Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-06-14
The County Commissioners
Abate Lockwood Tax
They Find That WatefVl||e
Assessors Were Unfair.
The Company's Tax for 1905 Is Cdf
Down by $3659.

I'll, board Of county commissioners
for Nenmebec county, Hon. Herman H.
Adams of Belgrade, Hon. JOSIAH w.
Ras.ett of Winslow and Hon. lrVlls
X. Bradley Of Vienna, rendered lleii
decision Wednesday in the case OF tle
Lockwood Company OF NaterNllle'
petitioner for abatement OF taxes. Inc
decision in full is as follows:
The assessors OF the city of Water
Vile for the purpose of the assessment
of taxes for the year 1905 placed a
valuation for the wear 1905 of ss41, 500
upon real estate Of the Lockwood Com
pany described in the record OF assess
mcnt cf taxes of the city IS Mills NOS.
l. and 3. containing machinery, etc.
fo, 33.5520 spindlcs, water power ONCE
building. gas works. ware houses.
stable, horse shed and land occupied
by the same.
on the first day If July, 1903. beng
within two years Of the assessment,
the Lockwood Company presented to
the assessors of the city of WaterNliie
for such year its application III writing
asking said asscsSOrS to make Sucl re2-
sonable abatement from such tax 50
assessed as they might think proper,
and stated in its written application
the grounds therefor. The assessors
refused to make the abatement asked
for and thercupon the company applied
hv petition TO this board at its next
meeting. and at an adjournment
thereof held December 20. 1905. an ad-
iourned meeting was ordered TO be
held in the court house at WaterVllle
on Tuesday. February II. 1906. at I'D
o'clock A. NJ. for the purpose of hear
ing III" parties and adjudicating upon
the petition. Hearing was had at the
place and time ordered and the petit
TONERS ana the city Of Waterville duly
appeared and were represented py
counsel. At that time and on other
days mutually agreed upon the
respective parties were heard together
with their witnesses, evidence and ar
gumcnts of counsel.
At the various meetings this board
admitted evidence TO prove the fair
market value. as hereinafter defined, on
April 1st. 1905. of numerous pieces OF
real estate situated in all parts of the
city ard in both the residential and
business sections, and also the Nalua-
ton placed by the assessors for pur-
nose Of taxation for the year 1905 on
tie same pieces. The parcels 50 ex-
an1ired included practically every piece
of property whether business or resi-
Dental on both sides of almost all the
streets in the city. excepting the out
living portions. and we are of the
opinion that such evidence was ample
II prove the fair market value Of prop
| city generally throughout the city and
| the valuation placed generally upon
such property for purposes Of taxa
ton.
| After the most careful consideration
Of III" evidence in this case we find
| tho following conclusion of fact:
|. That the valuation placed for the
purpose OF taxation by the assessors
upon property generally throughout
| the city. excepting the property in
question. was less than its fair market
value. and by fair market value we
mean the fair value as between one
who wants to purchase and one who
wants to sell; that the assessors were
| acquainted with the fair market value
of such property, hut as a general rule
| assessed it for eighty (SO) per cent. of
\
| find as Il matter Of fact that there was
| Ill differentiation below the fair
| market value Of properly generally III
| the city, excepting the property in
| question for the purpose of taxation
of twenty (20) per cent.
! >. That the assessors made an in
vcstiEation for the purpose of asccr-
| tanning the fair market value Of the
property in question and after such
| Investigation placed a valuation of
$Si,.12S.00 upon said property. which
valuation WAS intended by them to
| represent its fair market value.
3. That the fair market value on
April I, 1905. of the property i'll qucs-
| ton was $S65.0oO.
4. That the assessed value Of the
property in question was therefore
| relatively in comparison with the as
scsscd value of other property gem
orally in the city ovcr-valucd. and we
| find such over valuation to be $780,
rs.
| we therefore abatc the taxes ASSESS
ca on the property in question for the
year 1905 by $3,G5960