Ad Hoc Committee

City of Portland Board of Assessment Review - January 14,2026 Board Chair Eric Larsson, Board Members Dale Knapp and Lee Lowry Wednesday, January 14, 2026 at 2:00 PM via Zoom To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email ajames@portlandmaine.gov. Submissions must be received by 12:00 pm the day before the Board of Assessment Review meeting to guarantee their inclusion in the agenda packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To help ensure your comment is submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item (see below). REMOTE ACCESS INFORMATION: The City Manager Search Subcommittee will conduct this meeting remotely via Zoom pursuant to the Remote Meeting Policy adopted by the Portland City Council. Allow your computer to install the free Zoom app to get the best meeting experience. If you are not able to attend live either in person or via Zoom, a recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting. For public comment via Zoom, you will need to use the "raise your hand" feature. To raise your hand via the telephone, please hit *9. You will be unmuted by the host when it is time for public comment. You are invited to a Zoom webinar! When: Jan 14, 2026 02:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Topic: Board of Assessment Review: 56 Aldworth (REMOTE) Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android: https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/j/81193878638 Phone one-tap: +16469313860,,81193878638# US +19292056099,,81193878638# US (New York) Join via audio: +1 646 931 3860 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 305 224 1968 US +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 689 278 1000 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) 1 Page 1 City of Portland Wednesday, January 14, 2026 at 2:00 Board of Assessment Review PM via Zoom - January 14,2026 +1 360 209 5623 US +1 386 347 5053 US +1 507 473 4847 US +1 564 217 2000 US Webinar ID: 811 9387 8638 International numbers available: https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/u/kc6faS9n9K 1. Approve minutes of January 13, 2026 Board of Assessment Review Hearing a. Draft January 13, 2026 Board of Assessment Review meeting minutes attached Appeal of Assessment of 56 Aldworth Street, 309 D015001, owners Kevin and Joanne 2. Curtis a. 56 Aldworth Street Application for Appeal to Board of Assessment Review Attached b. Assessor's Response re 56 Aldworth Street Attached 3. New Bussiness (if necessary) 4. Adjournment 2 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10  Assessor’s Office Elisa A. Marr, CMA-2 City Assessor DATE:​ ​ January 7, 2026​ ​ ​ ​ ​ TO:​ ​ City of Portland Board of Assessment Review FROM:​​ Elisa Marr, City Assessor RE:​ ​ FY26 Abatement Appeal – January 14, 2026 Kevin & Joanne Curtis, 56 Aldworth Street Parcel ID 309 D051001 The mission of the Assessing Office is defined by the Maine Constitution, which states: “All taxes upon real and personal estate, assessed by authority of this State shall be apportioned and assessed equally according to the just value thereof.” This memorandum, accompanied by the attached exhibits, is submitted for the Board of Assessment Review’s consideration of the above-referenced abatement appeal filed by Kevin and Joanne Curtis (“Appellant”), regarding the property located at 56 Aldworth Street (the “Property”), a hearing for which is scheduled for January 14, 2026. For the reasons set forth in this memorandum and its attachments, the City Assessor respectfully requests that the Board of Assessment Review: A.​ Suspend the appeal because the Appellant has not paid their taxes for the current tax year in accordance with 36 M.R.S. 843(4); and, if and when the Appellant pays their taxes as required by section 843(4), and the Board resumes the hearing in this matter: B.​ Conclude that the Property is assessed at its fair market value and at a relatively uniform rate with comparable properties; C.​ Rule that the Appellant has failed to meet their burden of proving that the Property is substantially overvalued, that the assessment was based on unjust discrimination, fraud, dishonesty, illegality, or that the assessment was otherwise manifestly wrong; and D.​ Deny the Appellant’s application. This submission is organized into the following sections: Page 11 1.​ Timeline 2.​ Exhibits / List of Attachments 3.​ City Assessor’s Response 4.​ Legal References 2 | Page Page 12 TIMELINE 10/6/2025​ Application for Abatement of Property Taxes submitted to the Assessor’s Office. 10/10/2025​ Assessor’s Office issued a Notice of Action on Abatement of Real Estate Tax denying the application. 11/16/2025​ Appellant filed an Application for Appeal with the Board of Assessment Review. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Appellant’s Submissions: ●​ Application for Abatement of Property Taxes packet, received by Corporation Counsel on November 16, 2025 on behalf of the Board of Assessment Review. City Assessor’s Exhibits: ●​ Application for Abatement of Property Taxes submitted to the Assessor’s Office 10/6/2025 [EXHIBIT 1] ●​ Property Record Card [EXHIBIT 2] ●​ 55 Aldworth Street Property Record Card [EXHIBIT 3] ●​ 52 Aldworth Street Property Record Card [EXHIBIT 4] ●​ Assessor’s Office denial letter [EXHIBIT 5] ●​ Recent sales of similar properties [EXHIBIT 6] ●​ Aerial image of Property [EXHIBIT 7] ●​ Explanation of mass appraisal and residential value methodology [EXHIBIT 8] ●​ City of Portland Real Estate Tax Statements [EXHIBIT 9] CITY ASSESSOR’S RESPONSE Suspension of Appeal As an initial matter, the Assessor requests that the Board suspend the Appellant's appeal because the Appellant has not paid their taxes for the current tax year in accordance with 36 M.R.S. 843(4). Section 843(4) provides as follows: A taxpayer filing an appeal under this section must pay an amount of current taxes equal to the greater of [1] the amount of taxes paid in the immediately preceding tax year, to the extent that amount does not exceed the amount of taxes due in the current tax year, and [2] the amount of taxes in the current tax year that is not in dispute. If the taxpayer has filed an appeal under this section without paying the appropriate amount of taxes by or after the due date or according to a payment schedule mutually agreed to in writing by the taxpayer and the municipal officers, the appeal process must be suspended until the taxes, together with any accrued interest and costs, have been paid. If an appeal is in process upon expiration of a due date or written payment schedule date for payment of taxes in a particular municipality, without the appropriate amount of taxes having been paid, whether the 3 | Page Page 13  taxes are due for the year under appeal or a subsequent tax year, the appeal process must be suspended until the appropriate amount of taxes described in this subsection, together with any accrued interest and costs, has been paid. This subsection does not apply to property with a valuation of less than $500,000. 36 M.R.S. 843(4) (emphasis added). City tax bills are to be paid semiannually – once in October and once in March. As set forth in Exhibit 9, the annual taxes for the Property are $6,016.36. In their Application, the Appellant asserts that the Property should be valued at $452,000, which would result in an annual tax assessment of about $5,414.96. As further shown in Exhibit 9, the Appellant has only paid $1,000 toward their October bill for the current tax year, even though $3,008.18 was due on October 17, 2025. The Appellant’s payment of one thousand dollars is insufficient to satisfy any of the amounts contemplated by subsection 843(4). That is, $1,000 is less than the amount of $3,008.18 that was due on October 17, 2025 for the current tax year; $1,000 is less than the amount that was due in the October bill for the 2024-25 tax year, which was $2721.32 (see Exhibit 9); and $1,000 is less than one half of the undisputed amount of taxes that would be due if the Property was valued at $452,000, which is about $2,707.48. Because the Appellant has not paid the amount of taxes required by section 843(4), the Board must suspend the appeal. Abatement If the Appellant pays the amount due under section 843(4) and the Board resumes the appeal, the Appellant has still not met the burden to prove that the Assessor’s assessment is “manifestly wrong.” The burden of proof is upon the taxpayer to demonstrate through credible evidence that the assessment was “manifestly wrong” by proving indisputably that: A.​ The Property was substantially overvalued and an injustice resulted from the overvaluation; B.​ That there was unjust discrimination in the valuation of the Property; or C.​ That the assessment was fraudulent, dishonest, or illegal. A taxpayer must provide affirmative evidence of the Property’s “just value” (i.e., its market value) in the form of an appraisal, actual comparable sales data, or the opinion of a properly qualified expert. The City Assessor’s Response is set out in the following numbered paragraphs: 1.​ In the Appellant’s application to the Board of Assessment Review dated November 16, 2025, the Appellant provides only four short paragraphs of evidence. In the first paragraph the Appellant refers to homes in the neighborhood that have had to take deductions in their selling price due to the proximity to the Refugee Center. The Assessor’s response to this statement is that valid sales are the basis of assessed values and if sale prices were reduced, those reduced prices are used as the basis for the current assessed values. The Appellant also states that two real estate brokers have mentioned this issue but do not provide any documentation to demonstrate or support these statements ​ 2.​ The Appellant references just two properties as evidence of “just value” and to support their opinion that the assessment is manifestly wrong. Comparing only assessed values is not an accurate comparison of fair market value. It is normal for properties to increase at 4 | Page Page 14  differing rates in a revaluation, particularly in the recent post COVID market. The Appellant’s opinion of value is based solely on a comparison of two properties that are not identical to the subject Property. ​ ​ Appellant’s comparable one is 55 Aldworth Street, which is assessed at $508,400 [see EXHIBIT 3]. The Appellant points out that this is a larger lot. Accordingly, the land value is assessed higher than the subject Property’s land value. 55 Aldworth was sold in 2023 for $540,500. The Assessor’s Office has recognized the renovations in the assessed value. This property is 588 square feet smaller than the subject property and is nearly 50 years older (built in 1949 compared to the subject Property’s build date of 1997). 55 Aldworth street has a detached garage which is typically not assessed as high a value as an attached garage like the subject Property has. The finished space in the back of the garage is recognized in the assessment and is similar to a finished area in a basement. It has a monitor heater and lighting but no water or plumbing.​ ​ Appellant’s comparable two is 52 Aldworth Street [see EXHIBIT 4], which is assessed at $521,000. This is also an older home built in 1908. This structure has only a crawl space for a foundation, has a low grade of C- and is not renovated. This lot is slightly smaller (0.1718 acres compared to the subject Property’s 0.1721 acres), but the Appellant states that the lot is very large. The Appellant appears to be including land at the back of the property, which is owned by the Portland Water District. This is not a comparable property for market analysis purposes.​ ​ The Appellant refers to a property located at 60 Aldworth Street as hindering their Property’s value. A review of 60 Aldworth Street shows an older, smaller home that appears to be kept relatively well with a clean yard. No evidence has been found to support an external obsolescence due to any poor condition of this property.​ 3.​ In the Appellant’s application to the Board of Assessment Review dated November 16, 2025, the Appellant requests a higher assessed value than requested of the Assessor. Per the Appellant’s applications their opinion of value went from $385,000 in their appeal to the Assessor to $452,000 when applying to the Board of Assessment Review. This difference in value indicates that the Appellant is not qualified to estimate an opinion of value. ​ ​ ​ 4.​ The aerial image below shows the subject Property at 56 Aldworth Street in relation to the Appellant’s comparable properties at 55 and 52 Aldworth Street. The text for 60 Aldworth Street is overlapped by its parcel ID of 309 D048001.​ 5 | Page Page 15  5.​ Recent sales of similar properties in the same assessing neighborhood and used in the development of the 2025 revaluation: ​ 6 | Page Page 16  ​ 6.​ There are three recognized approaches that assessors use to value properties, which include the Cost Approach, the Sales Approach, and the Income and Expense Approach. In the 2025 revaluation for this type of property the Sales Approach was used, supported by the Cost Approach. The Income and Expense Approach does not apply in this case as that is typically applied for income producing or commercial properties.​ ●​ The Sales Comparison Approach (SCA) in International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) appraisal is a core method comparing a subject property to recently sold, similar properties (comparables) in the same market, making adjustments for differences (location, size, features) to find the most probable value, relying on principles like substitution and contribution, and involves steps like data collection, analysis, and reconciliation to arrive at an accurate market value for mass appraisal or individual property valuation. ​ ●​ The Cost Approach is viewed by the IAAO (International Association of Assessing Officers) as a core valuation method, estimating property value by calculating the current cost to build a new equivalent structure, subtracting all forms of depreciation (physical, functional, external), and then adding the value of the land.​ ●​ The IAAO (International Association of Assessing Officers) Income Approach defines property value by converting its expected future income into a present worth, treating it as an investment by analyzing potential gross income, subtracting vacancy/expenses to get Net Operating Income (NOI), then dividing NOI by a market-derived capitalization rate (Cap Rate) to find value, a core method for income-producing properties like apartments or offices. 7.​ The assessed valuation of the Property demonstrates that it is assessed at its fair market value and that it is assessed at a relatively uniform rate with comparable properties in the district. Appellant has not submitted any evidence to satisfy its burden to demonstrate that the assessment was substantially overvalued, based on an unjust discrimination or subject to fraud, dishonesty or an illegality: A.​ The Appellant’s appraisal supports the assessed value; B.​ The sale price supports the assessed value; C.​ The assessed building value is in line with the casualty insurance replacement cost of the building; and 7 | Page Page 17  D.​ The comparable sales list submitted by the City Assessor supports the assessed value. ​ 8.​ For the reasons set forth in this memorandum and its attachments, the City Assessor respectfully requests that the Board of Assessment Review: A.​ Suspend the appeal because the Appellant has not paid their taxes for the current tax year in accordance with 36 M.R.S. 843(4); and, if and when the Appellant pays their taxes as required by section 843(4) and the Board resumes the hearing in this matter: B.​ conclude that the Property is assessed at its fair market value and at a relatively uniform rate with comparable properties, C.​ rule that the Appellant has failed to meet its burden of proving that the Property is substantially overvalued, that the assessment was based on unjust discrimination, fraud, dishonesty, illegality or that the assessment was otherwise manifestly wrong, and D.​ deny the Appellant’s application. 8 | Page Page 18  LEGAL REFERENCES​ ●​ Article IX, § 8 of the Maine Constitution provides that “All taxes upon real and personal estate, assessed by authority of this State, shall be apportioned and assessed equally according to the just value thereof.” According to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, “Just value means market value.” Weekley v. Town of Scarborough, 676 A.2d 932, 934 (Me. 1996); see also Terfloth v. Town of Scarborough, 2014 ME 57, 11, 90 A.3d 1131 (“fair market value”). ●​ Assessments must be supported by two findings: 1) the property must be assessed at its fair market value, and 2) the property must be assessed at a relatively uniform rate with comparable property in the district. Terfloth v. Town of Scarborough, 2014 ME 57, ¶11, 90 A.3d 1131. ●​ The City Assessor’s assessment of the Property is presumed to be valid. Petrin v. Town of Scarborough, 2016 ME 136, ¶14, 147 A.3d 842, 849. The Appellant has the burden of proving to the Board of Assessment Review that “the assessed value of the property is ‘manifestly wrong.’” In order to do so, it must be demonstrated "(1) that [the] property was substantially overvalued and an injustice resulted from the overvaluation; (2) that there was unjust discrimination in the valuation of the property; or (3) that the assessment was fraudulent, dishonest, or illegal." Id.; see also City of Waterville v. Waterville Homes, 655 A.2d 365 (Me. 1995); Yusem v. Raymond, 2001 ME 61, 769 A.2d 865; Weekley v. Town of Scarborough, 676 A.2d 932 (Me. 1996); Southwest Harbor v. Harwood, 763 A.2d 115 (Me. 2000); Northeast Empire Limited Partnership #2 v. Ashland, 2003 ME 28, 818 A.2d 1021 ; Terfloth v. Town of Scarborough, 2014 ME 57, 90 A.3d 1131. ●​ It is the total assessment that controls under Maine law. If either the land or building value is too high or too low, so long as the total assessment is not “manifestly wrong,” the taxpayer has not met his burden of proof. Roberts v. Town of Southwest Harbor, 2004 ME 132, 861 A.2d 617 9 | Page Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49