News, Waterford

Tax bills impacted by ‘incomplete’ process, residents upset

By Dave Fidlin

CORRESPONDENT

Village of Waterford President Tom Roanhouse minced no words Monday.

“You’ve bungled this so bad that no body trusts us. You should be ashamed of yourself.”

This strong statement from Roanhouse was a sampling of some of the sentiments the Waterford Village Board shared with outside consultant Mark Brown during a heated exchange April 11 as the oft-discussed appraisal and villagewide re-evaluation entered its latest storied chapter.

Brown, the owner of Appleton-based Associated Appraisal, came before the board and provided an update on interior inspections to properties throughout the community. He also addressed a litany of concerns during an exchange that exceeded an hour in length.

During last year’s communitywide re-evaluation, Brown and other staffers within Associated inspected all exteriors on properties.

But company representatives inspected just 56 percent of properties’ interiors — a figure the board adamantly states is well below what was promised in the pitch.

While Associated staffers have free rein to conduct exterior inspections, the process of inspecting a dwelling’s interior is more labor intensive and requires a property owner’s permission.

Brown, in previous meetings with the board, has conceded the interior inspection process was rushed, and he pledged to renew efforts to increase interior inspection counts this spring.

But Brown’s revelation this week that the company has inspected the interiors of an additional 10 percent of  properties, bringing the total from 56 percent last fall to 66 percent, renewed criticism from elected officials.

In addition to expressing continued dismay with the number of interior inspections, board members asserted Associated staffers cut corners last fall and asserted those perceived shortcomings led to inaccurate tax bills late in 2015.

Trustee Jim Schneider, who ran for his first full term in office this spring, said the tension in the village is palpable because of the community’s perception of how the entire re-evaluation process has been handled.

“This has been the thing that has been sticking in everybody’s craw,” Schneider said. “It still is. I heard it when I was knocking on doors.”

Prior to the re-evaluation, the village had a relationship with Associated for assessment services, though last year was the first time it used Brown’s company to conduct a complete re-evaluation.

The extensive project carried an $80,000 price tag.

“Our goal was to level the playing field (among properties throughout the community),” Trustee Jerry Filut said. “I don’t believe we’ve achieved that.”

Brown, in a counter-argument, said he believes Filut and other board members’ objectives have been met.

“We do have a fair system in place today in this village,” Brown said. “We corrected so many inequities that had existed over the years.”

Brown said Associated’s services extended beyond the exterior and interior inspections. His company also digitized all records and created a forecasting model that takes such factors as market conditions into account for future assessments.

Monday’s discussion frequently veered to last year’s tax bills. Roanhouse said he heard from scores of residents who were distraught by the sizable increase in their bills.

“I can’t control when tax bills change,” Brown said, in response. “All I can control is the assessments.”

Trustee Tammy Pollnow said she viewed Associated’s information as incomplete, which did impact tax bills.

“Those tax bills never should’ve gone out with the data you had (last fall),” Pollnow said. “That’s where the real problem has been.”

The board and Brown wrangled back and forth this week on the terms of the original contract. Elected officials allege Brown has not upheld his end of the bargain, but he said he has.

The board met behind closed doors with Village Attorney Marcy Hasenstab to discuss their options in imposing a 10-percent penalty clause on Associated for the original $80,000 contract. No action was taken after coming out of closed session.

3 Comments

  1. So the Village Board talks and talks seems angry but doesn’t get anything still done. They came out of meeting with no decision on a Penalty. They have had this thing going on since October 2015 when they missed deadlines, they extended deadlines and that still didn’t get results. So now 6 months since this was to be completed it still isn’t and they don’t know if they want to penalize a company 10% which was written in the contract. Your Govt. at work for us.

  2. I have lived in the Village of Waterford for almost 20 years. The past 5-7 years the Village Board decisions have been progressively getting worse. Such issues as TIF #2 not being developed as quickly as it should be, traffic issues through the village, switching the Police services from Racine County to the Town of Waterford and this assessment debacle. I could name other issues as well that the Village is not addressing. The old boy’s club needs to go away. New blood needs to be on this board. The sad part is that the old fogies in this Village still elect their old boys club friends. My taxes are too high for the my residential property in this Village. Something has to change for the better.

  3. Village Bunglers

    Want to know why the school field house referendum failed? Look no further than this board. The unbelievable mess they created cause significant tax hikes for many, many households. Who in their right minds would vote for something that causes their overall tax burden to increase or remain at this increased level? Many in this village saw their bills go up 600, 800, even 1,200 or more. And yet the overall village value decreased.

    The only bungling I see here Mr. Roanhouse is this village boards utter incompetence and their inability to make this problem right.

    If the mistakes to home values were so great they caused these significant increases, there MUST be significant mistakes on the low end to cause an overall reduction in the value of this village. One neighbor saw no change in his assessment, but still got a tax increase to make up for the overall value decrease. Tell me again how that’s fair???

    I wonder how much of a refund each property in the village would receive if we could get that wasted $80,000 back…