the values would have been difficult to contest; however, the fact that he had three opinions all backing up the valuation made it seem as though his assessment was too high. THE RECORD IS CLOSED, NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN. Deliberations by the Board of Review took place. J. Krickhahn stated he thought it important to know whether this was a relocation sale. J. Behrend stated the Assessor said the pattern was based on relocation. If the property was fully marketed and available and the buyer made the best offer, he did not think the sale could be discounted and he thought this constituted a fair transaction. Certainly, the property was on the market. It may have been distressed on the seller s part, but buyers made the market not the sellers and if the purchase was considered the best indicator of value, then perhaps a reduction was warranted. G. MacDougall noted that banks were appraising to cover their investment. Also, if one utilized the ratio presented by the Assessor of 112%, the valuation would be near $600, T. Aicher stated this case was difficult to reconcile as the appraisal that had a comparable that justified the Assessor s value was located within the City and the difference was essentially 3%. He thought the value should be supported. He did not think the sale was an arm s length sale and was expedited as a sale for a transfer.

14 Page 14 of 18 T. AICHER MOVED THAT, EXERCISING ITS JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION, PURSUANT TO SECTION (9)(A), WIS. STATS., THE BOARD OF REVIEW, BY MAJORITY AND ROLL CALL VOTE HEREBY DETERMINES THAT THE ASSESSOR S VALUE 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 TAXPAYER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF ACCURACY GRANTED BY LAW TO THE ASSESSOR, THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS REASONABLE IN LIGHT OF ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE, AND SUSTAINS THE SAME AS SET BY THE ASSESSOR. J. BEHREND SECONDED THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. MOTION CARRIED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: J. KRICKHAHN NAY E. MCALEER AYE T. AICHER AYE G. MACDOUGALL AYE G. GRESCH NAY J. LAZYNSKI NAY J. BEHREND AYE Dennis Vedder, 398 Oneida Street, requested the following three cases be heard together as they were all part of the same condo association. T. Aicher stated each Owner should be sworn in separately and appropriate representation for each owner established. HEIDI BLOOM KRUCHOSKI, , 380 ONEIDA STREET ANDREW AND NANCY HAGEN, , 383 ONEIDA STREET DENNIS AND MARJORIE VEDDER, , 398 ONEIDA STREET The Assessment for Parcel , 380 Oneida Street, as of January 1, 2011 was: L: $56, I: $225, T: $282, The Assessment for Parcel , 383 Oneida Street, as of January 1, 2011 was: L: $56, I: $230, T: $287, The Assessment for Parcel , 398 Oneida Street, as of January 1, 2011 was: L: $56, I: $216, T: $273, There were no open book changes. Objections were filed in a timely manner, no Board members were removed from the hearing, and Owner was present. Heidi Bloom Kruchoski, Owner of 380 Oneida Street, Andrew Hagen, Owner of 383 Oneida Street, and Dennis Vedder, Owner of 398 Oneida Street, and James Young, Assessor from Grota Appraisals, N88 W16573 Main St Menomonee Falls, WI 53051, were present and sworn in by Clerk G. Gresch. 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

15 Page 15 of 18 assessor s valuation to be incorrect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon you as the taxpayer. Owners understood. J. Young stated he thought it appropriate and necessary at this time to have a statement from all three owners demonstrating they were all in agreement that their testimony in this matter was being provided by others and can be spoken for on all cases. T. Aicher explained the hearing review process and all agreed. A. Hagen stated he owned one of the four condo units that comprised two buildings. The Owners had discussed the opportunity to discuss their individual valuations as a group and Dennis Vedder spoke on his behalf in this matter. H. Kruchoski stated she agreed with Mr. Hagen. The Owners had discussed the opportunity to present information about their individual valuations as a group and Dennis Vedder spoke on her behalf in this matter. D. Vedder stated he was speaking for himself and the other condo owners in this matter. D. Vedder explained the three units being discussed represented three-fourths of the Oneida Street Condos which consisted of four identical units in two buildings at the north end of Oneida Street, near the Delafield Lakes Apartments. The unit at 380 Oneida Street sold on May 18, 2012 for $242, He noted the wording in the instructions at the top of the Objection Form for Real Property Assessment that stated the best indicator of the market value of a property is the sale of that property. Because all three units were essentially identical, it was the Owners contention that the assessed values of the other units should be adjusted to reflect the value of the most recent sale. The assessed values of all three units were approximately $30, $40, higher that the recent sale of one of them. The recent sale of the subject property and the sale of the comparable properties both applied in this case. H. B. Kruchoski had the property closing statement present for review as well. The Assessor did not have any questions. The Board did have questions. J. Krickhahn questioned why the fourth parcel owner was not present as well. D. Vedder stated she had chosen not to return to get back to the group regarding her representation at this time. He explained that the current assessed value for the parcel ending in 013 showed an assessment of land value of $56, and an improvement value of $213, for a total value of $270, The Assessor presented the case, noting that all four condos had a common interest in the four family condo property. There was undivided interest in the property so all land values were the same and improvements were slightly different. He then reviewed the various amenities, construction ratings and sales information for these units. He also went on to explain that there were no recent sales for any of these properties; however, the property ending in 013 had sold twice in With regard to the 2012 valuations, he did not have all the information regarding the sale and the market of the buyer and seller. He stated his notes indicated that Kyle Waters had spoken with H. Kruchoski regarding the sale and objection. He noted the sale price to be 116.9% of the assessment and he did not know where sales ratios would be in considering values for He then provided comparables for these condo units, noting the indicated value of each comparable. He reviewed each parcel number in comparison with the presented comparables. Indicated values for the comparables were as followed: Address $ 2221 Circle Ridge Drive, Unit 8 $292, Circle Ridge Drive, Unit D $275, Circle Ridge Drive, Unit 4 $275, Circle Ridge Drive, Unit B $268, The Owner did not have any questions at this time. J. Young stated he was confused by the information in this case as Kyle Waters from his office had contacted the property owners and found new information that was not part of the assessment records for these properties. K. Waters had been instructed to talk to the property owner regarding the sale of the property as the adjusted value of the property was near $265, versus the current value of $217, K. Waters stated in the records that he