The City Is About to Pay $5.2 Million for Land Its Own Assessor Values at $1.5 Million. What the Council Needs to Know Before Tuesday’s Vote.

Key Points

• On Tuesday, March 10, the Common Council votes on whether to pay $5.2 million for land the City’s own Assessor values at $1,481,000.
  

• The resolution says the purchase price was negotiated based on an appraisal. That appraisal covers only 6 of the 17 parcels being bought. The other 11—added to the acquisition during negotiations with the developer—have none. The legislative record discloses neither fact.
  

• The appraisal applies a market value standard to what is demonstrably a disposition sale. Disposition value is, by definition, lower than market value.
  

• The appraisal omits the three most relevant comparable sales, all within Royster Corners, whose time-adjusted values are a fraction of the appraiser’s conclusion.
  

Vacant lots at Royster Corners near the intersection of Pinney Street and Dempsey Road. RDC Development purchased the site in 2011. Fifteen years later, the lots remain unsold. The Common Council votes Tuesday on whether to buy them for $5.2 million. Photo: Google Maps.

The Morning of March 2

When I looked at Legistar File No. 92015 on the morning of March 2, the day the Finance Committee was scheduled to vote on it, one number stopped me cold. The City of Madison proposed paying $5.2 million for 17 vacant parcels along Cottage Grove Road. The City’s own Assessor valued those same parcels at $1,481,000.

That is not a rounding error. The proposed price is 3.5 times what the City’s own Assessor says the land is worth, with no explanation anywhere in the public record.

The resolution was item 12 on the Finance Committee agenda. No appraisal had been posted to the Legistar file. I emailed city staff that morning asking for a copy, and Dan Rolfs, the Real Estate Development Manager, sent me one the same day. The Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval anyway. The full Council votes Tuesday night.

How We Got Here

The Royster Corners development sits on the former Royster-Clark fertilizer plant site, a 20-acre industrial property along Cottage Grove Road on Madison’s southeast side. RDC Development, LLC purchased the site in 2011 with plans for a mixed-use neighborhood. Fifteen years later, the project is unfinished. Roads, sidewalks, and utilities are in place. A branch library is open. But the development lots the city now wants to buy remain vacant. The last arm’s-length sale of a vacant development lot within the project was 515 Pinney Street in February 2021.

In July 2023, the City approved a conditional use permit for a 138-unit apartment building at 526 Pinney Street, one of the parcels being acquired.^[1] As of early 2026, construction has not started.

At the Finance Committee meeting on March 2, Planning Director Matt Wachter explained the city’s motivation: the project is stalled, the city would like to see it completed, and the Tax Incremental District covering the area is approaching its closure date.^[2] That is a reasonable account of why the city wants to act. It is not an account of why $5.2 million is the right price.

It is also not an account that prompted any scrutiny of the price. Not one Finance Committee member asked to see the appraisal. Not one asked what the appraiser’s opinion of market value was, or what the City’s own assessed values were for the parcels being acquired. The committee voted unanimously to recommend approval.

The 17 parcels total 9.36 acres. Five are planned for multi-family or mixed-use development. 514 Pinney Street is designated as a future city park, funded from parks capital.^[3] The other 11 have high-voltage transmission lines running across them, with several containing transmission towers. They are not suitable for development as conventional building sites.

The Assessor Says $1.5 Million. The Appraisal Says $5.1 Million. Nobody Explains Why.

Wisconsin law requires city assessors to value property at “the full value which could ordinarily be obtained therefor at private sale.”^[4] Assessments must be maintained within ten percent of full market value, and the Assessor’s determination carries a legal presumption of correctness.^[5]

The 2025 assessed value for all 17 parcels is $1,481,000.^[6] The proposed purchase price is $5,200,000. Here is what the Assessor values the six appraised parcels at, and what the Bussen Company appraisal concluded for each:

Table 1. Six Appraised Parcels: Bussen Appraisal Values and 2025 City Assessed Values

Property Address	2025 Assessment	Bussen Appraisal
501 Grand Oak Trail	$196,700	$900,000
404 Cottage Grove Road	$199,700	$930,000
533 Pinney Street	$124,000	$310,000
551 Pinney Street	$70,500	$210,000
514 & 526 Pinney Street	$608,000	$2,750,000
Total	$1,198,900	$5,100,000

Source: Bussen Company, Appraisal Report, Royster Corners Lots, effective September 30, 2025; City of Madison, 2025 Property Assessment Records. The 2025 assessed value for the six appraised parcels is $1,198,900; the assessed value for all 17 parcels is $1,481,000.

The Bussen Appraisal values the six parcels at 4.25 times the Assessor’s figure. The resolution says only that the price was “negotiated based on an appraisal approved by the City’s Office of Real Estate Services.”^[7] There is no staff analysis explaining the discrepancy between the assessed value and the opinion of market value in the Bussen Appraisal.

Readers familiar with real estate will know that properties routinely sell for more than their assessed value, particularly in a rising market where assessments lag. A typical gap might be ten, twenty, or even thirty percent. A 4.25-to-one ratio is not that. It is the kind of discrepancy that demands an explanation, and none appears anywhere in the public record.

In a follow-up email on March 5, I asked Rolfs what “approved” means in that sentence: specifically, whether it refers to the city ordering the appraisal or to a substantive review of the report, and if the latter, what standards governed that review. He did not respond.^[8]

When the city proposes to pay $5.2 million for property its own Assessor values at $1,481,000, one of two things must be true: either the Assessor’s valuation is materially wrong (in which case the assessment roll should be corrected), or the purchase price bears no reasonable relationship to market value. The Council has been offered no explanation for either conclusion.

This Is a Liquidation Sale. The Appraisal Treats It Like Something Else.

Professional appraisal standards require the appraiser to correctly identify the type of value applicable to an assignment before developing a value conclusion. Three types matter here.

Market value assumes a typically motivated seller, adequate open-market exposure, and arm’s-length conditions: a normal competitive sale with no unusual pressure. Disposition value reflects what a property will sell for when the seller is compelled to sell and the marketing period is compressed. Disposition value is, by definition, lower than market value. Liquidation value assumes an even shorter timeframe and typically produces the lowest result.

The Appraisal Institute’s Guide Note 11 defines disposition value as “the most probable price under conditions where the seller is under compulsion to sell” and “the exposure time is limited.” It notes that “some property owners may willingly dispose of a property if they perceive there is little upside potential in the market and their cost to hold the property is burdensome.”^[9]

The developer here fits that description. RDC Development has held these parcels for 15 years during one of the strongest development cycles in Madison’s history. At the Finance Committee meeting on March 2, Planning Director Wachter said of the developer: “In general, this developer doesn’t do a lot of multi-family infill-type housing. This is not their sort of core business.”^[10] Wachter also told the committee that the developer decided to sell the development last year. Their project is stalled. They are now selling all remaining inventory to a single buyer in a single transaction. Those are not the conditions of an arm’s-length market sale. They are the conditions of a disposition sale.

However, the Bussen Appraisal applies a market value approach throughout. The appraiser’s own report acknowledges that one parcel’s zoning “severely limits the development of this parcel” and that another “has been marketed as a net-leased, build-to-suit site for many years and is still vacant.” It documented the conditions of a disposition and applied a market value approach anyway. Under USPAP, the obligation to correctly identify the applicable value type rests with the appraiser. That obligation was not met.

Eleven Parcels Have No Appraisal. The One That Exists Wasn’t Prepared for This Purpose.

The Bussen Appraisal covers six of the 17 parcels. The remaining 11 are the transmission-line parcels, with a combined assessed value of $282,100, added to the acquisition during negotiations with the developer. Staff confirmed on March 4 that no separate appraisal exists for them.^[11] Whatever portion of the $5.2 million purchase price is attributable to land with essentially no development value was set solely by negotiation, without an appraisal.

The scope problem runs deeper than the missing parcels. The Bussen Appraisal states that its intended use is “to assist in the negotiation to purchase the subject property” (the six parcels it covers) and that “all other uses are expressly prohibited.”^[12] The legislative resolution does not disclose this. It states only that the price was “negotiated based on an appraisal,” without noting that the appraisal covers six of the 17 parcels or that its stated scope is limited to those six.

The appraiser does not control how the city uses the report. That decision belongs to city staff. In my March 5 follow-up to Rolfs, I asked what “approved” means in the resolution: whether it refers to ordering the appraisal or to a substantive review of the report, and if the latter, what standards governed that review. I noted in that context that the report’s stated intended use, “to assist in the negotiation to purchase the subject property,” appeared narrower than the use described in the legislation, which relies on the appraisal to support Council authorization of a $6.2 million expenditure covering all 17 remaining parcels. The report states that all other uses are expressly prohibited and that the appraiser’s responsibility is limited to the client. My question was not who was using the report, but whether the use described in the legislation was consistent with the purpose for which the report was prepared. Rolfs has not responded.^[13]

The Appraiser Skipped the Most Relevant Sales. They’re in the Same Development.

When I reviewed the appraisal’s comparable sales grid, three arm’s-length sales of vacant development lots within Royster Corners itself were missing: not as primary comparables, not as rejected comparables, not even as a passing mention.

The three sales, and their time-adjusted values as of the appraisal’s September 30, 2025 effective date using the appraiser’s own 2.5 percent per year market conditions adjustment:

Table 2. Omitted Royster Corners Comparable Sales

Property	Size (SF)	Sale Date	Sale Price	$/SF	Time-Adj. $/SF (9/30/25)
515 Pinney Street	80,464	Feb. 2021	$850,000	$10.56	$11.66
902 Royster Oaks Drive	73,717	Mar. 2015	$775,500	$10.52	$13.30
516 Cottage Grove Road	136,599	Jan. 2021	$1,790,000	$13.10	$14.66

Source: Dane County property records. Time-adjusted values calculated using the appraiser’s own 2.5% per year market conditions adjustment rate, brought forward to the September 30, 2025 appraisal effective date.

In residential appraisal practice, comparable sales are typically no more than twelve months old. The Bussen Appraisal draws comparables from as far back as 2019. That broader date range is not a deficiency in itself; it reflects the scarcity of comparable transactions. Large mixed-use development lots in Madison’s southeast corridor rarely change hands, and a wider search is sometimes necessary when recent data is thin. The consequence is that the comparables selected carry more uncertainty about whether they represent current market conditions. It also makes the three omitted Royster Corners sales, which are within the same development and far more directly comparable than any of the selected sales, correspondingly harder to justify excluding.

These are large multi-family and mixed-use development lots sold by the same developer, in the same project, with the same zoning, environmental history, infrastructure, and neighborhood influences as the parcels being acquired. They eliminate virtually every variable an appraiser normally has to adjust for.

The time-adjusted range from within the same development is $11.66 to $14.66 per square foot. The appraiser concluded $24.04 per square foot for 501 Grand Oak Trail, $23.03 for 404 Cottage Grove Road, and $17.36 for the combined 514/526 Pinney Street site. The two Cottage Grove Road parcels are valued at roughly 60 to 100 percent above what time-adjusted same-development sales indicate. Even the Pinney Street combined parcel comes in 18 to 49 percent higher.

Those figures do not yet include any downward adjustment for the transmission line easement, power tower proximity, or active rail line adjacency, conditions that, among the six appraised parcels, affect 526 Pinney Street. If the prior Royster Corners sales already reflected those adverse conditions, as they very likely did, the gap between the appraiser’s conclusions and what the internal comparables suggest would be even larger.

USPAP Standards Rule 1-1(b) requires that an appraiser not commit a substantial error of omission that significantly affects an appraisal. Excluding the three most directly relevant comparables available is a substantial error of omission.

A separate comparable is worth noting. The appraisal used an asking price of $1,200,000 for 2902 Dryden Drive.^[14] The same property sold in an arm’s-length transaction in August 2022 for $450,000. The August 2022 sale falls within the appraisal’s stated comparable date range and is not in the report. The asking price is. A listing reflects what a seller hopes to receive. The 2022 sale reflects what a buyer was willing to pay. Including one while omitting the other presents a selectively favorable picture of market conditions.

A Hypothetical Rezoning, an Ignored Easement, Unverified Costs, and the Wrong Exposure Time

The comparable sales problem is the most concrete deficiency, but it is not the only one.

The impermissible hypothetical condition.  The appraisal combines 514 and 526 Pinney Street into a single 3.64-acre site and values them based on a 178-unit mixed-use building. The problem: 514 Pinney Street is zoned TR-C3. The appraiser’s own report states that “the zoning and future land use designations appear to severely limit the development of this parcel.” Achieving the assumed density would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a rezoning, neither of which has been initiated. USPAP defines a hypothetical condition as one “contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date.” The appraiser knew the TR-C3 zoning was a fact, not uncertain information, yet valued 514 Pinney as if the rezoning had already occurred. The Appraisal Institute’s Guide Note 12 states directly that “it is misleading to identify a value premised on a hypothetical condition as an as-is value.”^[15] That is exactly what this appraisal does.

The no-build easement that cost nothing.  A 50-foot transmission line easement runs along the north side of 526 Pinney Street. The appraiser concludes it has no negative impact on value because “development is not expected to be positioned on the northerly 50 feet.” That reasoning is circular. Nothing can be built there because of the easement. The lost buildable area is nearly half an acre. The appraisal values the entire site at the same per-square-foot rate as if all of it were buildable. The active rail line immediately north of 526 Pinney is not mentioned anywhere in the report.

$352,097 in unverified soft costs added to the value.  For three of the six parcels, the appraiser added the developer’s claimed soft costs (architect, engineering, and legal fees) directly to the concluded land values. The total: $352,097. The appraiser states the developer “reportedly spent” that amount and asserts that buyers “typically value” such costs, providing no market evidence. The source of the information is not identified in the appraisal. Based on how the appraiser discusses it, the information may have originated with the City rather than the developer. The figure is never independently verified, and it is never identified as an extraordinary assumption, which USPAP requires when unverified information affecting the value conclusion is accepted without verification.^[16] The practical effect: approximately $335,000 of unverified costs inflates the bulk appraised value after the appraiser’s own discount.

Exposure time based on national averages, not Madison’s own data.  The appraiser projects 3 to 6 months of exposure time for the multi-family parcels and applies no holding cost discount to them, which is why the 4.71 percent bulk discount is driven entirely by the two commercial parcels. The source: national PwC Real Estate Investor Survey averages.

Three bodies of evidence contradict that projection. First, the subject properties’ own 15-year market history, including 526 Pinney Street, which has had a conditional use permit since July 2023 and has not broken ground. Second, Madison’s CUP approval process, which requires a 30-day mandatory pre-application neighborhood notice before an application can even be filed; and before that notice can go out, a developer must prepare site plans and architectural drawings sufficient to submit a CUP application, work that itself takes months. After notice, the process continues through staff review, agency transmittal, Plan Commission hearing, and in some cases Council action, none of which the appraiser’s 3-to-6-month window accommodates. Third, a 2024 study by Downtown Madison Inc. and Smart Growth Greater Madison found a median total process of 391 days from pre-application notice to building permit for Madison multi-family projects of 60 or more units.^[17] The appraiser had access to the subject properties’ own history and to that published local data. He used neither. Because the multi-family parcels carry most of the total appraised value and receive no holding cost discount, this is the single deficiency with the largest financial effect on the value conclusion.

Staff’s Response to Six Deficiencies: One Sentence

On March 3, I sent Rolfs a detailed email laying out six specific deficiencies in the appraisal and asking whether staff would give the appraiser an opportunity to address them. The response on March 4 addressed all six with a single sentence: “staff has reviewed the appraisal and believes that it is reflective of current market conditions.”^[18] The same email confirmed that no appraisal exists for the 11 additional parcels.

Whether the appraisal reflects current market conditions is a different question from whether it complies with the professional standards the appraiser certified compliance with. I followed up on March 5, asking what “approved” means in the resolution’s description of the appraisal, and noting that the report’s stated intended use appears narrower than the use described in the legislation. I also noted that the specific deficiencies had still not been addressed. Rolfs has not responded.^[19]

On March 5, I also contacted the appraiser, Donald Bussen, directly. I asked for his comments on the deficiencies in the appraisal report for a story I was writing for the blog. As of publication, he has not replied.^[20]

The Case for Acting Now, and Why It Doesn’t Change the Math

The city’s reasons for moving quickly are legitimate. TID 44 is approaching its closure date, and once a TID closes, the incremental tax revenues it generates are no longer available for reinvestment in the district. The developer appears motivated to sell. Infrastructure is in place, parcel sizes allow for a range of housing and commercial uses, and the site has been serviced for years. In my memo to the Finance Committee on March 2, I acknowledged that one may think this is a promising investment. But I also wrote that whether land banking a site that a private developer could not make work in 15 years is a sound investment is exactly the question a feasibility study, market analysis, and business plan are supposed to answer, and none of those exist in the legislative file. The file tells us the city has the money and where it comes from. It does not provide the facts or analysis needed to conclude that a $6.2 million speculative investment is justified. That is not a basis on which to proceed.

Urgency is not a substitute for a credible appraisal. A commercial real estate developer does not commit $5.2 million without one, and neither should the City of Madison. In my experience, a commercial appraisal of disposition value for a portfolio of this size typically requires 30 to 45 days. A 60-day referral would provide adequate time for the appraisal, staff review, and any follow-up. The TID closure timeline is manageable on a 60-day delay.

Without a complete appraisal of disposition value for all 17 parcels, neither the Council nor the public can know whether $5.2 million is a fair price for the use of public funds. The Council has a fiduciary obligation to the public it serves. Committing $6.2 million of public money without a credible, complete appraisal does not meet that obligation.

What You Can Do Before Tuesday

The Council meets Tuesday, March 10 at 6:30 p.m. at the City-County Building, 210 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. This is agenda item 83.

You can write all 20 alders at once at allalders@cityofmadison.com. To find your specific alder’s contact information, go to cityofmadison.com/council/council-members.

The message is simple: ask the Council to refer Legistar File No. 92015 and direct staff to obtain a complete appraisal of disposition value for all 17 parcels before committing to any purchase price.

The full legislative record is at Legistar File No. 92015. My memorandum to the Common Council, submitted March 8, is available here. Share this post with anyone who cares how the city spends public money.

The Larger Pattern

As readers of this blog know, this is not the first time under the current administration that the Council has been asked to approve a large expenditure without knowing what a project will actually cost or whether the documentation supports it. The following are a few of the issues I have written about at 77SquareMiles.com. Earlier this year, it approved a $6.2 million affordable homeownership resolution over documented concerns about inflated costs and missing financial disclosure. Late last year, it approved a $150,000 no-bid consulting contract that staff could not demonstrate complied with the City’s own procurement ordinance.

The problems with the Bussen Appraisal were found. They were in the document the city commissioned. The three omitted Royster Corners comparables are in Dane County’s public property records; the same records city staff consults routinely. The 391-day median approval timeline is reported in a study by Downtown Madison Inc. The hypothetical rezoning issue is disclosed in the appraiser’s own language. None of this required inside access or special expertise. It required reading the document and checking it against the standards that the appraiser certified it met.

The Finance Committee is where the heavy lifting on fiscal matters is supposed to happen, so the full Council can focus on broader policy questions. On March 2, members asked a few general questions of staff, including why the city needed to act now, and, without discussion, voted unanimously to recommend approval. No one examined whether the appraisal applied the correct value standard for this type of transaction, whether it complied with the professional standards it certified, or whether its deficiencies were significant enough to make the price unreliable.

Footnotes

[1] Legistar File No. 78424, 526 Pinney Street, conditional use permit for 138-unit mixed-use building, approved July 2023. https://madison.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6260022&GUID=2FDDAA70-CA26-4DF3-9C57-AEB6B9E060C2

[2] City of Madison Finance Committee, meeting of March 2, 2026, statement of Matt Wachter, Director of Planning & Community & Economic Development. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dg9wD1PJ6M

[3] City of Madison, Board of Park Commissioners, Legistar File No. 92216, Board of Park Commissioners Affirming the Acquisition of Parkland Located at 514 Pinney Street for the future Royster Park, filed March 3, 2026. The Parks Division has agreed to fund the acquisition of 514 Pinney Street in the amount of $680,000. https://madison.legistar.com/

[4] Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1). https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/70.32(1)

[5] Wis. Stat. § 70.47(8)(i). https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/70.47(8)(i). Wisconsin municipalities must maintain assessed values within ten percent of full market value. See Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 2026 Guide for Property Owners: https://www.revenue.wi.gov/dor%20publications/pb060.pdf

[6] City of Madison, Schedule of 17 Properties, Legistar File No. 92015. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1uq86bt4m296bjxodfn4p/260304_LEGISTAR92015_SCHEDULEOFPROPERTIES.pdf?rlkey=zh7wd9vtvxs92gvw2nawx5eq9&dl=0

[7] Legistar File No. 92015, resolution text. https://madison.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7921357&GUID=1FB71FEA-5BC9-46BA-87B1-0B64337ED0D7

[8] Email from Alex Saloutos to Daniel Rolfs, March 5, 2026. No response received as of publication. On file with author.

[9] Appraisal Institute, Guide Note 11, Disposition Value, Guide Notes to the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. https://www.appraisalinstitute.org/getmedia/2da2e79a-d85d-4afc-96a4-b66fde404f70/ai_guide_notes

[10] City of Madison Finance Committee, meeting of March 2, 2026, statement of Matt Wachter, Director of Planning & Community & Economic Development. Wachter stated: “In general, this developer doesn’t do a lot of multi-family infill-type housing. This is not their sort of core business.” Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dg9wD1PJ6M

[11] Email from Daniel Rolfs to Alex Saloutos, March 4, 2026. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wunnpyxfvdwkjgpvwv8eq/280304_LEGISTAR92015_EMAIL_ROLFS-SALOUTOS.pdf?rlkey=yh99tttecgel1y6lsbn670tzw&dl=0

[12] Bussen Company, Appraisal Report, Royster Corners Lots, “Purpose, Intended Use and Intended User(s),” p. 3, effective September 30, 2025. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/jeehoyoq5qgvy6078xbkb/Legistar-92015-Appraisal-13244-FINAL-Appraisal-Report-Royster-Corners-Lots-Bussen-Company.pdf?rlkey=390kl23y4ojzibt6509g20dxx&dl=0

[13] Email from Alex Saloutos to Daniel Rolfs, March 5, 2026. No response received as of publication. On file with author.

[14] Bussen Appraisal (2902 Dryden Drive listed at $1,200,000 as active comparable); Dane County property records (August 2022 arm’s-length sale at $450,000).

[15] Appraisal Institute, Guide Note 12, Hypothetical Conditions and Extraordinary Assumptions, Guide Notes to the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. https://www.appraisalinstitute.org/getmedia/2da2e79a-d85d-4afc-96a4-b66fde404f70/ai_guide_notes

[16] Bussen Appraisal, Sales Comparison Approach, pp. 55–58. USPAP SR 1-2(f) and SR 2-2(a)(ix) require identification and disclosure of extraordinary assumptions. USPAP 2024 Edition: https://www.appraisalfoundation.org/imis/TAF/Standards/Appraisal_Standards/USPAP.aspx

[17] Gabriel Terrell and Luis Navarette, Downtown Madison Inc. and Smart Growth Greater Madison, “A Comparison of the Approval Process Durations in the Greater-Madison Area,” April 2, 2024. https://downtownmadison.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/A-Comparison-.pdf

[18] Email from Daniel Rolfs to Alex Saloutos, March 4, 2026. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wunnpyxfvdwkjgpvwv8eq/280304_LEGISTAR92015_EMAIL_ROLFS-SALOUTOS.pdf?rlkey=yh99tttecgel1y6lsbn670tzw&dl=0

[19] Email from Alex Saloutos to Daniel Rolfs, March 5, 2026. No response received as of publication. On file with author.

[20] Email from Alex Saloutos to Donald Bussen, March 5, 2026. No response received as of publication. On file with author.

———

The author is a licensed Wisconsin real estate agent with 40 years of experience in building and development.

77SquareMiles.com covers what mainstream media won’t, because democracy dies in darkness, especially at City Hall.

© Alex Saloutos 2026.