The City of Muskego Board of Review met September 4-5, 2025, to hear dozens of property assessment appeals from homeowners, agents and property managers. The board reviewed the assessor's 2025 interim market update and then heard individual objections. The panel generally operated by: (1) letting the property owner/agent present testimony and exhibits; (2) allowing the assessor to respond with comparables or cost valuations; and (3) deliberating publicly before issuing findings of fact and decisions. Below are the hearing outcomes recorded in the session.

Votes and case outcomes (at-a-glance)
- Cal Evans, agent for Treebee Property Holdings (S.108 W.21315 Waters Court): Board upheld the assessor's valuation; motion to uphold carried 5-0.
- Daniel Zirnicki (S.110 W.20968 South Noon Road): Board found the assessor's valuation incorrect and reduced full value to $810,000 (motion carried 5-0). The board cited the owner's appraisal and insurance-based valuation in the hearing and found insufficient comparable evidence from the assessor.
- Muskegon School Apartments (agent: Pivotal Tax Solutions): Board denied agent's request to testify by telephone (motion passed 4-1). Clerk notified the agent and said the hearing remains scheduled; failure to appear in person would result in denial of the objection.
- Multiple residential appeals (examples): The board sustained the assessor's valuations on several condo and single-family parcels where the assessor presented recent valid comparable sales and/or cost-approach calculations (these include a number of cases where motions to uphold passed unanimously; see action list below).
- Brian Miller (agent for Mary Ann Howitt): Board reduced the assessed total to $516,900 after deliberation that cited the property's restricted frontage and an abandoned spillway/culvert that reduces usable lake frontage. Motion to lower assessment carried unanimously.

What the decisions mean: The Board applied both the market-comparison approach and, when sales were not comparable or when the property's condition was unusual, the cost approach. Members said they gave weight to documented condition deficiencies, damage, and physical limitations (for example, easements or spillways that remove usable frontage) when those elements were raised with supporting evidence at the hearing. When owners could not provide physical evidence at the hearing, the board sometimes asked staff to follow up.

Procedural and evidence notes: The board repeatedly urged appellants to bring documentary evidence (appraisals, photos, contractor cost estimates, surveys) to the hearings and reminded agents that telephonic testimony is discretionary; it is less likely to be granted when high-dollar reductions are at stake. The clerk recorded all roll-call outcomes and will provide written findings to the parties.