Revaluation prompts questions from residents

More than 100 people met with assessors during Port Washington’s open book session last Thursday, just two weeks after most residents received the new home assessments.

City Administrator Tony Brown said Tuesday that 112 property owners met with six assessors from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 16.

“It was a lot less people than we anticipated,” he said.

Most left satisfied after viewing comparable properties and their values and discussing the assessment process, Brown said.

Anyone who wants to dispute their assessment may file an objection with the city by Monday, Oct. 4, and appear before the Board of Review on Wednesday, Oct. 6, to do so, he said.

Brown said he is not aware of anyone making an appointment to appear before the Board of Review.

The biggest concern people have is the impact on property taxes, Brown said.

But an increased assessment doesn’t automatically mean an increase in taxes, he said.

On average, the revaluation showed that properties in the city increased 35%, Brown said.

But that doesn’t mean taxes will go up 35%, he said. The city’s tax levy will be spread over the larger tax base resulting from the reassessment, meaning many people will find their taxes remain the same or decline.

“If your property goes up more than the average, there’s a possibility your taxes will go up,” Brown said. “If your property goes up less than the 35% average, they could go down.”

When the reassessments were received by residents recently, aldermen noted that they had received calls from home owners asking about the impact.

Ald. John Sigwart noted that he had been contacted by people whose assessments increased 46% and 51%.

These properties were likely “woefully underassessed” prior to the revaluation, he said, and had to be corrected to come into line with current property values.

“There may be others that were 20%” City Clerk Susan Westerbeke noted. “It depends on the property and location.”

Brown noted that the city’s valuation had fallen to less than 80% of market value, which required the community to conduct a reassessment.

If it had not, he said, the state would have come in and conducted its own review — a process that could have been more costly for the community.