Ad Hoc Committee

City of Portland Board of Assessment Review - March 17, 2026 Board Chair Eric Larsson, Board Members Dale Knapp and Lee Lowry Tuesday, March 17, 2026 at 1:00 PM Room 24, Portland City Hall, 389 Congress St., Portland, Maine 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). The Board of Assessment Review will conduct this meeting in-person in Room 24 at Portland City Hall. If you are not able to attend in person, a recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting. 1. Approve minutes of the March 11, 2026 Board of Assessment Review Hearing a. Draft March 11, 2026 Board of Assessment Review meeting minutes attached. Appeal of Assessment of 24 Willis Street, Parcel ID 015 E002001, owner Patricia M. 2. Bleech a. 24 Willis Street Application for Appeal to Board of Assessment Review Attached b. Assessor's Response re 24 Willis Street Attached c. Materials Admitted During the Hearing Attached 3. New Bussiness (if necessary) 4. Adjournment 1 Page 1  Board of Assessment Review Wednesday, March 11, 2026, 2:00 PM Meeting Minutes Eric Larsson, Chair Dale Knapp Lee Lowry The meeting convened at 2:06 p.m. on March 11, 2026 via Zoom. Attendees: Board members Eric Larsson, chair, Dale Knapp, and Lee Lowry, Attorney Stephen W. Wagner representing the board, City Assessor Elisa Marr, Attorney Michael Goldman representing the city, appellants Colleen Clark and Meredith Lubking, and board assistant Annie James. No members of the public attended. Board attendance was taken by roll call. Approve the Minutes of the March 10, 2026 Board of Assessment Review Meeting Board chair Larsson moved to approve the minutes of the March 10, 2026 Board of Assessment Review Meeting. Board member Knapp seconded the motion, which was approved by a roll call vote of (3-0). Appeal from Colleen Clark and Meredith Lubking, 61 Granite Street Board chair Larsson introduced all parties and reviewed the meeting’s agenda. Board chair Larsson moved to find the Board had jurisdiction and Board member Lowry seconded, which was approved by a roll call vote of (3-0). Board chair Larsson opened the hearing of Colleen Clark and Meredith Lubking’s appeal. The appellants presented their argument. When done, Board chair Larsson invited the Assessors to ask questions. Before asking questions, Attorney Goldman confirmed that all submitted materials and exhibits were admitted to the record, to which there were no objections. The following individuals asked questions, and the appellant answered them: Attorney Goldman. When the Assessors were finished asking questions, the Board was given an opportunity to ask the appellant questions. The following Board members asked questions: Lee Lowry, Eric Page 2 Larsson. Board chair Larsson invited the Assessors to present their response. The following individuals spoke: Attorney Goldman, Elisa Marr. The following exhibits were displayed on the screen for the Board to review: Assessor’s Exhibit 16, 1, 17, 11, 13, 14, 15, Appellant’s Exhibit F, D. Ms. Clark objected to the relevance of lots included in Assessor’s Exhibit 13. Board member Lowry asked the Assessor if the lots are treated and valued as a single parcel, and the Assessor confirmed that even though the lots are different types, they are not divisible. Chair Larsson ruled the exhibit would remain in the record but noted the Board would take the appellant's points into consideration. The Assessors continued to present their response. A technical error in the PDF of Assessor’s Exhibit 15 resulted in a missing column of data. Ms. Clark objected to the inclusion of the additional column to the Exhibit, and cited that the figures were different than her information. Attorney Goldman offered to email the missing column to all parties, which he does. A break was called at 3:13 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 3:20 p.m. Attorney Goldman introduced the missing data as Assessor’s Exhibit 18. Ms. Clark confirmed that she found discrepancies in the data. Attorney Goldman mentions that this data is available and public record on the assessor’s database. Chair Larsson advised that both parties could rely on their respective figures, and the Board would weigh the evidence accordingly. The Assessors continued to present their response. The following exhibits were displayed on the screen for the Board to review: Assessor’s Exhibit 18 When the Assessors were finished presenting their response, the Applicant was given an opportunity to ask questions. The following individuals asked questions, and the Assessor answered them: Colleen Clark, Attorney Goldman. The following materials were displayed on the screen for the Board to review: Zillow listings of 20 Dean St and 61 Granite Street. When both parties were finished asking questions, the Board was given an opportunity to ask questions, and the Assessor answered them. The following Board members asked questions: Eric Larsson, Lee Lowry, Dale Knapp. Board chair Larsson opened the hearing to public comment. No members of the public were present. Board chair Larsson invited the appellant to close their argument, which they do. The following individuals spoke: Colleen Clark. Page 3 Board chair Larsson invited the Assessors to close their argument, which they do. The following individuals spoke: Attorney Goldman. Attorney Wagner provided a summary of the Board’s role as the decision-making body. The Board closed the public portion of the meeting and began their deliberations. The following individuals spoke: Eric Larsson, Dale Knapp, Lee Lowry. Colleen Clark and Meredith Lubking departed the meeting at 4:50 p.m. Attorney Goldman and Elisa Marr departed the meeting at 4:51 p.m. The Board discussed factual findings of the appeal. The following individuals spoke: Attorney Wagner, Eric Larsson, Dale Knapp, Lee Lowry. Board member Lowry moved to deny the abatement application based on the finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to overturn assessor’s valuation and that the assessment of the property was manifestly wrong, and listed the factual findings of the deliberation. Board chair Larsson seconded the motion, which was approved by a roll call vote of (3-0). Board member Knapp motioned to authorize the Board’s Attorney to prepare a written decision to be reviewed and signed within 10 days. Board chair Larsson seconded the motion, which passed by a roll call vote of (3-0). Adjournment Board chair Larsson moved and Board member Lowry seconded the motion to adjourn, which passed by a roll call vote of (3-0). The meeting concluded at 5:13 p.m. Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12  Assessor’s Office Elisa A. Marr, CMA-2 City Assessor DATE:​ ​ March 10, 2026​ ​ ​ ​ ​ TO:​ ​ City of Portland Board of Assessment Review FROM:​​ Elisa Marr, City Assessor RE:​ ​ FY26 Abatement Appeal – March 17, 2026 Patricia M. Bleech; 24 Willis Street; Parcel ID 015 E002001 The mission of the Assessor’s 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 Patricia M. Bleech (“Appellant”), regarding the property located at 24 Willis Street (the “Property”), a hearing for which is scheduled for March 17, 2026. For the reasons set forth in this memorandum and its attachments, the City Assessor respectfully requests that the Board of Assessment Review: A.​ Conclude that the property is assessed at its fair market value and at a relatively uniform rate with comparable properties; B.​ 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 C.​ Deny the Appellant’s application. This submission is organized into the following sections: 1.​ Timeline 2.​ Exhibits / List of Attachments 3.​ City Assessor’s Response 4.​ Legal References Page 13 TIMELINE 5/29/2025​ Appellant had an informal hearing with a representative of Tyler Technologies. The Tyler representative noted that: HER MAIN CONCERN IS HER LAND VALUE BEING WAY TOO HIGH, THINKS LAND VALUE SHOULD BE ONLY $150,000 BASED ON FACT ITS UNBUILDABLE AND IN HISTORICAL PRESERVATION AREA LOT APPEARS TO HAVE OFF-ST PARKING? IF NOT APPLY -30% TO LAND VALUE NEED MORE INFO TO VERIFY GRADE/COND/CDU OF BLDG VALUE IN LINE. RECOMMENDATION – NO CHANGE IN VALUE 9/30/2025​ The Appellant submitted an Application for Abatement of Property Taxes to the Assessor’s Office for a value reduction of $248,300 or a total value of $331,500. [Exhibit 2] 10/20/2025​ The Assessor’s Office issued a denial letter to the Appellant’s Abatement Application. [Exhibit 3] 12/22/2025​ Appellant appeals to the Board of Assessment Review for a value reduction of $200,000 or a total value of $378,800. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Appellant’s Submissions:​ ●​ Application for Appeal of Assessor’s Decision on Abatement of Municipal Property Taxes (36 M.R.S.A. Section 843) packet, received by Corporation Counsel on December 22, 2025 on behalf of the Board of Assessment Review. City Assessor’s Exhibits:​ ●​ Current Property Record Card for 015 E002001 [Exhibit 1] ●​ Abatement Application to the City Assessor received 9/30/2025 [Exhibit 2] ●​ Denial letter dated 10/20/25 [Exhibit 3] ●​ 2022 City of Portland, Maine Board of Assessment Review Decision on Appeal of Patricia Bleech 24 Willis Street [Exhibit 4] ●​ Recent Sales of Similar Properties (Appellant’s comparable sales highlighted) [Exhibit 5] ●​ Spatial Distribution of Comparable Units – Map [Exhibit 6] ●​ Aerial images of the Property [Exhibit 7] ●​ Revaluation Methodology [Exhibit 8] CITY ASSESSOR’S RESPONSE 2 | Page Page 14 Appellant has not met the burden to prove the 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 her Application for Abatement of Property Taxes to the Assessor’s Office, the Appelant initially requested a value reduction of $248,300 to a total value for the Property of $331,500. [Exhibit 2]. The Appellant then requested a value reduction of $379,800 in her appeal to the Board. The difference in these amounts indicates that the Appellant has no true or accurate data to support their opinion of value. Moreover, the Appellant is requesting a value that is just $9,100 (about 2.5%) above the pre-revaluation value of $370,700. Appellant has provided no evidence to support her claim that the value of a property on the East End has increased by only 2.5% in the last five years in what has been a historic real estate market. [Exhibit 2]​ 2.​ In her appeal to this Board and in her Abatement Application to the Assessor, the Appellant challenged the land value and not the total value of the Property. [Exhibit 2]. As stated in the denial letter dated October 20, 2025 [Exhibit 3], “An appeal of the valuation can only be on the total valuation amount. Appeals of just the land portion or building portion are not permitted by law. See Roberts v. Town of Southwest Harbor, 2004 ME 132, 861 A.2d 617; see also the Board’s decision in the appeal of John Babin, 72 Sheridan Street, available at: https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/me-portland/984276b4-6593-4e6b-9f4b-857cdaf e0d8b?cache=1800. 3.​ Appellant appears to suggest that the valuation of her Property, particularly the valuation of her land, was the result of unjust discrimination. As the Law Court has explained, “We have never sustained an unjust discrimination claim based only on a single component of a total assessment, without showing that the property's total assessment was discriminatory. Previous cases in this Court have found discrimination after comparing the total assessed values of similarly situated properties. . . . Accordingly, a taxpayer seeking to prove unjust discrimination must demonstrate that his property, as a whole, has been valued differently than other comparable properties.” Roberts v. Town of Southwest Harbor, 2004 ME 132, 861 A.2d 617. Appellant, therefore, can only prevail in her appeal if she demonstrates an error in the total valuation of the Property, and not just in the value of her land. ​ 4.​ Notably, in 2022, the Appellant filed an appeal with the Board of Assessment Review following the 2021 revaluation and made essentially the same arguments that she is 3 | Page Page 15  making now. She argued that her property was functionally obsolete, that she had a nonconforming lot, and that there was a disproportionate increase in her land value. As the Board explained in denying the Appellant’s claims in that appeal, “It is the total assessed value of the property that controls. As long as the overall assessed value is not “manifestly wrong,” the taxpayer has not met their burden of proof.” [Ex. 7 (citing Roberts v. Town of Southwest Harbor, 2004 ME 132, 861 A.2d 617)]. 5.​ The Board further explained in the Appellant’s 2022 appeal that “Impeachment of the assessor’s methodology alone is insufficient to meet” the taxpayer’s burden to show the assessment is “manifestly wrong” – the taxpayer also must show the property is overvalued. [Ex.7 (citing Yusem v. Town of Raymond, 2001 ME 61, 769 A.2d 865)]. In the 2022 Appeal, the Board also explained that “The methodology employed by Tyler Technologies is also outside of the scope of the Board’s review, unless it could be shown that this particular assessment “necessarily resulted” in unjust discrimination against the subject property in comparison to other similarly situated properties (citing Moser v. Town of Phippsburg, 553 A.2d 1249, 1250 (Me. 1989). The Board concluded in that appeal, as it should do here, that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the assessment was overvalued. [See Exhibit 4] 6.​ Recent sales of similar properties [see Exhibit 5] used in the development of the 2025 revaluation include:​ ​ ​ ​ The properties in Exhibit 5 (including the highlighted properties, which are the properties listed in Appellant’s appeal), support the Assessor’s valuation of the Property. With the total assessment requirement in mind, a review of the sales comparisons provided by the Appellant reflect assessed values below or within 10% of market value, indicating fair and equitable assessments for those properties, but they do not demonstrate that the Assessor’s valuation of the Property was manifestly wrong. Again, it is not enough for the Appellant to simply demonstrate that the value of her land is higher than the land value for a comparable property. Furthermore, it is important to note that some of the comparable sales submitted by the Appellant are in less valuable neighborhoods than the subject Property, which is located about 1 block from the Eastern Promenade. [See Exhibits 5 & 6] 4 | Page Page 16 7.​ Aerial image of the subject Property [Exhibit 7]: ​ 8.​ The Appellant’s methodology of establishing market value based on the per square foot value of just the land is not the method used in establishing value for the 2025 revaluation. [See Exhibit 8] 9.​ There are three recognized approaches used 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 5 | Page Page 17  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. 10.​ 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 sufficient evidence to satisfy her burden to demonstrate that the assessment was substantially overvalued, based on an unjust discrimination or subject to fraud, dishonesty or an illegality. ​ 11.​ For the reasons set forth in this memorandum and its attachments, the City Assessor respectfully requests that the Board of Assessment Review: A.​ Conclude that the Property is assessed at its fair market value and at a relatively uniform rate with comparable properties; B.​ 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 C.​ Deny the Appellant’s application. 6 | 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 7 | Page Page 19 EXHIBIT 1 Page 20 Page 21  EXHIBIT 2 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  EXHIBIT 3 Page 43  EXHIBIT 4 Page 44 Page 45  EXHIBIT 5 Page 46  EXHIBIT 6 Page 47  EXHIBIT 7 Page 48 Page 49  EXHIBIT 8 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 2025 Reassessment Value Comparison 24 Willis St – Portland, ME Page 57 Subject – 24 Willis St Lot Size – 1,750 square feet Distance from Promenade: 1 BLOCK Subject Land Value – $423,300 Total Value – $579,800 • Comp #1 – 21 Greenleaf St Comp #3 Lot Size – 5,644 square feet Distance from Eastern Promenade: 6-7 BLOCKS BOTTOM OF THE HILL – OFF WASHINGTON Land Value – $326,000 Total Value – $582,400 Sale Price – $580,000 • Comp #2 – 27 Anderson St Lot Size – 2,531 square feet Distance from Eastern Promenade: 7-8 BLOCKS BOTTOM OF THE HILL – OFF WASHINGTON Land Value – $321,600 Comp #1 Total Value – $677,800 Sale Price – $667,000 • Comp #3 – 38 Turner St Lot Size – 2,032 square feet (NO OFF-ST PARKING) Distance from Eastern Promenade: 4 BLOCKS BOTTOM OF Comp #2 Land Value – $320,100 Total Value – $555,500 Sale Price – $580,000 Page 58 Subject – 24 Willis St Lot Size – 1,750 square feet Distance from Promenade: 1 BLOCK Subject Land Value – $423,300 Total Value – $579,800 Comp #5 Comp #3 Comp #4 • Comp #4 – 48 Montreal St Lot Size – 2.967 square feet Distance from Eastern Promenade: 1 BLOCK Land Value – $447,000 Total Value – $888,500 Sale Price – $905,000 • Comp #5 – 9 Gould St Lot Size – 6,093 square feet Comp #1 Distance from Eastern Promenade: 6-7 BLOCKS BOTTOM OF THE HILL – OFF WASHINGTON Land Value – $329,200 Total Value – $560,900 Sale Price – $617,500 Comp #2 Page 59 Land Value Comparison Subject – 24 Willis St Lot Size – 1,750 square feet Subject Land Value – $423,300 $423,300 Comp #5 Comp #3 $329,200 Comp #4 $320,100 • Comp #1 – 21 Greenleaf St $447,000 (NO OFF-ST PKG) Lot Size – 5,644 square feet Land Value – $326,000 • Comp #2 – 27 Anderson St Lot Size – 2,531 square feet Land Value – $321,600 • Comp #3 – 38 Turner St Lot Size – 2,032 square feet (NO OFF-ST PARKING) Land Value – $320,100 Comp #1 • Comp #4 – 48 Montreal St $326,000 Lot Size – 2.967 square feet Land Value – $447,000 • Comp #5 – 9 Gould St Comp #2 Lot Size – 6,093 square feet $321,600 Land Value – $329,200 Page 60 Sale Price ASR Comparison Subject – 24 Willis St Lot Size – 1,750 square feet Subject Land Value – $423,300 • Comp #1 – 21 Greenleaf St Lot Size – 5,644 square feet Comp #5 Total Value – $582,400 Comp #3 91% Comp #4 Sale Price – $580,000 96%) ASR – 100% 98% • Comp #2 – 27 Anderson St Lot Size – 2,531 square feet Total Value – $677,800 Sale Price – $667,000 ASR – 102% • Comp #3 – 38 Turner St Lot Size – 2,032 square feet (NO OFF-ST PARKING) Total Value – $555,500 Sale Price – $580,000 ASR – 96% Comp #1 • Comp #4 – 48 Montreal St 100% Lot Size – 2.967 square feet Total Value – $888,500 Sale Price – $905,000 ASR – 98% Comp #2 • Comp #5 – 9 Gould St 102% Lot Size – 6,093 square feet Land Value – $329,200 Total Value – $560,900 Sale Price – $617,500 ASR – 91% Page 61 Additional Sales Subject – 24 Willis St Lot Size – 1,750 square feet Comp #3 Subject $563,300 Land Value – $423,300 (NO OFF-ST PKG) $579,800 Total Value – $579,800 • Comp #1 – 4 Romasco Ln Lot Size – 475 square feet (NO OFF-ST PARKING) Distance from Eastern Promenade: 7-8 BLOCKS Comp #2 Land Value – $223,100 $475,600 Total Value – $388,900 (NO OFF-ST PKG) Sale Price – $400,000 • Comp #2 – 15 E Cove St Lot Size – 902 square feet (NO OFF-ST PARKING) Distance from Eastern Promenade: 6 BLOCKS Land Value – $271,100 Total Value – $475,600 Sale Price – $510,000 Comp #1 $388,900 (NO OFF-ST PKG) • Comp #3 – 190 Washington Ave Lot Size – 1,246 square feet (NO OFF-ST PARKING) Distance from Eastern Promenade: 6-7 BLOCKS Land Value – $275,600 Total Value – $563,300 Sale Price – $595,000 Page 62 Land Value Comparison – Willis St Subject – 24 Willis St Lot Size – 1,750 square feet Land Value – $423,300 • 41 Montreal St 41 Montreal St Lot Size –2,500 square feet $437,900 Land Value – $437,900 • 20 Willis St – NO OFF-ST PARKING 22 Willis St Lot Size – 1,250 square feet $423,300 Land Value – $289,500 20 Willis St • 22 Willis St $289,500 NO OFF-ST PKG Subject Lot Size – 1,750 square feet $423,300 Land Value – $423,300 28 Willis St $421,300 • 28 Willis St Lot Size – 1,650 square feet Land Value – $421,300 Page 63 Neighborhood Sales Ratio Statistics Page 64  Land Value Formula Calculation (((BASE SIZE x BASE RATE +/- (INC RATE/DEC RATE * SF)) x INFL FACTOR 1) x INFL FACTOR 2))) 24 Willis St – Land Value Calculation ((4,500 x 141.30 - (26.00 * 2,750)) x .75) = $423,260 Page 65