Ad Hoc Committee — Portland, ME
Date: 2026-03-11
Time: 14:00

City of Portland
Remote Board of Assessment Review -
March 11, 2026
Board Chair Eric Larsson, Board Members Dale
Knapp and Lee Lowry
Wednesday, March 11, 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 Board of Assessment Review will conduct this meeting remotely via Zoom pursuant to the Remote
Meeting Policy adopted by the Board of Assessment Review. 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.

Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android:
https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/j/87416854309

Phone one-tap:
+19292056099,,87416854309# US (New York)
+13017158592,,87416854309# US (Washington DC)

Join via audio:
+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)
+1 646 931 3860 US
+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)
+1 360 209 5623 US
+1 386 347 5053 US
+1 507 473 4847 US
+1 564 217 2000 US

 1
City of Portland Wednesday, March 11, 2026 at 2:00
Remote Board of Assessment PM via Zoom
Review - March 11, 2026
Webinar ID: 874 1685 4309
International numbers available: https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/u/kVOAQ1p2x

1. Approve minutes of the March 10, 2026 Board of Assessment Review Hearing

 a. Draft March 10, 2026 Board of Assessment Review meeting minutes attached.
 Appeal of Assessment of 61 Granite Street, 066A A021001, owners Colleen Clark and
2.
 Meredith Lubking

 a. 61 Granite Street Application for Appeal to Board of Assessment Review Attached
 b. Assessor's Response re 61 Granite Street Attached
 c. Materials Admitted During the Hearing Attached
3. New Bussiness (if necessary)

4. Adjournment




 2

City of Portland
Remote Board of Assessment Review -
March 11, 2026
Board Chair Eric Larsson, Board Members Dale
Knapp and Lee Lowry
Wednesday, March 11, 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 Board of Assessment Review will conduct this meeting remotely via Zoom pursuant to the Remote
Meeting Policy adopted by the Board of Assessment Review. 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.

Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android:
https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/j/87416854309

Phone one-tap:
+19292056099,,87416854309# US (New York)
+13017158592,,87416854309# US (Washington DC)

Join via audio:
+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)
+1 646 931 3860 US
+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)
+1 360 209 5623 US
+1 386 347 5053 US
+1 507 473 4847 US
+1 564 217 2000 US

 1

 Page 1
City of Portland Wednesday, March 11, 2026 at 2:00
Remote Board of Assessment PM via Zoom
Review - March 11, 2026
Webinar ID: 874 1685 4309
International numbers available: https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/u/kVOAQ1p2x

1. Approve minutes of the March 10, 2026 Board of Assessment Review Hearing

 a. Draft March 10, 2026 Board of Assessment Review meeting minutes attached.
 Appeal of Assessment of 61 Granite Street, 066A A021001, owners Colleen Clark and
2.
 Meredith Lubking

 a. 61 Granite Street Application for Appeal to Board of Assessment Review Attached
 b. Assessor's Response re 61 Granite Street Attached
 c. Materials Admitted During the Hearing Attached
3. New Bussiness (if necessary)

4. Adjournment




 2

 Page 2
 Board of Assessment Review
 Tuesday, March 10, 2026, 3:00 PM
 Meeting Minutes

 Eric Larsson, Chair
 Dale Knapp
 Lee Lowry


The meeting convened at 3:10 p.m. on March 10, 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, appellant Adam Pietrapaolo, and board assistant Annie James.
No members of the public attended. Board attendance was taken by roll call.

Approve the Minutes of the December 17, 2026 Board of Assessment Review Meeting

Board chair Larsson moved to approve the minutes of the December 17, 2026 Board of
Assessment Review Meeting. Board member Dale Knapp seconded the motion, which was
approved by a roll call vote of (3-0).

Appeal from Adam Pietrapaolo & Micala Andersen, 1353 Westbrook Street

Appellant Adam Pietrapaolo requested to present his argument via a prepared PowerPoint.
Attorney Goldman pointed out that the PowerPoint was not submitted in accordance to the
timeline laid out in the Board’s Rules of Procedure. Board chair Larsson motioned to admit the
appellant’s prepared PowerPoint conditioned on the city reserving the right to object to request
additional time to respond as needed to any new information. Board member Lowry seconded
the motion, which was approved by roll call vote of (3-0). The following individuals spoke: Eric
Larsson, Attorney Goldman, Lee Lowry, Dale Knapp, Adam Pietrapaolo.

Attorney Goldman requested that the appellant email the aforementioned PowerPoint to the
group, which he did.

Board chair Larsson presented the agenda for the hearing and outlined the order of events. No
one had questions.




 Page 3
Board chair Larsson and Attorney Wagner discussed the Board’s jurisdictions. One issue arose
regarding Form 706A request for information. The Assessor explained that her office attempted
to mail the applicant Form 706A on January 12th, but all mail from City Hall that day was
returned due to an issue at the post office. The Assessor highlighted that Form 706A was
included in the assessor’s response documents, which board assistant Annie James sent to
appellant via email. Attorney Wagner shared his screen to display the relevant statute for the
Board to review. The following individuals spoke: Elisa Marr, Eric Larsson, Adam Pietrapaolo,
Attorney Wagner, Attorney Goldman, Dale Knapp.

Board chair Larsson moved to find the Board had jurisdiction and Board member Knapp
seconded, which was approved by a roll call vote of (3-0).

Board chair Larsson opened the hearing of Adam Pietrapaolo & Micala Andersen’s appeal. Mr.
Pietrapaolo shared his screen and presented the previously admitted PowerPoint. When done,
Board chair Larsson invited the Assessors to ask questions. Attorney Goldman requested 5
minute break to discuss the materials presented, to which Board chair Larsson agreed.

A 10 minute break was called at 4:07 p.m.

The meeting resumed at 4:23 p.m.

The Assessors were given an opportunity to ask questions. 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
questions, and the appellant answered them. The following Board members asked questions:
Dale Knapp, Eric Larsson.

Attorney Goldman asked a follow up question regarding the applicant’s insurance, and the
applicant answered it.

When there were no more questions for the applicant, Board chair Larsson invited the Assessors
to present their response. The following individuals spoke: Attorney Goldman, Elisa Marr.
Attorney Goldman shared his screen to present exhibits, as well as the previously admitted
PowerPoint.

When the Assessor was finished presenting her response, the Applicant was given an opportunity
to ask questions. The following individuals asked questions, and the Assessor answered them:
Adam Pietrapaolo.

When the appellant was 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, Dale Knapp, Lee Lowry.

The appellant asked a follow up question regarding location consideration, and the Assessor
answered. During her answer, the Assessor suggested applicant could apply for a homestead




 Page 4
exemption, and the applicant expressed that he will look into that option after the hearing.

The appellant rebutted the Assessor’s response. The following individuals spoke: Adam
Pietrapaolo

Board chair Larsson invited the Assessors to close their argument, which they do. The following
individuals spoke: Michael Goldman.

Board chair Larsson invited the appellant to close their argument, which they do. The following
individuals spoke: Adam Pietrapaolo.

Board chair Larsson opened the hearing to public comment. No members of the public were
present.

The Board began their deliberations. The following individuals spoke: Eric Larsson, Lee Lowry,
Dale Knapp, Attorney Wagner, Adam Pietrapaolo, Attorney Goldman.

Mr. Pietrapaolo departed the meeting at 5:26 p.m.

Attorney Goldman and Elisa Marr departed at 5:27 p.m.

The Board discussed factual findings of the hearing. The following individuals spoke: Eric
Larsson, Dale Knapp, Lee Lowry, Attorney Wagner, Annie James.
Board chair Larsson moved to deny the abatement application because the applicant had not
demonstrated that the assessment of the property was manifestly wrong and that the property was
not overvalued, and listed the factual findings of the deliberation. Board member Lowry
seconded the motion. Attorney Wagner offered additional amendments, and Board chair Larsson
modified 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 was
approved 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 5:43 p.m.




 Page 5
 BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW
 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF
 ASSESSOR'S DECISION ON
 ABATEMENT OF MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAXES
 MRSA S
This application must be filed with your municipal Board of Assessment Review. A separate application
should be filed for each separately assessed parcel of real estate claimed to be overvalued.

 1. Colleen Clark
 Name:_____________________________________________________________________
 2. 61 Granite Street Portland, Maine 04102
 Mailing address: _____________________________________________________________
 3. Physical address (if different than mailing address): _________________________________
 4. Phone: _____________________________Email:
 617-447-0156 __________________________________
 cc26759@gmail.com

 5. Tax year for abatement: ............................................................................... _______________
 2025 and 2026

 6. $898,900
 Assessed value of real estate: .....................................................................$ ______________
 $767,500
 7. Reduction of real estate value requested:....................................................$ ______________
 8. Assessed value of personal property: ..........................................................$ N/A
 ______________
 9. Reduction of personal property value requested: ........................................$ ______________
 N/A

10. Reasons for requesting abatement (please be specific about the reason(s) you believe the
 assessment is illegal, erroneous, or that the property is overvalued for tax purposes, and
 include supporting documentation such as comparable sales/deed reference. ease see t e
 instr tions on t e fo owin a e.): ______________________________
 __________________________________________________________________________
 I am requesting an abatement for my property at 61 Granite Street currently assessed at $898,900. After reviewing
 __________________________________________________________________________
 comparable homes in the neighborhood, it appears that the current assessment is significantly above market
 supported values and does not reflect equitable valuation when compared with similar properties in the surrounding
 __________________________________________________________________________
 area.  Two close comparables, 20 Deane Street and 66 Granite Street, show assessments of ~360 per square foot,
 while my home is assessed at ~$421 per square foot, a difference of 17 to 18 percent despite being similar in size,
 __________________________________________________________________________
 location, and use. Applying the same neighborhood rate to my home’s 2,138 square feet supports a valuation in the
 __________________________________________________________________________
 $760,000 to $790,000 range. This demonstrates a clear misalignment with equity and uniformity standards.
 Recent updates to the home (roof, HVAC, limited windows, refinished floors, and modest kitchen and bath updates)
 __________________________________________________________________________
 were necessary maintenance, not major structural changes or luxury expansions. These improvements do not
 materially increase market value to a level that justifies the assessment and indicates a lack of equity and uniformity
 __________________________________________________________________________
 in the current assessment valuation process.
 For these reasons, I respectfully request an adjusted assessed value of $767,500, which falls within the market
 __________________________________________________________________________
 supported range and reflects both fair market value and assessment parity with neighboring homes.
 __________________________________________________________________________
 Thank you for your consideration. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the data further or provide any additional
 information that may assist your review.
 __________________________________________________________________________


A A R ABA A R A A .R. .A.
 rs ant to .R. .A. t e a i ant ere ertifies t at e or s e as aid
t e d e date eit er t e amo nt of ta es not in dis te for t e rrent ta ear or an amo nt e a to
t e amo nt of ta es aid in t e revio s ta ear w i ever is reater. e statements ontained in
t is a i ation are orre t to t e est of m now ed e and e ief.



 11/26/2025
_____________________________________________________________ __________________
 Signature of applicant Date




 Page 6
 INSTRUCTIONS

Submit this application to t e ort and Board of Assessment Review wit in da s of t e date of t e
Assessor s de ision. Check with your municipal assessor to find out the exact date of t at de ision.
An abatement request is not a guarantee of reduced tax. By law, a taxpayer must prove that the actual
value of their property is lower than the municipal assessment. Proof may include, for example,
documentation of recent sales of similar property or a significant error on the taxpayer’s property record
card.

If you do not pay your tax bill due to an abatement request, you will be charged interest on any past
due tax, even if the abatement is granted and your tax bill is lowered. If you pay the full amount of your
tax when due and an abatement is later granted, the municipality will refund the amount of tax you
overpaid. For more information about the abatement and appeals process, see Bulletin No. 10 –
Abatement and Appeals Procedures avai a e ere tt s www.maine. ov reven e sites
maine. ov.reven e fi es in ine fi es . df

Line 1. Name. Enter the name of the property owner.

Line 2. Mailing address. Enter the address where the municipality should send all correspondence
regarding this abatement request.

Line 3. Physical address. Enter the location of the property if this address is different than the mailing
address above. If you know the map and lot for this property, enter that as well as the address.

Line 4. Phone and email. Enter the best contact information for the municipality to get in touch with
you.

Line 5. Tax year for abatement. Enter the year or years you are requesting an abatement of taxes.
In most cases, an assessor can only abate taxes for the current tax year.

Line 6. Assessed value of real estate. Enter the value of real estate (land and buildings) as reported
on your property tax bill.

Line 7. Reduction of real estate value requested. Enter the amount that you want subtracted from
the value on line 6. For example, if your property is valued at $200,000 and you think the correct value
is $175,000, enter $25,000 on this line. If you are awarded a reduction of value, that amount will be
multiplied by the municipal tax rate to determine your tax abatement.

Line 8. Assessed value of personal property. Enter the value of personal property (any property not
assessed as real estate) as reported on your property tax bill. If you are not requesting abatement of
your personal property assessment, leave this line blank.

Line 9. Reduction of personal property value requested. Most abatement requests involve real
estate. If you are requesting a reduction in the value of your personal property, however, enter the
amount of value reduction you are requesting.

Line 10. Reasons for requesting abatement. Summarize your request for an abatement of taxes. To
receive an abatement, a taxpayer must prove that their property is overvalued or that there is some
other illegality or error in their assessment. Include the reasons why you think your property should be
valued at a lower amount and attach any associated proof to this application.




 Page 7
DATE: January 7, 2026

TO: City of Portland Board of Assessment Review

FROM: Colleen Clark, Trustee and Meredith Lubking, Trustee

RE: Response To Request for Information Dated December 12, 2025
 Property: 61 Granite Street
 Parcel ID: 066A A021001

 Response To Request for Information Dated December 12, 2025
 (Document titled “706A 066A A021001”)

This submission is provided in response to the request for additional information related to the Board of
Assessment Review Application for the property referenced above. The materials included herein are offered
to supplement the record and to clarify the basis for the homeowner’s valuation position. This response is
provided in good faith and is not intended to constitute the Appellant’s complete evidentiary presentation, which
will be provided to the Board three (3) days prior to, and at, the January 13, 2026 hearing.

 1. Appraisals or opinions of value

 ● 2021 appraisal included.
 ● Insurance home replacement cost provided (included in insurance coverage document).
 ● Additional valuation evidence and analysis will be presented three (3) days prior to, and
 at, the January 13, 2026 hearing.

 2. Hazard / property insurance coverage
 Homeowner’s insurance included.

 3. Title insurance policies
 Included.

 4. Other information relevant to fair market value
 Additional valuation evidence and analysis will be presented three (3) days prior to, and at, the
 January 13, 2026 hearing.

 5. Analyses or market studies
 Additional valuation evidence and analysis will be presented three (3) days prior to, and at, the
 January 13, 2026 hearing.

 6. Walkthrough of the Property
 The Appellant has cooperated with the City regarding access to the Property which was
 completed January 7, 2025.



 Colleen Clark/Meredith Lubking




 Page 8
 APPRAISAL OF REAL PROPERTY



 LOCATED AT:
 61 Granite St
 Book: 35702 Page: 178
 Portland, ME 04102




 FOR:
 Radius Financial Group
 600 Longwater Dr
 Norwall, MA 02061




 AS OF:
 04/06/2021




 BY:
 Michael Libby
 The Appraisal Office
 PO Box 8303
 Portland, ME 04104
 (207) 200-4780
 info@loisjordan.com




 Appraisals

Form GA2 - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 9
Borrower Colleen M Clark File No. 1046506
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group


 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Cover Page .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 1
 Letter of Transmittal ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 2
 Summary of Salient Features ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 3
 URAR .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 4
 URAR .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 5
 URAR .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 6
 URAR .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 7
 URAR .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 8
 URAR .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 9
 Additional Comparables 4-6 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 10
 Commentary Addendum .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 11
 Additional Commentary Addendum .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 14
 Supplemental Addendum ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 15
 USPAP Identification Addendum .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 16
 Market Conditions Addendum to the Appraisal Report .........................................................................................................................................................................................................
 17
 Aerial Map ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 18
 Neighborhood Map .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 19
 Location Map .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 20
 Tax Map - Subject Lot ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 21
 Subject Photos ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 22
 Photograph Addendum .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 23
 Photograph Addendum .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 24
 Photograph Addendum .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 25
 Photograph Addendum .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 26
 Photograph Addendum .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 27
 Photograph Addendum .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 28
 Photograph Addendum .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 29
 Photograph Addendum .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 30
 Photograph Addendum .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 31
 Photograph Addendum .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 32
 Photograph Addendum .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 33
 Photograph Addendum .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 34
 Photograph Addendum .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 35
 Comparable Photos 1-3 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 36
 Comparable Photos 4-6 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 37
 UAD Definitions Addendum ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 38
 GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 41
 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 42
 Appraiser Independence Statements ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 43
 License ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 44
 E&O ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 45
 Tax Card - Page 1 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 46
 Tax Card - Page 2 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 47
 Deed - Page 1 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 48
 Deed - Page 2 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 49
 Contract - Page 1 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 50
 Contract - Page 2 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 51
 Contract - Page 3 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 52
 Contract - Page 4 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 53
 Contract - Page 5 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 54
 Contract - Page 6 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 55
 Contract - Page 7 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 56
 Building Sketch (Page - 1) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 57
 Building Sketch (Page - 2) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 58




 Form TOCNP - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 10
The Appraisal Office
PO Box 8303
Portland, ME 04104




Radius Financial Group
600 Longwater Dr
Norwall, MA 02061


Re: Property: 61 Granite St
 Portland, ME 04102
 Borrower: Colleen M Clark
 File No.:



In accordance with your request, we have appraised the above referenced property. The report of that appraisal is
attached.

The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the property described in this appraisal report, as
improved, in unencumbered fee simple title of ownership.

This report is based on a physical analysis of the site and improvements, a locational analysis of the neighborhood and
city, and an economic analysis of the market for properties such as the subject. The appraisal was developed and the
report was prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

The value conclusions reported are as of the effective date stated in the body of the report and contingent upon the
certification and limiting conditions attached.

It has been a pleasure to assist you. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any of my staff if we can be of additional
service to you.




Sincerely,




Michael Libby
The Appraisal Office
(207) 200-4780




 Page 11
 SUMMARY OF SALIENT FEATURES




 Subject Address 61 Granite St

 Legal Description Book: 35702 Page: 178

 City Portland




SUBJECT INFORMATION
 County Cumberland

 State ME

 Zip Code 04102

 Census Tract 0015.00

 Map Reference 38860




SALES PRICE
 Sale Price $ 702,000

 Date of Sale 03/22/2021




 Borrower Colleen M Clark
CLIENT
 Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Size (Square Feet) 2,014

 Price per Square Foot $ 348.56




DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
 Location N;Res;TrffcNse

 Age 103

 Condition C3

 Total Rooms 7

 Bedrooms 3

 Baths 2.1




 Appraiser Michael Libby

APPRAISER Date of Appraised Value 04/06/2021




VALUE Opinion of Value $ 635,000




 Form SSD2 - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 12
 Appraisals

 1046506
 Uniform Residential Appraisal Report File # 1046506
 The purpose of this summary appraisal report is to provide the lender/client with an accurate, and adequately supported, opinion of the market value of the subject property.
 Property Address 61 Granite St City Portland State ME Zip Code 04102
 Borrower Colleen M Clark Owner of Public Record Patricia N Oldmixon County Cumberland
 Legal Description Book: 35702 Page: 178
 Assessor's Parcel # Map: 66A Lot: A-21 Tax Year 2020 R.E. Taxes $ 6,837
 Neighborhood Name Portland Map Reference 38860 Census Tract 0015.00


SUBJECT
 Occupant Owner Tenant Vacant Special Assessments $ 0 PUD HOA $ 0 per year per month
 Property Rights Appraised Fee Simple Leasehold Other (describe)
 Assignment Type Purchase Transaction Refinance Transaction Other (describe)
 Lender/Client Radius Financial Group Address 600 Longwater Dr, Suite 107, Norwall, MA 02061
 Is the subject property currently offered for sale or has it been offered for sale in the twelve months prior to the effective date of this appraisal? Yes No
 Report data source(s) used, offering price(s), and date(s). DOM 5;See attached addenda.

 I did did not analyze the contract for sale for the subject purchase transaction. Explain the results of the analysis of the contract for sale or why the analysis was not
 performed. Arms length sale;See attached addenda.



CONTRACT
 Contract Price $ 702,000 Date of Contract 03/22/2021 Is the property seller the owner of public record? Yes No Data Source(s) Public Records
 Is there any financial assistance (loan charges, sale concessions, gift or downpayment assistance, etc.) to be paid by any party on behalf of the borrower? Yes No
 If Yes, report the total dollar amount and describe the items to be paid. $0;;


 Note: Race and the racial composition of the neighborhood are not appraisal factors.
 Neighborhood Characteristics One-Unit Housing Trends Present Land Use % One-Unit Housing
 Location Urban Suburban Rural Property Values Increasing Stable Declining PRICE
 55 % AGE One-Unit
 Built-Up Over 75% 25-75% Under 25% Demand/Supply Shortage In Balance Over Supply $ (000)
 15 % (yrs) 2-4 Unit




NEIGHBORHOOD
 Growth Rapid Stable Slow Marketing Time Under 3 mths 3-6 mths
 100 Low 0 Over 6 mths 10 % Multi-Family
 Neighborhood Boundaries The subject is bounded by Forest Ave to the north I-295 to the east and 1,885 High 240 10 % Commercial
 south, Stevens Ave to the west. 310 Pred.  70 10 % Other
 Neighborhood Description Subject located in Portland with excellent access to schools, shopping, employment and support services in the area.
 Immediate area consists of single family homes in average to good condition. No unfavorable factors affecting marketability noted. Other land use
 is vacant land. Portland is the economic center of southern Maine.
 Market Conditions (including support for the above conclusions) See attached addenda.


 Dimensions 51.9x93.95x50x80 Area 9583 sf Shape Mostly Rectangular View N;Res;
 Specific Zoning Classification R5 Zoning Description See attached addenda.
 Zoning Compliance Legal Legal Nonconforming (Grandfathered Use) No Zoning Illegal (describe)
 Is the highest and best use of subject property as improved (or as proposed per plans and specifications) the present use? Yes No If No, describe See attached
 addenda.
 Utilities Public Other (describe) Public Other (describe) Off-site Improvements - Type Public Private
 Electricity Water Street Paved
SITE Gas Sanitary Sewer Alley None
 FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area Yes No FEMA Flood Zone C FEMA Map # 2300510013B FEMA Map Date 07/17/1986
 Are the utilities and off-site improvements typical for the market area? Yes No If No, describe
 Are there any adverse site conditions or external factors (easements, encroachments, environmental conditions, land uses, etc.)? Yes No If Yes, describe
 The appraiser has inspected the subject lot to a degree required to create a credible appraisal report. No major or adverse easements or
 encroachments noted at time of inspection. Site size taken from tax map. Some noise can be heard from the interstate near by.

 General Description Foundation Exterior Description materials/condition Interior materials/condition
 Units One One with Accessory Unit Concrete Slab Crawl Space Foundation Walls Concrete/Brick/Gd Floors Wood / Good
 # of Stories 2 Full Basement Partial Basement Exterior Walls Wood / Good Walls Plaster/Drywall/Gd
 Type Det. Att. S-Det./End Unit Basement Area 809 sq.ft. Roof Surface Metal/Asphalt/Good Trim/Finish Wood / Good
 Existing Proposed Under Const. Basement Finish 0 % Gutters & Downspouts None Bath Floor Wood/Tile/Good
 Design (Style) Victorian Outside Entry/Exit Sump Pump Window Type DoubleHung/Good Bath Wainscot Tile / Good
 Year Built 1918 Evidence of Infestation Storm Sash/Insulated Insulated / Good Car Storage None
 Effective Age (Yrs) 15 Dampness Settlement Screens None / Metal / Good Driveway # of Cars 4
 Attic None Heating FWA HWBB Radiant Amenities Woodstove(s) # 0 Driveway Surface Paved
 Drop Stair Stairs Other Fuel Gas Fireplace(s) # 2 Fence Wood Garage # of Cars 0
 Floor Scuttle Cooling Central Air Conditioning Patio/Deck PtoDk Porch Porch Carport # of Cars 0
 Finished Heated Individual Other None Pool None Other Shed Att. Det. Built-in




IMPROVEMENTS
 Appliances Refrigerator Range/Oven Dishwasher Disposal Microwave Washer/Dryer Other (describe)
 Finished area above grade contains: 7 Rooms 3 Bedrooms 2.1 Bath(s) 2,014 Square Feet of Gross Living Area Above Grade
 Additional features (special energy efficient items, etc.). Granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, wood floors, chair rail.

 Describe the condition of the property (including needed repairs, deterioration, renovations, remodeling, etc.). C3;Kitchen-remodeled-six to ten years
 ago;Bathrooms-remodeled-six to ten years ago;See attached addenda.




 Are there any physical deficiencies or adverse conditions that affect the livability, soundness, or structural integrity of the property? Yes No If Yes, describe




 Does the property generally conform to the neighborhood (functional utility, style, condition, use, construction, etc.)? Yes No If No, describe



 Freddie Mac Form 70 March 2005 UAD Version 9/2011 Page 1 of 6 Fannie Mae Form 1004 March 2005


 Form 1004UAD - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 13
 1046506
 Uniform Residential Appraisal Report File # 1046506
 There are 3 comparable properties currently offered for sale in the subject neighborhood ranging in price from $ 460,000 to $ 625,000 .
 There are 16 comparable sales in the subject neighborhood within the past twelve months ranging in sale price from $ 530,000 to $ 785,000 .
 FEATURE SUBJECT COMPARABLE SALE # 1 COMPARABLE SALE # 2 COMPARABLE SALE # 3
 Address 61 Granite St 18 Woodmont St 134 Oakdale St 94 Noyes St
 Portland, ME 04102 Portland, ME 04102 Portland, ME 04103 Portland, ME 04103
 Proximity to Subject 0.16 miles NW 0.51 miles N 0.43 miles NW
 Sale Price $ 702,000 $ 530,000 $ 562,500 $ 550,000
 Sale Price/Gross Liv. Area $ 348.56 sq.ft. $ 313.98 sq.ft. $ 321.61 sq.ft. $ 279.76 sq.ft.
 Data Source(s) MREIS MLS# 1453623;DOM 7 MREIS MLS# 1477382;DOM 4 MREIS MLS#1461684;DOM 4
 Verification Source(s) Assessor,MREIS MLS,Appraiser Assessor,MLS,List&BuyAgents Assessor,MREIS MLS,Appraiser
 VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION +(-) $ Adjustment DESCRIPTION +(-) $ Adjustment DESCRIPTION +(-) $ Adjustment
 Sales or Financing ArmLth ArmLth ArmLth
 Concessions Conv;2000 -2,000 Cash;0 Conv;0
 Date of Sale/Time s07/20;c06/20 +68,640 s12/20;c12/20 +29,250 s09/20;c07/20 +64,350
 Location N;Res;TrffcNse N;Res; -5,966 N;Res; -5,918 N;Res; -6,144
 Leasehold/Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple
 Site 9583 sf 5800 sf 0 6970 sf 0 7173 sf 0
 View N;Res; N;Res; N;Res; N;Res;
 Design (Style) DT2;Victorian DT2;Colonial 0 DT2;Colonial 0 DT2;Colonial 0
 Quality of Construction Q3 Q3 Q3 +25,000 Q3
 Actual Age 103 92 0 91 0 91 0
 Condition C3 C3 C3 C3
 Above Grade Total Bdrms. Baths Total Bdrms. Baths Total Bdrms. Baths Total Bdrms. Baths
 Room Count 7 3 2.1 6 3 2.0 +5,000 8 3 1.1 +10,000 9 4 1.1 +10,000
 Gross Living Area 2,014 sq.ft. 1,688 sq.ft. +24,450 1,749 sq.ft. +19,875 1,966 sq.ft. 0
 Basement & Finished 809sf0sfin 844sf0sfin 0 970sf0sfwu 0 951sf0sfwu 0
 Rooms Below Grade
 Functional Utility Good Good Good Good




SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
 Heating/Cooling FWA None Rad/IndvHtPmp -7,500 Steam None 0 Radiant None 0
 Energy Efficient Items Insulated Insulated Insulated Insulated
 Garage/Carport 4dw 1ga1dw -10,000 1ga1dw -10,000 1ga1dw -10,000
 Porch/Patio/Deck Prch,Dck,Patio Entry Porch +15,000 Porch +10,000 Entry Porch +15,000
 Other 2 F/P 1 F/P +2,500 1 F/P +2,500 1 F/P +2,500
 Other Fence,Shed None +5,000 Fence,Shed Fence +2,500
 Other None None None None
 Net Adjustment (Total) + - $ 95,124 + - $ 80,707 + - $ 78,206
 Adjusted Sale Price Net Adj. 17.9  % Net Adj. 14.3 % Net Adj. 14.2 %
 of Comparables Gross Adj. 27.6 % $ 625,124 Gross Adj. 20.0 % $ 643,207 Gross Adj. 20.1 % $ 628,206
 I did did not research the sale or transfer history of the subject property and comparable sales. If not, explain



 My research did did not reveal any prior sales or transfers of the subject property for the three years prior to the effective date of this appraisal.
 Data Source(s) Maine Real Estate Information Service, Assessing Records and owner.
 My research did did not reveal any prior sales or transfers of the comparable sales for the year prior to the date of sale of the comparable sale.
 Data Source(s) Maine Real Estate Information Service, Assessing Records.
 Report the results of the research and analysis of the prior sale or transfer history of the subject property and comparable sales (report additional prior sales on page 3).
 ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE SALE #1 COMPARABLE SALE #2 COMPARABLE SALE #3
 Date of Prior Sale/Transfer 06/07/2019
 Price of Prior Sale/Transfer $555,000
 Data Source(s) Assessor, MREIS MLS Assessor, MREIS MLS Assessor, MREIS MLS Assessor, MREIS MLS
 Effective Date of Data Source(s) 04/06/2021 08/13/2020 01/26/2021 08/13/2020
 Analysis of prior sale or transfer history of the subject property and comparable sales The subject property was sold by Stacey Abbott to the current owner on
 06/07/2019, for a reported price of $555,000. The sale was noted in the local MLS under #1408134 and affirms that the seller received all cash,
 financing type was conventional with no special or creative financing granted by anyone associated with the sale. Sales concessions were noted
 as $8500. The listing notes that the subject was an owner sale and appears to be arms length. Other than the noted sale there have not been
 any additional sales or transfers in the past 36 months.

 Summary of Sales Comparison Approach See attached addenda.




 Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $  635,000
 Indicated Value by: Sales Comparison Approach $ 635,000 Cost Approach (if developed) $ 100,000 Income Approach (if developed) $
 Sales comparison approach is weighted due to volume and reliability of market data. Cost approach considered but not developed due to the age
 of the structure and definition of market value used for this report. Income approach considered but not developed as subject is not a rental




RECONCILIATION
 neighborhood.
 This appraisal is made "as is", subject to completion per plans and specifications on the basis of a hypothetical condition that the improvements have been
 completed, subject to the following repairs or alterations on the basis of a hypothetical condition that the repairs or alterations have been completed, or subject to the
 following required inspection based on the extraordinary assumption that the condition or deficiency does not require alteration or repair:

 Based on a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property, defined scope of work, statement of assumptions and limiting
 conditions, and appraiser's certification, my (our) opinion of the market value, as defined, of the real property that is the subject of this report is
 $ 635,000 , as of 04/06/2021 , which is the date of inspection and the effective date of this appraisal.
 Freddie Mac Form 70 March 2005 UAD Version 9/2011 Page 2 of 6 Fannie Mae Form 1004 March 2005


 Form 1004UAD - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 14
 1046506
 Uniform Residential Appraisal Report File # 1046506
 This appraisal excludes any non real estate items that would be considered personal property.




ADDITIONAL COMMENTS




 COST APPROACH TO VALUE (not required by Fannie Mae)
 Provide adequate information for the lender/client to replicate the below cost figures and calculations.
 Support for the opinion of site value (summary of comparable land sales or other methods for estimating site value)
 Site value formulated based on recent land
 sales within close proximity to the subject lot and extraction method on properties similar to the subject. Site value added at request of the
 Lender/Client.

 ESTIMATED REPRODUCTION OR REPLACEMENT COST NEW OPINION OF SITE VALUE =$




COST APPROACH
 100,000
 Source of cost data DWELLING 2,014 Sq.Ft. @ $ =$
 Quality rating from cost service Effective date of cost data Basement 809 Sq.Ft. @ $ =$
 Comments on Cost Approach (gross living area calculations, depreciation, etc.) =$
 See Appraiser's Certification #4. Cost approach considered but not Garage/Carport Sq.Ft. @ $ =$
 developed due to the age of the structure and definition of market value Total Estimate of Cost-New =$
 used for this report. Less Physical Functional External
 Depreciation =$( )
 Depreciated Cost of Improvements =$
 "As-is" Value of Site Improvements =$

 Estimated Remaining Economic Life (HUD and VA only) 45 Years INDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH =$ 100,000
 INCOME APPROACH TO VALUE (not required by Fannie Mae)

INCOME
 Estimated Monthly Market Rent $ X Gross Rent Multiplier =$ Indicated Value by Income Approach
 Summary of Income Approach (including support for market rent and GRM)

 PROJECT INFORMATION FOR PUDs (if applicable)
 Is the developer/builder in control of the Homeowners' Association (HOA)? Yes No Unit type(s) Detached Attached
 Provide the following information for PUDs ONLY if the developer/builder is in control of the HOA and the subject property is an attached dwelling unit.
 Legal Name of Project
 Total number of phases Total number of units Total number of units sold




PUD INFORMATION
 Total number of units rented Total number of units for sale Data source(s)
 Was the project created by the conversion of existing building(s) into a PUD? Yes No If Yes, date of conversion.
 Does the project contain any multi-dwelling units? Yes No Data Source
 Are the units, common elements, and recreation facilities complete? Yes No If No, describe the status of completion.



 Are the common elements leased to or by the Homeowners' Association? Yes No If Yes, describe the rental terms and options.

 Describe common elements and recreational facilities.


 Freddie Mac Form 70 March 2005 UAD Version 9/2011 Page 3 of 6 Fannie Mae Form 1004 March 2005


 Form 1004UAD - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 15
 1046506
 Uniform Residential Appraisal Report File # 1046506

  This report form is designed to report an appraisal of a one-unit property or a one-unit property with an accessory unit;
  including a unit in a planned unit development (PUD). This report form is not designed to report an appraisal of a
  manufactured home or a unit in a condominium or cooperative project.

  This appraisal report is subject to the following scope of work, intended use, intended user, definition of market value,
  statement of assumptions and limiting conditions, and certifications. Modifications, additions, or deletions to the intended
  use, intended user, definition of market value, or assumptions and limiting conditions are not permitted. The appraiser may
  expand the scope of work to include any additional research or analysis necessary based on the complexity of this appraisal
  assignment. Modifications or deletions to the certifications are also not permitted. However, additional certifications that do
  not constitute material alterations to this appraisal report, such as those required by law or those related to the appraiser's
  continuing education or membership in an appraisal organization, are permitted.

  SCOPE OF WORK: The scope of work for this appraisal is defined by the complexity of this appraisal assignment and the
  reporting requirements of this appraisal report form, including the following definition of market value, statement of
  assumptions and limiting conditions, and certifications. The appraiser must, at a minimum: (1) perform a complete visual
  inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property, (2) inspect the neighborhood, (3) inspect each of the
  comparable sales from at least the street, (4) research, verify, and analyze data from reliable public and/or private sources,
  and (5) report his or her analysis, opinions, and conclusions in this appraisal report.

  INTENDED USE: The intended use of this appraisal report is for the lender/client to evaluate the property that is the
  subject of this appraisal for a mortgage finance transaction.

  INTENDED USER: The intended user of this appraisal report is the lender/client.

  DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open
  market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming
  the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and
  the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated; (2) both
  parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he or she considers his or her own best interest; (3) a
  reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U. S. dollars or in terms
  of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold
  unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions* granted by anyone associated with the sale.

  *Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments are
  necessary for those costs which are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area; these costs are
  readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative financing
  adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third party institutional
  lender that is not already involved in the property or transaction. Any adjustment should not be calculated on a mechanical
  dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's
  reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser's judgment.

  STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification in this report is
  subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions:

  1. The appraiser will not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect either the property being appraised or the title
  to it, except for information that he or she became aware of during the research involved in performing this appraisal. The
  appraiser assumes that the title is good and marketable and will not render any opinions about the title.

  2. The appraiser has provided a sketch in this appraisal report to show the approximate dimensions of the improvements.
  The sketch is included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination
  of its size.

  3. The appraiser has examined the available flood maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
  (or other data sources) and has noted in this appraisal report whether any portion of the subject site is located in an
  identified Special Flood Hazard Area. Because the appraiser is not a surveyor, he or she makes no guarantees, express or
  implied, regarding this determination.

  4. The appraiser will not give testimony or appear in court because he or she made an appraisal of the property in question,
  unless specific arrangements to do so have been made beforehand, or as otherwise required by law.

  5. The appraiser has noted in this appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as needed repairs, deterioration, the
  presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that he or
  she became aware of during the research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise stated in this appraisal
  report, the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent physical deficiencies or adverse conditions of the
  property (such as, but not limited to, needed repairs, deterioration, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances,
  adverse environmental conditions, etc.) that would make the property less valuable, and has assumed that there are no such
  conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied. The appraiser will not be responsible for any such
  conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist.
  Because the appraiser is not an expert in the field of environmental hazards, this appraisal report must not be considered as
  an environmental assessment of the property.

  6. The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an appraisal that is subject to satisfactory
  completion, repairs, or alterations on the assumption that the completion, repairs, or alterations of the subject property will
  be performed in a professional manner.




Freddie Mac Form 70 March 2005 UAD Version 9/2011 Page 4 of 6 Fannie Mae Form 1004 March 2005


 Form 1004UAD - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 16
 1046506
 Uniform Residential Appraisal Report File # 1046506


  APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: The Appraiser certifies and agrees that:

  1. I have, at a minimum, developed and reported this appraisal in accordance with the scope of work requirements stated in
  this appraisal report.

  2. I performed a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property. I reported the condition
  of the improvements in factual, specific terms. I identified and reported the physical deficiencies that could affect the
  livability, soundness, or structural integrity of the property.

  3. I performed this appraisal in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
  Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in
  place at the time this appraisal report was prepared.

  4. I developed my opinion of the market value of the real property that is the subject of this report based on the sales
  comparison approach to value. I have adequate comparable market data to develop a reliable sales comparison approach
  for this appraisal assignment. I further certify that I considered the cost and income approaches to value but did not develop
  them, unless otherwise indicated in this report.

  5. I researched, verified, analyzed, and reported on any current agreement for sale for the subject property, any offering for
  sale of the subject property in the twelve months prior to the effective date of this appraisal, and the prior sales of the subject
  property for a minimum of three years prior to the effective date of this appraisal, unless otherwise indicated in this report.

  6. I researched, verified, analyzed, and reported on the prior sales of the comparable sales for a minimum of one year prior
  to the date of sale of the comparable sale, unless otherwise indicated in this report.

  7. I selected and used comparable sales that are locationally, physically, and functionally the most similar to the subject property.

  8. I have not used comparable sales that were the result of combining a land sale with the contract purchase price of a home that
  has been built or will be built on the land.

  9. I have reported adjustments to the comparable sales that reflect the market's reaction to the differences between the subject
  property and the comparable sales.

  10. I verified, from a disinterested source, all information in this report that was provided by parties who have a financial interest in
  the sale or financing of the subject property.

  11. I have knowledge and experience in appraising this type of property in this market area.

  12. I am aware of, and have access to, the necessary and appropriate public and private data sources, such as multiple listing
  services, tax assessment records, public land records and other such data sources for the area in which the property is located.

  13. I obtained the information, estimates, and opinions furnished by other parties and expressed in this appraisal report from
  reliable sources that I believe to be true and correct.

  14. I have taken into consideration the factors that have an impact on value with respect to the subject neighborhood, subject
  property, and the proximity of the subject property to adverse influences in the development of my opinion of market value. I
  have noted in this appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, but not limited to, needed repairs, deterioration, the
  presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, adverse environmental conditions, etc.) observed during the inspection of the
  subject property or that I became aware of during the research involved in performing this appraisal. I have considered these
  adverse conditions in my analysis of the property value, and have reported on the effect of the conditions on the value and
  marketability of the subject property.

  15. I have not knowingly withheld any significant information from this appraisal report and, to the best of my knowledge, all
  statements and information in this appraisal report are true and correct.

  16. I stated in this appraisal report my own personal, unbiased, and professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions, which
  are subject only to the assumptions and limiting conditions in this appraisal report.

  17. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no present or
  prospective personal interest or bias with respect to the participants in the transaction. I did not base, either partially or
  completely, my analysis and/or opinion of market value in this appraisal report on the race, color, religion, sex, age, marital
  status, handicap, familial status, or national origin of either the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property or of the
  present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property or on any other basis prohibited by law.

  18. My employment and/or compensation for performing this appraisal or any future or anticipated appraisals was not
  conditioned on any agreement or understanding, written or otherwise, that I would report (or present analysis supporting) a
  predetermined specific value, a predetermined minimum value, a range or direction in value, a value that favors the cause of
  any party, or the attainment of a specific result or occurrence of a specific subsequent event (such as approval of a pending
  mortgage loan application).

  19. I personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in this appraisal report. If I
  relied on significant real property appraisal assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of this appraisal
  or the preparation of this appraisal report, I have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed in this
  appraisal report. I certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. I have not authorized anyone to make
  a change to any item in this appraisal report; therefore, any change made to this appraisal is unauthorized and I will take no
  responsibility for it.

  20. I identified the lender/client in this appraisal report who is the individual, organization, or agent for the organization that
  ordered and will receive this appraisal report.


Freddie Mac Form 70 March 2005 UAD Version 9/2011 Page 5 of 6 Fannie Mae Form 1004 March 2005


 Form 1004UAD - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 17
 1046506
 Uniform Residential Appraisal Report File # 1046506

  21. The lender/client may disclose or distribute this appraisal report to: the borrower; another lender at the request of the
  borrower; the mortgagee or its successors and assigns; mortgage insurers; government sponsored enterprises; other
  secondary market participants; data collection or reporting services; professional appraisal organizations; any department,
  agency, or instrumentality of the United States; and any state, the District of Columbia, or other jurisdictions; without having to
  obtain the appraiser's or supervisory appraiser's (if applicable) consent. Such consent must be obtained before this appraisal
  report may be disclosed or distributed to any other party (including, but not limited to, the public through advertising, public
  relations, news, sales, or other media).

  22. I am aware that any disclosure or distribution of this appraisal report by me or the lender/client may be subject to certain
  laws and regulations. Further, I am also subject to the provisions of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice
  that pertain to disclosure or distribution by me.

  23. The borrower, another lender at the request of the borrower, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, mortgage
  insurers, government sponsored enterprises, and other secondary market participants may rely on this appraisal report as part
  of any mortgage finance transaction that involves any one or more of these parties.

  24. If this appraisal report was transmitted as an "electronic record" containing my "electronic signature," as those terms are
  defined in applicable federal and/or state laws (excluding audio and video recordings), or a facsimile transmission of this
  appraisal report containing a copy or representation of my signature, the appraisal report shall be as effective, enforceable and
  valid as if a paper version of this appraisal report were delivered containing my original hand written signature.

  25. Any intentional or negligent misrepresentation(s) contained in this appraisal report may result in civil liability and/or
  criminal penalties including, but not limited to, fine or imprisonment or both under the provisions of Title 18, United States
  Code, Section 1001, et seq., or similar state laws.

  SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: The Supervisory Appraiser certifies and agrees that:

  1. I directly supervised the appraiser for this appraisal assignment, have read the appraisal report, and agree with the appraiser's
  analysis, opinions, statements, conclusions, and the appraiser's certification.

  2. I accept full responsibility for the contents of this appraisal report including, but not limited to, the appraiser's analysis, opinions,
  statements, conclusions, and the appraiser's certification.

  3. The appraiser identified in this appraisal report is either a sub-contractor or an employee of the supervisory appraiser (or the
  appraisal firm), is qualified to perform this appraisal, and is acceptable to perform this appraisal under the applicable state law.

  4. This appraisal report complies with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and
  promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place at the time this appraisal
  report was prepared.

  5. If this appraisal report was transmitted as an "electronic record" containing my "electronic signature," as those terms are
  defined in applicable federal and/or state laws (excluding audio and video recordings), or a facsimile transmission of this
  appraisal report containing a copy or representation of my signature, the appraisal report shall be as effective, enforceable and
  valid as if a paper version of this appraisal report were delivered containing my original hand written signature.




APPRAISER SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIRED)

Signature Signature
Name Michael Libby Name
Company Name The Appraisal Office Company Name
Company Address PO Box 8303 Company Address
 Portland, ME 04104
Telephone Number (207) 200-4780 Telephone Number
Email Address info@loisjordan.com Email Address
Date of Signature and Report 04/14/2021 Date of Signature
Effective Date of Appraisal 04/06/2021 State Certification #
State Certification # or State License #
or State License # AP4239 State
or Other (describe) State # Expiration Date of Certification or License
State ME
Expiration Date of Certification or License 12/31/2021 SUBJECT PROPERTY

ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED Did not inspect subject property
 61 Granite St
 Did inspect exterior of subject property from street
 Date of Inspection
 Portland, ME 04102
APPRAISED VALUE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY $ Did inspect interior and exterior of subject property
 635,000
 Date of Inspection
LENDER/CLIENT
Name Reggora
 COMPARABLE SALES
Company Name Radius Financial Group
Company Address 600 Longwater Dr, Suite 107, Norwall, MA Did not inspect exterior of comparable sales from street
 02061 Did inspect exterior of comparable sales from street
Email Address Date of Inspection



Freddie Mac Form 70 March 2005 UAD Version 9/2011 Page 6 of 6 Fannie Mae Form 1004 March 2005


 Form 1004UAD - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 18
 1046506
 Uniform Residential Appraisal Report File # 1046506
 FEATURE SUBJECT COMPARABLE SALE # 4 COMPARABLE SALE # 5 COMPARABLE SALE # 6
 Address 61 Granite St 87 Edwards St 12 Hollis Rd
 Portland, ME 04102 Portland, ME 04102 Portland, ME 04103
 Proximity to Subject 0.62 miles W 0.85 miles NW
 Sale Price $ 702,000 $ 555,000 $ 639,000 $
 Sale Price/Gross Liv. Area $ 348.56 sq.ft. $ 313.03 sq.ft. $ 253.07 sq.ft. $ sq.ft.
 Data Source(s) MREIS MLS#1479534;DOM 8 MREIS MLS# 1463388;DOM 8
 Verification Source(s) Assessor,MREIS MLS,Appraiser Assessor,MREIS MLS
 VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION +(-) $ Adjustment DESCRIPTION +(-) $ Adjustment DESCRIPTION +(-) $ Adjustment
 Sales or Financing ArmLth ArmLth
 Concessions Conv;0 Conv;2450 -2,450
 Date of Sale/Time s03/21;c01/21 +21,645 s09/20;c08/20 +66,201
 Location N;Res;TrffcNse N;Res; -5,766 N;Res;Comm 0




SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
 Leasehold/Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple
 Site 9583 sf 5774 sf 0 5227 sf 0
 View N;Res; N;Res; N;Res;
 Design (Style) DT2;Victorian DT2.25;NwEngl 0 DT2.5;Colonial 0
 Quality of Construction Q3 Q4 +50,000 Q3 -25,000
 Actual Age 103 93 0 90 0
 Condition C3 C3 C3
 Above Grade Total Bdrms. Baths Total Bdrms. Baths Total Bdrms. Baths Total Bdrms. Baths
 Room Count 7 3 2.1 7 3 1.0 +15,000 8 4 2.1 0
 Gross Living Area 2,014 sq.ft. 1,773 sq.ft. +18,075 2,525 sq.ft. -38,325 sq.ft.
 Basement & Finished 809sf0sfin 689sf437sfwu -5,000 908sf0sfin 0
 Rooms Below Grade 1rr0br0.0ba0o 0
 Functional Utility Good Attic Heat +2,500 Good
 Heating/Cooling FWA None Radiant None 0 Radiant None 0
 Energy Efficient Items Insulated Insulated Insulated
 Garage/Carport 4dw 2gd2dw -20,000 1ga1dw -10,000
 Porch/Patio/Deck Prch,Dck,Patio Prch,Dck,Patio Large Patio 0
 Other 2 F/P None +5,000 1 F/P +2,500
 Other Fence,Shed Fence +2,500 Fence +2,500
 Other None None None
 Net Adjustment (Total) + - $ 83,954 + - $ -4,574 + - $
 Adjusted Sale Price Net Adj. 15.1  % Net Adj. 0.7 % Net Adj. %
 of Comparables Gross Adj. 26.2 % $ 638,954 Gross Adj. 23.0 % $ 634,426 Gross Adj. % $
 Report the results of the research and analysis of the prior sale or transfer history of the subject property and comparable sales (report additional prior sales on page 3).
 ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE SALE # 4 COMPARABLE SALE # 5 COMPARABLE SALE # 6
 Date of Prior Sale/Transfer 06/07/2019
 Price of Prior Sale/Transfer $555,000



SALE HISTORY
 Data Source(s) Assessor, MREIS MLS Assessor, MREIS MLS Assessor, MREIS MLS
 Effective Date of Data Source(s) 04/06/2021 01/26/2021 09/29/2020
 Analysis of prior sale or transfer history of the subject property and comparable sales




 Analysis/Comments




ANALYSIS / COMMENTS




 Freddie Mac Form 70 March 2005 UAD Version 9/2011 Fannie Mae Form 1004 March 2005



 Form 1004UAD.(AC) - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 19
 Commentary Addendum File No. 1046506
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group
 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) - As of the effective date of this appraisal, the state of Maine is being affected
 by the coronavirus. The average time from list to close for transactions in Maine is between 60 and 70 days. Thus,
 enough time has passed to show that the limitations on daily activities imposed by the State of Maine have not led
 to decreasing market values.


 • URAR: Subject - Data Source(s), Offering Price(s), Date(s)
 Maine Real Estate Information Service; MLS# 1484629 listed on 03/17/2021 for $595,000, Pending on 03/22/2021
 for the same price. Per the listing agent, the home received 9 offers with several over asking. The home is under
 contract for significantly higher than list price. This is most likely attributed to very limited supply and the
 willingness of buyers to offer over list in order to obtain a home.

 The subject is under contract for 21.8% greater than list price. For some reference, the interquartile range for final
 list price of sales price ratio is between 98.6% and 107.41%. This data is for comparable homes in the town of
 Portland.




 • URAR: Contract - Results of Analysis/Why not performed
 No unique or creative financing noted. See attached addendum for contract that was reviewed by the appraiser.
 Per the contract the original offer price was $620,000 with an escalation clause increasing by $2,000 to a
 maximum of $725,000. Sale is not based on an inspection of the property or the appraisal. Buyer agrees to pay
 difference between appraised value and purchase price. While not unheard of, or waiving inspection and any
 appraisal contingency is not common in the area and is an explicit acknowledgment of some buyers’ willingness to
 pay over market value in order to obtain a home. See neighborhood section for more information regarding local
 market conditions.


 • URAR: Neighborhood - Market Conditions
 Financing is readily available for qualified buyers.Typical marketing time is 7 days for comparable properties in
 Portland.




 There are currently a limited number of comparable homes offered for sale within the subject's neighborhood.
 Portland, along with large parts of southern Maine, has been experiencing a prolonged shortage of comparable
 inventory. Portions of this can be attributed to COVID-19; however, limited supply has been an ongoing issue and
 precedes the limitations on public life caused by COVID-19. It should be noted that the 2020 selling season saw a
 marked decrease in supply as compared to previous years, which already had a lower supply. This created rapid
 increases in sale prices with a large number of homes going under contract for significantly over list price, and a
 noticeable increase of contracts with clauses that require buyers to pay the difference between appraised value &
 contract price.




 Form TADD - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 20
 Commentary Addendum File No. 1046506
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 The area has been experiencing year-over-year increases in property values. However, during the 2020 selling
 season and the 2020-2021 fall/winter months, this has increased even more dramatically than historical trends.
 The appraiser has conducted a statistical analysis of sales data from homes of comparable size & age and that
 are located in the same town. The last 90, 180 & 365 days have been analyzed and compared to the same time
 periods from the year before. The appraiser has opted utilize the analysis from the last 365 days as it has provided
 a sufficient amount of sales data for analysis.

 The conclusion is that the growth rate for the area is considered to be increasing. As noted above, the same holds
 true for a large part of southern Maine. This can be attributed to several factors including lower supply, increased
 demand, and the overall health of the economy.




 • URAR: Zoning Description
 The subject is in the R5 zone which has a minimum lot size of 6000 sf and minimum street frontage of 50'.


 • URAR: Site - Highest and Best Use
 Highest and Best Use Analysis - The subject is located in a typical residential setting, is zoned for residential use
 and overall criteria meets the characteristics of single-family residential use. The as-improved use is considered
 to be the maximally productive use of the subject property. This opinion is based on the application of the four
 tests of highest and best use.


 • URAR: Improvements - Condition of the Property
 The subject is in good overall condition. No functional obsolescence attributed to age. During the inspection the following
 items of deferred maintenance were noted: chipping paint on the brick foundation, chipping paint and exposed wood on
 the siding and trim boards on the exterior. These are minimal and have limited impact on marketability or value. No other
 major items of deferred maintenance noted at time of inspection. Per the owner questionnaire the following updates have
 been done. The entire home was renovated in 2014.




 Form TADD - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 21
 Commentary Addendum File No. 1046506
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group
 • URAR: Sales Comparison Analysis - Summary of Sales Comparison Approach
 The subject is a 2014 square-foot, three bedroom, 2 and one half bathroom home located in the Oakdale section of the
 town of Portland. The immediate area is adjacent to I-295 and traffic noise can be observed from the exterior of the
 dwelling. The property has been renovated and features higher quality finishing items and original architectural features.
 Size and quality are the primary drivers of value for the subject property and have been prioritized in the comparable
 search. The appraiser attempted to locate a comparable sale that is within similar proximity to the interstate but was
 unable to do so. This is due to limited sales data and was unavoidable.

 18 Woodmont St. is located within 0.16 miles of the subject property and located within the subject’s immediate area.
 This home brackets the subject’s GLA on the lower side and is comparable in age, quality, condition, marketability, and
 appeal. This home would attract a similar buyer as the subject and is an excellent indicator of market value. The property
 is not located next to the interstate and a 1% location adjustment has been applied to account for this difference.


 134 Oakdale St. is located within 0.51 miles of the subject and closed within the last four months. The home is not
 located next to the interstate and a 1% location adjustment is been applied. The home is comparable in age, condition,
 marketability, and appeal. The interior has comparable original architectural features, but the kitchen is dated and has not
 been renovated in a similar fashion as the subject. A quality adjustment is warranted.

 94 Noyes St is located within 0.43 miles of the subject property and comparable in GLA, age, quality, and condition. This
 home is an excellent substitute for the subject property and would attract a similar buyer. The home is not located next to
 the interstate and a 1% location adjustment has been applied.

 87 Edwards St is a very recent sale that closed within the last 45 days. The home has had some updates but is lower in
 quality with regards to finishing items, architectural features and overall building plans. A quality adjustment is warranted.
 The home is not located next to the interstate and a 1% location adjustment has been applied. The third floor of the home
 is completely finished but lacked any type of permanent heat source. A functional utility adjustment has been applied.

 12 Hollis Rd bathroom count and GLA on the higher side. The home is comparable in overall quality rating; however, the
 kitchen is upgraded with higher quality cabinetry and overall finishing items. A quality adjustment is warranted when
 compared to the subject. This home is adjacent to some commercial buildings and overall locational appeal would be
 comparable.

 Due to low turnover of comparable homes the appraiser was forced to extend the market search to greater than six
 months. This is common when appraising homes with limited sales data in this portion of the state. If no adjustment is
 made on the grid then that is an indication that there is not sufficient market data available to support an adjustment for
 this difference. Due to low turnover of comparable homes the appraiser was unable to bracket garage count. This was
 unavoidable and is common in appraising homes with limited sales data.

 Comparables Summary & Estimated Indicated Value
 Sale Price Grs Adj % Ind Value Weight
 Comp #1: 530,000.000 27.558 625,124.000 19.105
 Comp #2: 562,500.000 20.008 643,207.000 20.720
 Comp #3: 550,000.000 20.090 628,206.000 20.703
 Comp #4: 555,000.000 26.214 638,954.000 19.393
 Comp #5: 639,000.000 23.001 634,426.000 20.080

 ESTIMATED INDICATED VALUE OF THE SUBJECT: $635,000

 Estimated indicated value is determined by using the Gross Adjustment of sale price for each comparable as a measure
 of the relative quality of the comp. A lower adjustment indicates a better comp, and vice versa. The ratio of gross dollar
 adjustment to sale price for each of the comps is used to calculate the weight each comp should have in a weighted
 average calculation. This weighted average is used as the indicated value of the subject.

 As with any method, this technique is not perfect. However, it does do a very good job of giving more weight to the most
 similar comps while at the same time minimizing values near the extremes of the indicated value range. opinion of market
 value is significantly lower than contract price. This is most likely attributed to limited supply and the willingness of the
 buyer to pay over market in order to obtain a home. It should be noted that this is explicitly acknowledged in the contract.




 Form TADD - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 22
 Additional Commentary Addendum File No. 1046506
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group
 The following are common when appraising homes with limited sales data in this portion of Maine.

 • SALES COMPARISON ANALYSIS - Comparable #1 Largest Adjustment exceeds 10% of Comp Sale Price.


 • SALES COMPARISON ANALYSIS - Comparable #1 Gross Adjustment exceeds 25% of Comp Sale Price.


 • SALES COMPARISON ANALYSIS - Comparable #1 Net Adjustment exceeds 15% of Comp Sale Price.


 • SALES COMPARISON ANALYSIS - Comparable #3 Largest Adjustment exceeds 10% of Comp Sale Price.


 • SALES COMPARISON ANALYSIS - Comparable #5 Largest Adjustment exceeds 10% of Comp Sale Price.




 Form TADD.Additional Commentary Addendum - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 23
 Additional Commentary File No. 1046506
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group

 The appraiser's comparable search parameters began with an MLS search for properties in the subject neighborhood that
 sold through the MREIS MLS and the following criteria: Sales that closed within the past twelve months, within the stated
 neighborhood boundaries, 20 year age difference above and below the subject's age, and having a 500 square footage
 difference from the subject's overall GLA. The appraiser also searched for homes with similar views and site size. Due to a
 lack of recent sale activity and limited sales data, the comparable search parameters were extended.

 Estimated market value for the subject is greater than the predominate value for the neighborhood. The subject is not
 considered an over improvement , it is simply different than the predominate value.




 Form SUP - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 24
 1046506
 USPAP ADDENDUM File No. 1046506
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender Radius Financial Group

 This report was prepared under the following USPAP reporting option:
 Appraisal Report This report was prepared in accordance with USPAP Standards Rule 2-2(a).
 Restricted Appraisal Report This report was prepared in accordance with USPAP Standards Rule 2-2(b).




 Reasonable Exposure Time
 My opinion of a reasonable exposure time for the subject property at the market value stated in this report is:
 between 4-21 days
 When exposure time is a component of the definition for the value of opinion being developed, the appraiser must also develop an
 opinion of reasonable exposure time linked to that value opinion. The definition of Market Value on the form, provided by Fannie Mae
 includes reference to reasonable exposure time. Standards rule 2-2 (a)(v), 2-2 (b)(v) and 2-2 (c)(v) has added the language requiring that
 the opinion of exposure time, when developed in compliance with Standards Rule 1-2(c), be stated in the report. My opinion of reasonable
 exposure time is the interquartile range or days of market for comparable properties.




 Additional Certifications
 I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 I have NOT performed services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the
 three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment.

 I HAVE performed services, as an appraiser or in another capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year
 period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. Those services are described in the comments below.
 FIRREA Certification Statement - The appraiser certifies and agrees that this appraisal report was prepared in accordance with the
 requirements of Title XI of the Financial Institutions, Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989, as amended (12 U.S.C.
 3331 et seq.), and any applicable implementing regulations in effect at the time the appraiser signs the appraisal certification.




 Additional Comments
 Amended Signed Certification: The appraiser notes that William Harper, a certified real estate appraiser with license CR4167, has
 provided significant assistance in the research and writing of this appraisal report. This work includes: prior listing and contract analysis,
 writing neighborhood description, neighborhood analysis, site analysis, highest and best use analysis, analyzing neighborhood statistics,
 data entry, comparable selection, statistical analysis for market supported adjustments, value conclusions, site value and prior sales
 history analysis.




  APPRAISER: SUPERVISORY APPRAISER: (only if required)


  Signature: Signature:
  Name: Michael Libby Name:
  Date Signed: 04/14/2021 Date Signed:
  State Certification #: State Certification #:
  or State License #: AP4239 or State License #:
  State: ME State:
  Expiration Date of Certification or License: 12/31/2021 Expiration Date of Certification or License:
  Effective Date of Appraisal: 04/06/2021 Supervisory Appraiser Inspection of Subject Property:
 Did Not Exterior-only from Street Interior and Exterior
 Form ID14AP - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 25
 1046506
 Market Conditions Addendum to the Appraisal Report File No. 1046506
 The purpose of this addendum is to provide the lender/client with a clear and accurate understanding of the market trends and conditions prevalent in the subject
 neighborhood. This is a required addendum for all appraisal reports with an effective date on or after April 1, 2009.
 Property Address 61 Granite St City Portland State ME ZIP Code 04102
 Borrower Colleen M Clark
 Instructions: The appraiser must use the information required on this form as the basis for his/her conclusions, and must provide support for those conclusions, regarding
 housing trends and overall market conditions as reported in the Neighborhood section of the appraisal report form. The appraiser must fill in all the information to the extent
 it is available and reliable and must provide analysis as indicated below. If any required data is unavailable or is considered unreliable, the appraiser must provide an
 explanation. It is recognized that not all data sources will be able to provide data for the shaded areas below; if it is available, however, the appraiser must include the data
 in the analysis. If data sources provide the required information as an average instead of the median, the appraiser should report the available figure and identify it as an
 average. Sales and listings must be properties that compete with the subject property, determined by applying the criteria that would be used by a prospective buyer of the
 subject property. The appraiser must explain any anomalies in the data, such as seasonal markets, new construction, foreclosures, etc.
 Inventory Analysis Prior 7–12 Months Prior 4–6 Months Current – 3 Months Overall Trend
 Total # of Comparable Sales (Settled) 7 6 3 Increasing Stable Declining
 Absorption Rate (Total Sales/Months) 1.17 2.00 1.00 Increasing Stable Declining
 Total # of Comparable Active Listings 3 1 3 Declining Stable Increasing
 Months of Housing Supply (Total Listings/Ab.Rate) 2.57 0.50 3.00 Declining Stable Increasing
 Median Sale & List Price, DOM, Sale/List % Prior 7–12 Months Prior 4–6 Months Current – 3 Months Overall Trend
 Median Comparable Sale Price 575,000 555,000 555,000 Increasing Stable Declining
 Median Comparable Sales Days on Market 32 50 50 Declining Stable Increasing
 Median Comparable List Price 580,000 559,900 595,000 Increasing Stable Declining




MARKET RESEARCH & ANALYSIS
 Median Comparable Listings Days on Market 53 48 20 Declining Stable Increasing
 Median Sale Price as % of List Price 103.63% 104.41% 111.22% Increasing Stable Declining
 Seller-(developer, builder, etc.)paid financial assistance prevalent? Yes No Declining Stable Increasing
 Explain in detail the seller concessions trends for the past 12 months (e.g., seller contributions increased from 3% to 5%, increasing use of buydowns, closing costs, condo
 fees, options, etc.). The Maine Real Estate Information System, Inc. MLS indicated 6 of 16 (37.5%) of the closed sales in the market area
 between 04/06/2020 and 04/06/2021 contained seller concessions. Concessions ranged between $700 and $2,000, and the median
 concession was $1,488. For 7-12 months prior, 2 of 7 transactions (28.6%) had concessions. For 4-6 months prior, 3 of 6 transactions
 (50.0%) had concessions. For the 3 months prior to the effective date, 1 of 3 transactions (33.3%) had concessions.

 Are foreclosure sales (REO sales) a factor in the market?
 Yes No If yes, explain (including the trends in listings and sales of foreclosed properties).
 The Maine Real Estate Information System, Inc. MLS reported no foreclosures or short sales between 04/06/2020 and 04/06/2021.




 Cite data sources for above information.
 The Market Conditions Addenda was completed with data from Maine Real Estate Information System,
 Inc. MLS with an effective date of 04/06/2021.

 Summarize the above information as support for your conclusions in the Neighborhood section of the appraisal report form. If you used any additional information, such as
 an analysis of pending sales and/or expired and withdrawn listings, to formulate your conclusions, provide both an explanation and support for your conclusions.
 The data points provided are consistent with the effective date of this appraisal report. It should be understood that the above noted format is
 NOT the most reliable indicator of trends, though they may be consistent with a deeper analysis contained in the appraiser's work file. The
 overall trends noted are the most prudent, supported by the appraiser's analysis of multiple data points.




 If the subject is a unit in a condominium or cooperative project , complete the following: Project Name:
 Subject Project Data Prior 7–12 Months Prior 4–6 Months Current – 3 Months Overall Trend
 Total # of Comparable Sales (Settled) Increasing Stable Declining
 Absorption Rate (Total Sales/Months) Increasing Stable Declining
 Total # of Active Comparable Listings Declining Stable Increasing
 Months of Unit Supply (Total Listings/Ab.Rate) Declining Stable Increasing
 Are foreclosure sales (REO sales) a factor in the project? Yes No If yes, indicate the number of REO listings and explain the trends in listings and sales of




CONDO/CO-OP PROJECTS
 foreclosed properties.




 Summarize the above trends and address the impact on the subject unit and project.




 Signature Signature
 Appraiser Name Michael Libby Supervisory Appraiser Name


APPRAISER
 Company Name The Appraisal Office Company Name
 Company Address PO Box 8303, Portland, ME 04104 Company Address
 State License/Certification # AP4239 State ME State License/Certification # State
 Email Address info@loisjordan.com Email Address
 Freddie Mac Form 71 March 2009 Page 1 of 1 Fannie Mae Form 1004MC March 2009


 Form 1004MC2 - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 26
 Aerial Map
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Form MAP.LOC - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 27
 Neighborhood Map
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Form MAP.LOC - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 28
 Location Map
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Form MAP.LOC - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 29
 Tax Map - Subject Lot
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Form MAP.LOC - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 30
 Subject Photo Page
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Subject Front
 61 Granite St
 Sales Price 702,000
 Gross Living Area 2,014
 Total Rooms 7
 Total Bedrooms 3
 Total Bathrooms 2.1
 Location N;Res;TrffcNse
 View N;Res;
 Site 9583 sf
 Quality Q3
 Age 103




 Subject Rear




 Subject Street




 Form PICPIX.SR - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 31
 Photograph Addendum
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Side Street




 Front and Side Front




 Front Stone Stairs Driveway and Fence



 Form PICSIX2 - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 32
 Photograph Addendum
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Front and Side Side




 Shed Shed Interior




 Side and Rear Patio



 Form PICSIX2 - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 33
 Photograph Addendum
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Patio, Side, and Rear Rear - Second Floor




 Rear Exposed wood and chipping paint on trim




  Exposed wood and chipping paint on siding Exposed wood and chipping paint on siding



 Form PICSIX2 - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 34
 Photograph Addendum
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Side Porch




 Front Front Entrance



 Form PICSIX2 - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 35
 Photograph Addendum
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Brick foundation has chipping paint Mudroom




 Mudroom and Entrance Family Room




 Family Room - Alternate View Half Bath



 Form PICSIX2 - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 36
 Photograph Addendum
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Kitchen and Breakfast Breakfast and Entrance




 Kitchen from Breakfast Kitchen




 Hallway to Foyer Living Room



 Form PICSIX2 - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 37
 Photograph Addendum
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Living Room - Alternate View Living Room - Alternate View




 Living Room Fireplace




 Foyer Stairs to Second Floor



 Form PICSIX2 - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 38
 Photograph Addendum
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Foyer Dining Room




 Dining Room - Alternate View Dining Room - Alternate View




 Dining Room - Alternate View Wood Flooring



 Form PICSIX2 - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 39
 Photograph Addendum
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Utilities/mechanicals were on and appear to Utilities/mechanicals were on and appear to
 be working at the time of inspection be working at the time of inspection




 Scuttle Second Floor Hallway




 Built-in Cabinets Bathroom



 Form PICSIX2 - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 40
 Photograph Addendum
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Bathroom Shower Bedroom 1




 Bedroom 1 - Alternate View Master Bedroom




 Master Bedroom - Alternate View Master Bedroom Fireplace



 Form PICSIX2 - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 41
 Photograph Addendum
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Master Bathroom Master Bathroom - Alternate View




 Master Bathroom - Alternate View Master Bathroom Shower




 Master Closet Master Bedroom - Alternate View



 Form PICSIX2 - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 42
 Photograph Addendum
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 3 - Alternate View




 Second Floor Hallway - Alternate View Basement




 Basement - Utility Spray Insulation



 Form PICSIX2 - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 43
 Photograph Addendum
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Basement Basement - Utility




 Basement - Utility Basement - Utility




 Basement - Utility Street - Alternate Direction



 Form PICSIX2 - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 44
 Comparable Photo Page
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Comparable 1
 18 Woodmont St
 Prox. to Subject  0.16 miles NW
 Sales Price 530,000
 Gross Living Area 1,688
 Total Rooms 6
 Total Bedrooms 3
 Total Bathrooms 2.0
 Location N;Res;
 View N;Res;
 Site 5800 sf
 Quality Q3
 Age 92




 Comparable 2
 134 Oakdale St
 Prox. to Subject 0.51 miles N
 Sales Price 562,500
 Gross Living Area 1,749
 Total Rooms 8
 Total Bedrooms 3
 Total Bathrooms 1.1
 Location N;Res;
 View N;Res;
 Site 6970 sf
 Quality Q3
 Age 91




 Comparable 3
 94 Noyes St
 Prox. to Subject 0.43 miles NW
 Sales Price 550,000
 Gross Living Area 1,966
 Total Rooms 9
 Total Bedrooms 4
 Total Bathrooms 1.1
 Location N;Res;
 View N;Res;
 Site 7173 sf
 Quality Q3
 Age 91




 Form PICPIX.CR - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 45
 Comparable Photo Page
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 Comparable 4
 87 Edwards St
 Prox. to Subject 0.62 miles W
 Sale Price 555,000
 Gross Living Area 1,773
 Total Rooms 7
 Total Bedrooms 3
 Total Bathrooms 1.0
 Location N;Res;
 View N;Res;
 Site 5774 sf
 Quality Q4
 Age 93




 Comparable 5
 12 Hollis Rd
 Prox. to Subject 0.85 miles NW
 Sale Price 639,000
 Gross Living Area 2,525
 Total Rooms 8
 Total Bedrooms 4
 Total Bathrooms 2.1
 Location N;Res;Comm
 View N;Res;
 Site 5227 sf
 Quality Q3
 Age 90




 Comparable 6

 Prox. to Subject
 Sale Price
 Gross Living Area
 Total Rooms
 Total Bedrooms
 Total Bathrooms
 Location
 View
 Site
 Quality
 Age




 Form PICPIX.CR - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 46
 1046506
 File No. 1046506

 UNIFORM APPRAISAL DATASET (UAD) DEFINITIONS ADDENDUM
 (Source: Fannie Mae UAD Appendix D: UAD Field-Specific Standardization Requirements)

Condition Ratings and Definitions

C1
The improvements have been recently constructed and have not been previously occupied. The entire structure and all components are new
and the dwelling features no physical depreciation.

Note: Newly constructed improvements that feature recycled or previously used materials and/or components can be considered new dwellings
provided that the dwelling is placed on a 100 percent new foundation and the recycled materials and the recycled components have been
rehabilitated/remanufactured into like-new condition. Improvements that have not been previously occupied are not considered “new” if they
have any significant physical depreciation (that is, newly constructed dwellings that have been vacant for an extended period of time without
adequate maintenance or upkeep).

C2
The improvements feature no deferred maintenance, little or no physical depreciation, and require no repairs. Virtually all building components
are new or have been recently repaired, refinished, or rehabilitated. All outdated components and finishes have been updated and/or replaced
with components that meet current standards. Dwellings in this category are either almost new or have been recently completely renovated and
are similar in condition to new construction.

Note: The improvements represent a relatively new property that is well maintained with no deferred maintenance and little or no physical
depreciation, or an older property that has been recently completely renovated.

C3
The improvements are well maintained and feature limited physical depreciation due to normal wear and tear. Some components, but not every
major building component, may be updated or recently rehabilitated. The structure has been well maintained.

Note: The improvement is in its first-cycle of replacing short-lived building components (appliances, floor coverings, HVAC, etc.) and is
being well maintained. Its estimated effective age is less than its actual age. It also may reflect a property in which the majority of
short-lived building components have been replaced but not to the level of a complete renovation.

C4
The improvements feature some minor deferred maintenance and physical deterioration due to normal wear and tear. The dwelling has been
adequately maintained and requires only minimal repairs to building components/mechanical systems and cosmetic repairs. All major building
components have been adequately maintained and are functionally adequate.

Note: The estimated effective age may be close to or equal to its actual age. It reflects a property in which some of the short-lived building
components have been replaced, and some short-lived building components are at or near the end of their physical life expectancy; however,
they still function adequately. Most minor repairs have been addressed on an ongoing basis resulting in an adequately maintained property.

C5
The improvements feature obvious deferred maintenance and are in need of some significant repairs. Some building components need repairs,
rehabilitation, or updating. The functional utility and overall livability is somewhat diminished due to condition, but the dwelling remains
useable and functional as a residence.

Note: Some significant repairs are needed to the improvements due to the lack of adequate maintenance. It reflects a property in which many
of its short-lived building components are at the end of or have exceeded their physical life expectancy but remain functional.

C6
The improvements have substantial damage or deferred maintenance with deficiencies or defects that are severe enough to affect the safety,
soundness, or structural integrity of the improvements. The improvements are in need of substantial repairs and rehabilitation, including many
or most major components.

Note: Substantial repairs are needed to the improvements due to the lack of adequate maintenance or property damage. It reflects a property
with conditions severe enough to affect the safety, soundness, or structural integrity of the improvements.




Quality Ratings and Definitions

Q1
Dwellings with this quality rating are usually unique structures that are individually designed by an architect for a specified user. Such
residences typically are constructed from detailed architectural plans and specifications and feature an exceptionally high level of workmanship
and exceptionally high-grade materials throughout the interior and exterior of the structure. The design features exceptionally high-quality
exterior refinements and ornamentation, and exceptionally high-quality interior refinements. The workmanship, materials, and finishes
throughout the dwelling are of exceptionally high quality.

Q2
Dwellings with this quality rating are often custom designed for construction on an individual property owner’s site. However, dwellings in
this quality grade are also found in high-quality tract developments featuring residence constructed from individual plans or from highly
modified or upgraded plans. The design features detailed, high quality exterior ornamentation, high-quality interior refinements, and detail. The
workmanship, materials, and finishes throughout the dwelling are generally of high or very high quality.


 UAD Version 9/2011 (Updated 1/2014)

 Form UADDEFINE1A - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 47
 UNIFORM APPRAISAL DATASET (UAD) DEFINITIONS ADDENDUM
 (Source: Fannie Mae UAD Appendix D: UAD Field-Specific Standardization Requirements)

Quality Ratings and Definitions (continued)

Q3
Dwellings with this quality rating are residences of higher quality built from individual or readily available designer plans in above-standard
residential tract developments or on an individual property owner’s site. The design includes significant exterior ornamentation and interiors
that are well finished. The workmanship exceeds acceptable standards and many materials and finishes throughout the dwelling have been
upgraded from “stock” standards.

Q4
Dwellings with this quality rating meet or exceed the requirements of applicable building codes. Standard or modified standard building plans
are utilized and the design includes adequate fenestration and some exterior ornamentation and interior refinements. Materials, workmanship,
finish, and equipment are of stock or builder grade and may feature some upgrades.

Q5
Dwellings with this quality rating feature economy of construction and basic functionality as main considerations. Such dwellings feature a
plain design using readily available or basic floor plans featuring minimal fenestration and basic finishes with minimal exterior ornamentation
and limited interior detail. These dwellings meet minimum building codes and are constructed with inexpensive, stock materials
with limited refinements and upgrades.

Q6
Dwellings with this quality rating are of basic quality and lower cost; some may not be suitable for year-round occupancy. Such dwellings
are often built with simple plans or without plans, often utilizing the lowest quality building materials. Such dwellings are often built or
expanded by persons who are professionally unskilled or possess only minimal construction skills. Electrical, plumbing, and other mechanical
systems and equipment may be minimal or non-existent. Older dwellings may feature one or more substandard or non-conforming additions
to the original structure




Definitions of Not Updated, Updated, and Remodeled

Not Updated
 Little or no updating or modernization. This description includes, but is not limited to, new homes.
 Residential properties of fifteen years of age or less often reflect an original condition with no updating, if no major
 components have been replaced or updated. Those over fifteen years of age are also considered not updated if the
 appliances, fixtures, and finishes are predominantly dated. An area that is ‘Not Updated’ may still be well maintained
 and fully functional, and this rating does not necessarily imply deferred maintenance or physical/functional deterioration.

Updated
 The area of the home has been modified to meet current market expectations. These modifications
 are limited in terms of both scope and cost.
 An updated area of the home should have an improved look and feel, or functional utility. Changes that constitute
 updates include refurbishment and/or replacing components to meet existing market expectations. Updates do not
 include significant alterations to the existing structure.

Remodeled
 Significant finish and/or structural changes have been made that increase utility and appeal through
 complete replacement and/or expansion.
 A remodeled area reflects fundamental changes that include multiple alterations. These alterations may include
 some or all of the following: replacement of a major component (cabinet(s), bathtub, or bathroom tile), relocation
 of plumbing/gas fixtures/appliances, significant structural alterations (relocating walls, and/or the addition of)
 square footage). This would include a complete gutting and rebuild.




Explanation of Bathroom Count

 Three-quarter baths are counted as a full bath in all cases. Quarter baths (baths that feature only a toilet) are not
 included in the bathroom count. The number of full and half baths is reported by separating the two values using a
 period, where the full bath count is represented to the left of the period and the half bath count is represented to the
 right of the period.


 Example:
 3.2 indicates three full baths and two half baths.




 UAD Version 9/2011 (Updated 1/2014)

 Form UADDEFINE1A - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 48
 UNIFORM APPRAISAL DATASET (UAD) DEFINITIONS ADDENDUM
 (Source: Fannie Mae UAD Appendix D: UAD Field-Specific Standardization Requirements)

Abbreviations Used in Data Standardization Text

 Abbreviation Full Name Fields Where This Abbreviation May Appear
 A Adverse Location & View
 ac Acres Area, Site
 AdjPrk Adjacent to Park Location
 AdjPwr Adjacent to Power Lines Location
 ArmLth Arms Length Sale Sale or Financing Concessions
 AT Attached Structure Design (Style)
 B Beneficial Location & View
 ba Bathroom(s) Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade
 br Bedroom Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade
 BsyRd Busy Road Location
 c Contracted Date Date of Sale/Time
 Cash Cash Sale or Financing Concessions
 Comm Commercial Influence Location
 Conv Conventional Sale or Financing Concessions
 cp Carport Garage/Carport
 CrtOrd Court Ordered Sale Sale or Financing Concessions
 CtySky City View Skyline View View
 CtyStr City Street View View
 cv Covered Garage/Carport
 DOM Days On Market Data Sources
 DT Detached Structure Design (Style)
 dw Driveway Garage/Carport
 e Expiration Date Date of Sale/Time
 Estate Estate Sale Sale or Financing Concessions
 FHA Federal Housing Authority Sale or Financing Concessions
 g Garage Garage/Carport
 ga Attached Garage Garage/Carport
 gbi Built-in Garage Garage/Carport
 gd Detached Garage Garage/Carport
 GlfCse Golf Course Location
 Glfvw Golf Course View View
 GR Garden Design (Style)
 HR High Rise Design (Style)
 in Interior Only Stairs Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade
 Ind Industrial Location & View
 Listing Listing Sale or Financing Concessions
 Lndfl Landfill Location
 LtdSght Limited Sight View
 MR Mid-rise Design (Style)
 Mtn Mountain View View
 N Neutral Location & View
 NonArm Non-Arms Length Sale Sale or Financing Concessions
 o Other Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade
 O Other Design (Style)
 op Open Garage/Carport
 Prk Park View View
 Pstrl Pastoral View View
 PwrLn Power Lines View
 PubTrn Public Transportation Location
 Relo Relocation Sale Sale or Financing Concessions
 REO REO Sale Sale or Financing Concessions
 Res Residential Location & View
 RH USDA - Rural Housing Sale or Financing Concessions
 rr Recreational (Rec) Room Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade
 RT Row or Townhouse Design (Style)
 s Settlement Date Date of Sale/Time
 SD Semi-detached Structure Design (Style)
 Short Short Sale Sale or Financing Concessions
 sf Square Feet Area, Site, Basement
 sqm Square Meters Area, Site
 Unk Unknown Date of Sale/Time
 VA Veterans Administration Sale or Financing Concessions
 w Withdrawn Date Date of Sale/Time
 wo Walk Out Basement Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade
 Woods Woods View View
 Wtr Water View View
 WtrFr Water Frontage Location
 wu Walk Up Basement Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade




 UAD Version 9/2011 (Updated 1/2014)

 Form UADDEFINE1A - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 49
 GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS File No. 1046506
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group

 This appraisal report has been made with the following General Limiting Conditions:

 1.The distribution, if any, of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the stated
 program of utilization. The separate allocations for land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other
 appraisal and are invalid if so used.

 2.Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. Copyright Pending - All Rights
 Reserved.

 3.The appraiser, by reason of this appraisal, is not required to give further consultation, testimony or be in attendance in
 court hearing or the like with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been previously made.

 4.Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser
 or the firm with which the appraiser is connected) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations,
 news, sales or other media without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser.

 5.Any value estimates provided in the report apply to the entire property with any proration or divisions of the total into
 fractional interests invalid unless such proration or division of interest is as set forth in the report.

 6.Forecasts, projections or operating estimates contained herein are based upon the appraiser’s perception of current
 market conditions and anticipated short term supply and demand factors with these forecasts, therefore, subject to
 changes in future conditions.

 7.Please note that this appraisal report is intended for use in its entirety. Individual pages or sections of the report should
 not be used separately from the rest of the report.

 8.By the receipt and implied acceptance of this report, the addressee recognizes the obligation for timely remittance of
 associated professional fees in full. Furthermore, any claims against the appraiser, for whatever reason, are limited to the
 amount of said fees. The responsibility of the appraiser is limited to the client and does not extend to any third party.

 9.The lease data contained in this report is supplied as supporting documentation for the determination of comparable
 market rental rates for the subject property(s). This information is intended to be held confidential and is not to be
 disseminated by any means without the written consent of the appraiser.

 10.On any appraisal subject to satisfactory completion, repairs or alterations, the appraisal report and value conclusion are
 contingent upon completion of the improvements in a professional workmanlike manner commensurate with use.




 Form SUP - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 50
 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS File No. 1046506
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group

 This appraisal report has been made with the following General Assumptions:

 1. No responsibility is assumed for the legal description or for matters including legal or title considerations. Title to the
 property assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise noted.

 2. The property is appraised as if free and clear of any or all liens or encumbrances, if any, unless otherwise noted.

 3. Responsible ownership and competent property management is assumed.

 4. The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable; however, no warranty is given to its accuracy.

 5. All engineering data is assumed to be correct. Plot plans and illustrative material in this report are not necessarily to
 scale and included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property.

 6. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil or structures that render it more
 or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be
 required to determine.

 7. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all-applicable federal, state and local environmental regulations and laws
 unless noncompliance is cited, defined, and/or reflected in the appraisal report.

 8. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions are being complied with unless a
 nonconformity is noted, defined, and reflected in the appraisal report.

 9. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents or other legislative or administrative authority
 from any local, state, or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for
 any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based.

 10. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines of the property
 described and that there are no encroachment or trespass other than as may noted in this report.

 11. It is assumed that the value of the property is not affected by the existence of endangered or threatened wildlife,
 migratory or non-migratory, or plant life.

 12. Unless, otherwise stated, it is assumed that the value of the property is not affected by conditions that may lead to its
 designation, in part or in whole, by any land use regulatory authority, as a "wetland".

 13. The property is valued as though free of the effects of hazardous substances, if any. Unless otherwise stated, the
 appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of any such materials or influence other than as suggested or stated by
 others that would affect its value. The appraiser makes no representation of being qualified to detect such substances and
 no responsibility is assumed for any such conditions or for any expertise necessary to discover them. If information in
 these areas is desired, the reader should contact specialists for their services.

 14. The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") became effective January 26, 1992. The appraiser has not made a
 specific compliance survey and analysis of this property to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the various
 detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey of the property, together with a detailed analysis
 of the requirements of the ADA, could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of
 the Act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since the appraisers have no direct
 evidence relating to this issue, possible noncompliance with the requirements of ADA in estimating the value of the
 property has not been considered.




 Form SUP - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 51
 (AIR) Appraiser Independence Statements File No. 1046506
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group

 No employee, director, officer, or agent of the Seller, or any other third party acting as joint venture partner, independent
 contractor, appraisal company, appraisal management company, or partner on behalf of the Seller, has influenced or
 attempted to influence the development, reporting, result, or review of an appraisal through coercion, extortion, collusion,
 compensation, inducement, intimidation, bribery, or in any other manner including but not limited to:

 (1) Withholding or threatening to withhold timely payment or partial payment for an appraisal report;

 (2) Withholding or threatening to withhold future business for an appraiser, or demoting or terminating or threatening to
 demote or terminate an appraiser;

 (3) Expressly or impliedly promising future business, promotions, or increased compensation for an appraiser;

 (4) Conditioning the ordering of an appraisal report or the payment of an appraisal fee or salary or bonus on the opinion,
 conclusion, or valuation to be reached, or on a preliminary value estimate requested from an appraiser;

 (5) Requesting that an appraiser provide an estimated, predetermined, or desired valuation in an appraisal report prior to
 the completion of the appraisal report, or requesting that an appraiser provide estimated values or comparable sales at any
 time prior to the appraiser’s completion of an appraisal report;

 (6) Providing to an appraiser an anticipated, estimated, encouraged, or desired value for a subject property or a proposed
 or target amount to be loaned to the Borrower, except that a copy of the sales contract for purchase transactions may be
 provided;

 (7) Providing to an appraiser, appraisal company, appraisal management company, or any entity or person related to the
 appraiser, appraisal company, or appraisal management company, stock or other financial or non-financial benefits;

 (8) Removing an appraiser from a list of qualified appraisers, or adding an appraiser to an exclusionary list of disapproved
 appraisers, in connection with the influencing or attempting to influence an appraisal as described in Paragraph B above
 (this prohibition does not preclude the management of appraiser lists for bona fide administrative or quality-control reasons
 based on written policy); and

 (9) Any other act or practice that impairs or attempts to impair an appraiser’s independence, objectivity, or impartiality or
 violates law or regulation, including, but not limited to, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation




 Form SUP - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 52
 License




Form SCNLGL - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 53
 E&O




Form SCNLGL - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 54
 Tax Card - Page 1




Form SCNLGL - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 55
 Tax Card - Page 2




Form SCNLGL - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 56
 Building Sketch (Page - 1)
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 22.3'




 18.1'
 Uncovered Patio

 10'
 5' 2' 20' 32.5'




 Uncovered Patio Covered Porch
 6.8'



 Mudroom
 16' 12'
 Family 14.4'
 33.6'
 Second Floor
 11.2' 3.6'

 Bath (half)
 5' Bath




 Uncovered Porch
 15.5'
 10' Bedroom
 Master Bath



 Bre ak fast
 11.8'
 Kitchen

 15.5' 27.2'
 First Floor


 Be droom
 29.6' Master Bedroom
 5.3'
 6.3'
 Dining Living
 2.6' 11
 .7
 13.3' '
 Foyer
 3.
 7'
 2.6'Covered Porch
 11
 .7'
 9.5'
 3.5'
 13.3' 9.5'
 Uncovered Deck




 29.6'




 11.8'

 Basement

 27.2'




 6.3'

 2.6'
 13.3'




 TOTAL Sketch by a la mode, inc.




 Form SKT.BLDSKI - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 57
 Building Sketch (Page - 2)
Borrower Colleen M Clark
Property Address 61 Granite St
City Portland County Cumberland State ME Zip Code 04102
Lender/Client Radius Financial Group




 TOTAL Sketch by a la mode, inc. Area Calculations Summary
Living Area Calculation Details
First Floor 17.6 Sq ft 0.5 × 5.2 × 2.6 = 6.9
 0.5 × (5 + 5.2) × 3.9 = 19.8
 0.5 × 5 × 2.4 = 6
 Arc = 15.2

First Floor 17.6 Sq ft 0.5 × 5.2 × 2.6 = 6.9
 0.5 × (5 + 5.2) × 3.9 = 19.8
 0.5 × 5 × 2.4 = 6
 Negative Arc = 15.2

First Floor 1110.2 Sq ft 41.6 × 13.3 = 554.4
 38.9 × 6.4 = 247.8
 0.5 × 0.1 × 6.4 = 0.4
 38.5 × 0.3 = 11.2
 0.5 × 0.4 × 0.3 = 0.1
 9.6 × 11.6 = 111.4
 0.5 × 0.1 × 11.6 = 0.7
 0.5 × 9.7 × 12.5 = 60.5
 Arc = 123.7

Second Floor 868.8 Sq ft 33.6 × 15.5 = 520.5
 11.7 × 13.3 = 155.6
 9.1 × 6.2 = 56.8
 0.5 × 9.1 × 13 = 58.8
 Arc = 77.1

Total Living Area (Rounded): 2014 Sq ft
Non-living Area
Basement 809.2 Sq ft 27.2 × 13.3 = 362.2
 16.2 × 11.8 = 190.9
 12.8 × 6.2 = 80.2
 0.5 × 12.8 × 10 = 64.2
 Negative Arc = 111.6

Covered Porch 21.7 Sq ft 9.5 × 0.7 = 6.8
 1.9 × 6.4 = 11.9
 0.5 × 6.4 × 0.1 = 0.4
 0.5 × 2 × 3.1 = 3.1
 Negative Arc = 0.5

Uncovered Patio 560.2 Sq ft 0.5 × 11.2 × 0 = 0.3
 11.2 × 14.4 = 161.1
 18 × 18.1 = 326.3
 0.5 × 18 × 0 = 0.4
 Arc = 72.1

Uncovered Patio 160 Sq ft 10 × 16 = 160

Uncovered Porch 47.5 Sq ft 11.8 × 3.6 = 42.6
 0.5 × 3.7 × 3.6 = 6.7
 0.5 × 3.6 × 0 = 0.1
 Negative Arc = 1.9

Uncovered Deck 33.3 Sq ft 3.5 × 9.5 = 33.2

Covered Porch 60 Sq ft 12 × 5 = 60




 Form SKT.BLDSKI - "TOTAL" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. - 1-800-ALAMODE

 Page 58
 *000001*
 Liberty Mutual
 PO Box 9 5 8 4 1 6
 Lake M ary, FL 3 2 7 9 5-9 9 5 9




 Colleen Clark
 6 1 Granite St
 Portland ME 0 4 1 0 2-2 8 4 4

 CONTACT US
 Questions About
 Your Policy
 By Phone
 Thank you for being a Liberty Mutual For service:
 1-8 0 0-2 2 5-8 2 8 5
 Home Customer since 2021! Mon - Fri 8 A M-1 0PM ES T
 Sat 8 A M-8PM ES T
 This package contains your homeo w ners rene w al. Please look over this Sun 1 1 A M-5PM ES T
 information and keep it w ith your important documents. A lso, you are
 receiving special group savings through your affiliation w ith the U M ass Visit Us Online
 A mherst A lumni A ssociation. Liberty Mutual.com
 To Report a Claim
 Remember, you can do w nload our mobile app or visit By Phone
 Liberty Mutual.com/register 2 4 hours a day to get information and manage 1-8 0 0-2 CL AIM S
 your Liberty Mutual account. (1-8 0 0-2 2 5-2 4 6 7)
 Online
 Please also feel free to ask us to revie w your insurance rate before your




40000008H3V21207358530000000
 Liberty Mutual.com/Claims
 policy rene w s on 0 6/0 8/2 0 2 5 . W e have included an “Information about
 Policy Rate Determination” notice in this package w hich w ill provide you Sign Up for eService
 additional details. A s al w ays, thank you for continuing to trust Liberty Mutual - Pay your bill
 w ith your insurance needs. - Go paperless
 - Vie w your policy
 - File or vie w a claim
 If you have any questions about your coverage, available discounts or
 M anage your policy 2 4/7 at
 product offerings, please call us at 1-8 0 0-2 2 5-8 2 8 5 .
 Liberty Mutual.com/
 register
 Sincerely,
 Your Liberty Mutual Service T eam




 CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE
 FOR A GUIDE TO YOUR
 HOME RENEW AL PACKET




 Learn more about our privacy policy at Libertymutual.com/privacy
 Important Billing Information Enclosed
 Page 59
 A GUIDE TO YOUR HOME RENEW AL PACKET

PAGE SECTION

 1 Policy Declarations
 Named Insured:
 Includes important information about your policy, including insurance
 1 . Colleen Clark
 information as w ell as your discounts and benefits.
 2 Coverage Information Policy Number:
 Includes important coverage information. Please revie w this section in H 3 V-2 1 2-0 7 3 5 8 5-3 0 5 9
 detail to ensure you are fully covered. Contact us w ith any questions. Policy Period:
5-11 Important Notices & Policy Forms 0 6/0 8/2 0 2 5 to 0 6/0 8/2 0 2 6
 This section includes any notices and policy forms that may change your Mailing Address:
 coverages. 6 1 Granite St
 Portland ME 0 4 1 0 2-2 8 4 4
 Affinity:
 U M ass A mherst A lumni
 A ssociation

 Important Billing Information Enclosed
 Page 60
 Questions about your Policy? Policy Number: Report a Claim:
 C all 1-8 0 0-2 2 5-8 2 8 5 H 3 V-2 1 2-0 7 3 5 8 5-3 0 5 9 1-8 0 0-2 CL AIM S or
 Liberty Mutual.com/Claims

 ACTION REQUIRED:
 PLE A SE RE VIE W A N D KEEP F OR Y O UR REC ORDS.



 Policy Declarations
 Total 1 2 Month Premium: $ 2 , 2 9 8 . 0 0
 Liberty Guard® Deluxe Homeo w ners Policy Declarations provided
 and under w ritten by Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company
 (a stock insurance company) , Boston, M A .
 Your discounts and benefits have been applied. Includes state sales tax and local surcharge w here applicable.
 Through your affiliation w ith the U M ass A mherst A lumni A ssociation your policy includes special group savings
 on your home insurance.

 Insurance Information
 Named Insured: Colleen Clark Policy Number: H 3 V-2 1 2-0 7 3 5 8 5-3 0 5 9
 M ailing A ddress: 6 1 Granite St Policy Period:
 Portland ME 0 4 1 0 2-2 8 4 4 Coverage begins at the later of:
 (1) 1 2 : 0 1 A M on 0 6/0 8/2 0 2 5 at the insured location; or
 (2) The time that the application for insurance is
 submitted and the policy is bound. No coverage is
 provided prior to the policy being bound.
 Coverage w ill expire at 1 2 : 0 1 A M on 0 6/0 8/2 0 2 6 at the
 insured location.

 Insured Location: Same as M ailing address above Declarations Effective: 0 6/0 8/2 0 2 5




 DISCOUNTS AND BENEFITS SECTION



 Your discounts and benefits have been applied to your total policy premium.
 • Inflation Protection Discount • Ne w or Renovated Home Discount

 • Claims Free Discount • Early Shopper Discount

 • Recent Home Buyer Discount • Ne w Roof Discount

 • Multi Policy Discount - A uto • Multi Policy Discount - Personal Liability

 • Electronic Funds Transfer Discount • Paperless Policy Discount

 • Basic Home Safety

 • Smart Home

 • Theft Protection
 • Fire Protection




FMHO 3047 10 24 Important Billing Information Enclosed Page 1 of 4

 Page 61
 Want to Add a Coverage? Policy Number: Report a Claim:
 C all 1-8 0 0-2 2 5-8 2 8 5 to talk to H 3 V-2 1 2-0 7 3 5 8 5-3 0 5 9 1-8 0 0-2 CL AIM S or
 your agent about the availability Liberty Mutual.com/Claims
 of this coverage and w hether it
 meets your needs.


 Coverage Information
 Standard Policy with HomeProtector Plus ™

 SECTION I COVERAGES LIMIT S PREMIU M
 A . D w elling w ith Expanded Replacement Cost $ 838,200
 B. O ther Structures on Insured Location $ 83,820
 C . Personal Property w ith Replacement Cost $ 628,650
 D. Loss of Use of Insured Location A ctual Loss Sustained


 SECTION II COVERAGES LIMIT S PREMIU M
 E. Personal Liability (each occurrence) $ 1,000,000
 F. M edical Payments to O thers (each person) $ 5,000


 POLICY DEDUCTIBLES
 Losses covered under Section I are subject to a deductible of : $ 1 , 0 0 0


 Total Standard Policy with HomeProtector Plus ™ $ 2,202


 ADDITIONAL COVERAGES DED U C TIBLE LIMIT S PREMIU M
 Credit C ard, Fund Transfer, Forgery $ 1,000 $ 0
 Ordinance Or La w 1 0 % IN CL
 Coverage E & F increased limit $ 11
 Total Additional Coverages $ 11


 SCHEDULED PERSONAL PROPERTY LIMIT S PREMIU M
 Personal Property
 Je w elry $ 10,000 $ 85
 Total Scheduled Personal Property $ 85



 Total 12 Month Policy Premium: $ 2 , 2 9 8 . 0 0




FMHO 3047 10 24 Important Billing Information Enclosed Page 2 of 4

 Page 62
 Want to Add a Coverage? Policy Number: Report a Claim:
 C all 1-8 0 0-2 2 5-8 2 8 5 to talk to H 3 V-2 1 2-0 7 3 5 8 5-3 0 5 9 1-8 0 0-2 CL AIM S or
 your agent about the availability Liberty Mutual.com/Claims
 of this coverage and w hether it
 meets your needs.


 Additional Coverages and Products Available*

 We've reviewed your policy and have identified additional optional coverages and products that can add valuable
 protection. Talk to your agent about purchasing the following coverages and products and whether they meet
 your needs.
 Home Computer and Smartphone: If your smartphone or other devices are not insured, repairing or replacing
 them can be expensive. Did you kno w you can insure multiple devices for up to $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 w ith a deductible of
 $ 5 0 . 0 0?
 Identity Fraud Expense : A stolen identity can be scary and expensive. W e’ll provide counseling, and pay up
 to $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 for expenses such as lost w ages and attorney fees incurred to recover your identity.
 Water Backup and Sump Pump Overflow : W ater damage can ruin your possessions. If your sump pump fails,
 or you suffer w ater damage from a se w er or drain backup, w e’ll pay for covered home and personal property
 losses.
 * These optional coverages are subject to policy provisions, limitations, and exclusions. Daily limits or a
 deductible may apply. For a complete explanation, please consult your agent today.


 Mortgage Information
 Mortgagee 1 :
 V A LO N M ORT G A GE, IN C .
 IS A O A
 LO A N N O . 3 9 7 1 5 6 6 0 9 5
 PO Box 2 9 4 1 5
 Phoenix, A Z 8 5 0 3 8

 Policy Forms and Endorsements: The follo w ing forms and endorsements are applicable to your policy
 Liberty Guard® Deluxe Homeo w ner Policy Home Protector Plus (F M H O-1 1 8 3 )
 (H O 0 0 0 3 0 4 9 1 )
 Credit C ard, Fund Transfer, Forgery A mendmt Pol Definitions (F M H O-2 9 3 4 7/0 4 )
 (H O 0 4 5 3 0 4 9 1 )
 A mendatory Mold End (F M H O 3 4 5 1 0 1 1 3 ) Seepage Exclusion Endorsement (F M H O 3 3 9 1 1 1 1 2 )
 Special Provisions - M aine (F M H O 6 1 0 0 ME 1 1 1 5 ) No SecII/Limit I-Daycare (H O 0 4 9 6 0 4 9 1 )
 Inflation Protection (F M H O-2 8 3 5 1 1 0 3 ) Protective Devices (F M H O 4 1 7 2 1 0 1 4 )
 Lead Poisoning Exclusion (H O 2 3 6 1 0 4 9 4 ) W aiver of Ded - Theft (F M H O 1 0 8 7 1 0 1 4 )
 Scheduled Personal Property Endorsement Ordinance Or La w (H O 0 5 6 2 1 1 9 6 )
 (H O 0 4 6 1 0 4 9 1 )
 LM H C M embership (2 3 4 0)


 Important Messages

 Flood Insurance: Your Homeo w ners policy does not provide coverage for damage caused by flood, even if the
 flood is caused by a storm surge. Liberty Mutual can help you obtain this coverage through the Federal
 Emergency M anagement A gency (FEM A) if your community participates in the National Flood Insurance
 Program. Please call your representative for more information.




FMHO 3047 10 24 Important Billing Information Enclosed Page 3 of 4

 Page 63
 Questions about your Policy? Policy Number: Report a Claim:
 C all 1-8 0 0-2 2 5-8 2 8 5 H 3 V-2 1 2-0 7 3 5 8 5-3 0 5 9 1-8 0 0-2 CL AIM S or
 Liberty Mutual.com/Claims




 Hamid Mirza Damon Hart
 President Secretary


 This policy, including endorsements listed above,
 is countersigned by:
 Michele Chevalier
 A uthorized Representative




FMHO 3047 10 24 Important Billing Information Enclosed Page 4 of 4

 Page 64
 T HIS EN D ORSEMEN T C H A N GES T HE POLIC Y. PLE A SE RE A D IT C A REFULLY.
 HOMEO WNERS
 LEAD POISONING EXCLUSION HO 23 61 04 94

 Under Section II - Exclusions, item 2. Coverage E - Personal Liability, exclusion g. is added
 (exclusion j. in HO 24 73):
 g. " Bodily injury " to a person, caused by an " occurrence " of lead poisoning, starting:
 (1) 3 1 days or more after either the State of M aine Department of Human Services or a lead
 inspector licensed by that department has given notice of the existence of an environmental
 lead hazard to either an " insured " or any person authorized to enter into a residential rental
 agreement on behalf of an " insured " and ordered that the lead-based substances at the " insured
 location " be removed, replaced or securely and permanently covered w ithin 3 0 days of receipt
 of the notice; or
 (2) Upon expiration of an extension of that order granted either by the Department of Human
 Services or a lead inspector licensed by that department.
 This exclusion does not apply to " bodily injury " that starts after the Department of Human Services
 states that the environmental lead hazard described in the notice no longer exists.

HO 23 61 04 94 Copyright, Insurance Services O ffices, Inc., 1 9 9 3 Page 1 of 1




 Page 65
Page 66
DATE: January 8, 2026

TO: City of Portland Board of Assessment Review

FROM: Colleen Clark, Trustee and Meredith Lubking, Trustee

RE: FY26 Abatement Appeal – January 13, 2026
 Property: 61 Granite Street
 Parcel ID: 066A A021001

 Appellant’s Response And Supporting Documents

The Appellant’s position is grounded in the same constitutional standard cited by the City: that all
property must be assessed equally according to its just value, meaning fair market value as of the
assessment date. The Appellant does not dispute this mandate, but contends that it was not correctly
applied to the Property located at 61 Granite Street for the assessment year under appeal.

This memorandum, together with the attached exhibits, is submitted for the Board of Assessment
Review’s consideration of the abatement appeal filed by trustee Colleen Clark (“Appellant”) regarding
the Property, which is owned by the Colleen Clark and Meredith Lubking Living Trust. The hearing in
this matter is scheduled for January 13, 2026.

For the reasons set forth herein and in the accompanying exhibits, the Appellant respectfully requests
that the Board of Assessment Review:

A. Conclude that the assessed value of the Property exceeds its fair market/just value as of the
assessment date;
B. Find that the Appellant has met the burden of proving that the assessment is substantially
overvalued and therefore manifestly wrong; and
C. Grant the requested abatement consistent with the evidence presented.

This submission is organized into the following sections:

1. Appellant’s Response to “Assessor Response BOAR 066A A021001Appeal.docx” dated
 January 7, 2026
2. Appellant’s Response to Assessor’s Analysis
3. List of Exhibits




 Page 67
 List of Exhibits

Appellant Exhibits

 Appellant Exhibit AA
 Email Correspondence Dated October 22, 2025
 Appellant Exhibit A
 Assessor Response BOAR 066A A021001Appeal.docx Dated January 7, 2026
 Appellant Exhibit B
 Email Correspondence Dated December 12 - 23, 2025
 Appellant Exhibit C1/C2
 Screenshots from Google Nest Camera Dated January 7, 2026
 Appellant Exhibit D
 Relevant Comparable Information Not Included in “Recent sales of similar properties [EXHIBIT 15]”
 Appellant Exhibit E
 Map of Assessor Comparables from Recent sales of similar properties [EXHIBIT 15]
 Appellant Exhibit F
 Comparable Sales and Adjustment Summary




 Page 68
 Appellant’s Response to “Assessor Response BOAR 066A A021001Appeal.docx”
 Dated January 7, 2026

FY26 Assessed Value: $923,900
Appellant’s Opinion of Fair Market Value: $767,500
Difference: $156,400 (~17%)

The Appellant respectfully submits that the assessed value materially exceeds fair market value and is
not applied at a relatively uniform rate when compared to the recent sale comparables used by the
Assessor in the decision dated January 7, 2026. The evidence demonstrates that the assessment is
manifestly wrong due to substantial overvaluation and lack of uniformity.

Assessment-to-Sale Price Ratio: 132%

Assessment-to-Supported FMV Ratio: approximately 120%




* Assessment-to-FMV Ratio for the subject uses the Appellant’s reconciled fair market value of
$767,500.

Final Reconciliation of Value

Comparable properties in equal or superior locations are assessed at approximately 71% to 89% of
sale price. 61 Granite Street is assessed at 132% of its actual sale price and approximately 120%
of its supported fair market value, despite inferior characteristics. This places the subject property
well outside the assessment ratio range applied to superior properties, demonstrating substantial
overvaluation and lack of uniformity.




 Page 69
When the subject Property is valued consistently with the assessment ratios applied to these superior
comparables and adjusted for differences in size, amenities, and location, the resulting fair market
value indication falls well below the current assessment. Based on this analysis, a fair market value of
approximately $767,500 represents a reasonable and equitable reconciliation as of April 1, 2025. The
existing assessment of $923,900 therefore constitutes a substantial overvaluation and lacks
uniformity, supporting a finding that the assessment is manifestly wrong and should be reduced
accordingly.

The evidence demonstrates both substantial overvaluation and lack of relative uniformity, satisfying the
standard for a finding that the assessment is manifestly wrong under Maine law.

Requested Relief

The Appellant respectfully requests that the Board determine the assessment of 61 Granite Street to be
manifestly wrong and grant an abatement reflecting a fair market value of $767,500 as of April 1,
2025.




 Page 70
 Appellant’s Response to Assessor’s Analysis

1. We respectfully disagree with the characterization of our response to the City Assessor’s
December 12, 2025 706-A request.

The City’s characterization of the October 10, 2025 request is inaccurate. The October 10 letter stated
that the Appellant “can include appraisals and documented evidence” (See Assessor’s City
Assessor’s informal request for additional information [EXHIBIT 6]; it did not require that an
appraisal be submitted. While an appraisal was inadvertently not included with the Appellant’s response
on October 22, 2025, this omission was not intentional, and the City acknowledged receipt of the
information. (See Appellant Exhibit AA). The absence of an appraisal does not preclude consideration
of the Appellant’s valuation evidence and does not affect the Appellant’s ability to present full evidence
at this stage of the appeal.

The Appellant did provide additional information in response to the request, including seven
comparable sales (See Assessor’s Appellant email response to request for information [EXHIBIT
7]), offered to illustrate market context and assessment inconsistency. While the City asserts that only
16 Wolcott Street predates the April 1, 2025 assessment date, Maine law does not require a
professional appraisal to meet the taxpayer’s burden. That burden may be satisfied through credible
market evidence, including comparable sales and property-specific analysis. In fact, The Court held that
the taxpayer must present credible evidence of just value, but it does not require a professional
appraisal. The Court recognized that market evidence may satisfy the burden. (See City of Waterville v.
Waterville Homes, Inc., 655 A.2d 365 (Me. 1995). Further, 36 M.R.S. § 843 (abatement statute)
imposes the burden of proof on the taxpayer but does not specify the form of evidence required.

It is incorrect to state that the Appellant failed to provide additional information or failed to comply with
the December 12, 2025 request. As noted by council in the Assessor Response BOAR 066A
A021001Appeal.docx dated January 7, 2026” letter, the Appellant “technically has 30 days to respond
to a 706-A request” (See Appellant Exhibit A, page 4.). The Assessor’s requested December 29,
2025 turnaround provided fewer than three business weeks for response, which made compliance
impracticable. The Appellant promptly communicated this constraint and provided a reasonable
response date of January 11, 2026, which remains within the statutory response period. (See
Appellant Exhibit B, page 2.) Although the Assessor requested an accelerated response for internal
preparation purposes, the Appellant was entitled to the full 30-day response period and exercised that
right. The Appellant’s response timing is compliant and should not be construed as a delay or failure to
cooperate.

Further, the Appellant promptly responded to Elisa Marr on December 15 requesting available options for the
walkthrough. That same day, Elisa Marr replied offering availability on January 6, 7, or 8 between 8:30 a.m.
and 3:30 p.m. On December 16, 2025, the Appellant again confirmed availability on any of the proposed dates
and noted that morning hours would be preferable due to work commitments. No response to Appellant
availability was received. On December 22, 2025, Elisa Marr replied without acknowledging the Appellant’s
December 15 response. The Appellant replied again on December 22, confirming availability between
9:00–11:00 a.m. on either day and inquiring about the estimated duration of the inspection. On December 23,
2025, Elisa Marr advised that the appraiser would reach out directly. Later that day, Jim Merrill contacted the




 Page 71
Appellant with his availability, and the Appellant confirmed the proposed date and time on December 23,
responding, “That works perfectly. Thank you!” (See Appellant’s Exhibit B, page 12.)

At no point did the Appellant delay, refuse, or fail to respond to inspection requests. To the contrary, the
Appellant responded promptly, confirmed broad availability within the dates proposed by the City, and
scheduled the inspection at the first time coordinated directly with the assigned appraiser.

The fact that the inspection was scheduled for January 7, 2026 reflects the availability proposed by the City
and its appraiser, not any lack of cooperation by the Appellant. Accordingly, it would be inaccurate to suggest
that the timing of the inspection resulted from delay or non-responsiveness on the part of the Appellant.

The Appellant has acted in good faith throughout this appeal and has already provided substantial information
supporting the valuation challenge. The brief extension does not prejudice the City, particularly given that the
request was issued after significant prior submissions had already been made. Accordingly, the Appellant’s
response timeline is both reasonable and consistent with the governing process.

2. The City’s characterization of the Appellant’s November 26, 2025 Application misstates both its
purpose and legal significance.

An application to the Board of Assessment Review is a procedural filing intended to preserve appeal rights, not
to present a taxpayer’s complete evidentiary case. Maine law places the burden on the taxpayer to ultimately
prove overvaluation at hearing, not at the application stage. (See Town of Southwest Harbor v. Harwood, 2000
ME 213, 8, 763 A.2d 115.) The Application provided sufficient information to raise a legitimate question
regarding just value and uniformity and establish a prima facie basis for review, which is all that is required at
filing. Although the Application identifies initial comparables and price-per-square-foot context to establish a
prima facie basis for review, it is not, and Maine law does not treat it as, an evidentiary limitation (See 36
M.R.S. §271.) A taxpayer’s initial application satisfies procedural filing requirements, after which the Board
conducts a hearing where both sides may present written and oral evidence and testimony. Under the Board’s
statutory authority to administer oaths and take testimony, and summon evidence, the hearing phase, not the
initial application, is where the substantive valuation evidence is considered.

Further, the Appellant’s opinion of value, based on a good-faith analysis of comparable sales, assessment
data, and property-specific market factors, is warranted and appropriate for consideration in determining fair
market value. (See M.R. Evid. 701 (permitting lay opinion testimony that is rationally based on the witness’s
perception and helpful to determining a fact in issue).)

3. The City’s suggestion that the homestead exemption should factor into the discussion of fair market
value is misplaced.

Under Maine law, the determination of just value is distinct from any exemption that may later be applied to
reduce taxable value. The Maine Constitution requires that all property be assessed “according to just value,”
meaning fair market value, independent of tax relief mechanisms. Article IX, §8 of the Maine Constitution
establishes that property must be assessed on the basis of its just value, which is commonly interpreted as fair
market value.




 Page 72
Section 701-A requires assessors to determine the property’s just value based on its characteristics, permitted
uses, and relevant market factors. In contrast, the homestead exemption under 36 M.R.S. § 683 operates as a
statutory reduction applied after just value is determined and affects only taxable value, not fair market value.
The exemption reduces the amount of value subject to taxation but does not alter the underlying just value that
is the subject of a valuation appeal.

There is no basis in statute or constitutional valuation principles to conflate exemption reductions with the core
valuation inquiry. The Appellant’s requested valuation relief therefore relates to just value exclusive of the
homestead exemption, and the evidence should be understood in that context.

4. The Appellant does not dispute that the two parcels were conveyed in the same deed or that they
function together. However, that fact does not resolve the issue before the Board, which is whether the
assessed market value reflects just value.

Under Maine law, property must be assessed at just value based on its actual characteristics, permitted uses,
and market utility, rather than solely on deed configuration or technical parcel description. (See Me. Const. art.
IX, § 8; 36 M.R.S. § 701-A.)

The City’s own assessment treatment confirms the limited contribution of the secondary parcel. (See Assessor
Exhibit 1 Subject Property Record Card [EXHIBIT 1]). Parcel 066A A022001, consisting primarily of an
access driveway and shed, is assessed at a combined value of $12,500, reflecting its accessory nature and
lack of independent market utility. The parcel does not add buildable area, frontage, or functional utility
comparable to a conforming residential lot, and therefore does not materially affect the market value of the
improved residential property.

While the combined lot area totals 9,393 square feet, the inclusion of a small, non buildable accessory parcel
does not place the property in a materially different market category than comparable properties with single
residential lots. Whether the parcels are described separately or collectively, the assessment must still reflect
the fair market value of the property as a whole, accounting for the limited and subordinate contribution of the
secondary parcel. The City’s acknowledgment that the secondary parcel carries only nominal value confirms
that it cannot be used to justify or sustain the challenged assessment of the primary residence.

The Appellant does not dispute the City’s authority to prospectively combine contiguous parcels for
assessment purposes. However, the City’s stated intent to combine the parcels for FY27 is not relevant to the
determination of just value for the assessment year under appeal. For the valuation year at issue, the City
assessed the parcels separately and expressly recognized parcel 066A A022001 as accessory in nature by
assigning it a nominal value of $12,500, reflecting its limited utility as a driveway and shed and its lack of
independent market value. Under Maine law, property must be assessed based on its actual characteristics
and permitted uses as of the assessment date, not on prospective zoning administration or future assessment
treatment. Accordingly, whether the parcels may be combined for FY27 does not justify or sustain the
challenged assessment for the year under appeal, which must reflect the limited and subordinate contribution
of the accessory parcel.

5. The Appellant does not dispute the accuracy of the aerial photographs or the existence of
architectural features, however, the City’s reliance on aerial imagery and listing photographs from the




 Page 73
2021 sale does not establish just value for the FY26 assessment year nor does the Assessor
walk-through on January 7, 2026 constitute an adequate inspection.

The Appellant does not dispute the accuracy of the aerial imagery in Assessor Exhibit 13 or that the
Property consists of two parcels. However, the City’s recitation of prior aerial imagery and listing
photographs from the 2021 sale does not advance the determination of just value for the assessment
year at issue. As the City acknowledges, the 2021 listing images were not relied upon in the FY26
revaluation because they are too remote in time to reflect current market conditions. For the same
reason, those images are not probative of improved grade or value in this appeal. Further, aerial
photographs merely depict physical layout and proximity and do not establish market value or support
the Assessor’s conclusions regarding current quality or grading. Moreover, no material hardscaping or
landscaping improvements have been made since. Absent documented evidence of improvement and
value, such images cannot support a higher assessment. (See Assessor Exhibit Aerial images of
subject area [EXHIBIT 13] and Listing images from 2021 sale of Property [EXHIBIT 14].)

Further, the Appellant notes that the appraiser’s walkthrough of the Property on January 7, 2026 lasted
approximately ten minutes and did not include questions regarding the grade or quality of materials,
finishes, or systems. Given the limited duration and scope of the inspection (arrival at approximately
9:57 am and departure at approximately 10:04 am), it would be inappropriate to rely on that
walkthrough as a basis for assigning or confirming a grade for the Property. (See Appellant Exhibit C.)

Accepted appraisal standards recognize that a credible valuation requires an inspection of sufficient
scope to evaluate quality, condition, materials, and functional characteristics of the property. The
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) require that an appraiser perform the
level of inspection necessary to develop a credible assignment result, including gathering information
relevant to quality and condition. (See Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP),
Standards Rule 1-2 and Scope of Work Rule (requiring sufficient inspection and information to produce
credible results) Similarly, IAAO appraisal standards emphasize that accurate valuation and grading
depend on adequate inspection to observe construction quality, materials, and property-specific
characteristics. In practice, a residential appraisal inspection typically requires 30 to 90 minutes,
depending on the size and age of the home, and includes inquiry into material grades, finishes, and
systems.

An inspection limited to approximately ten minutes, without questions regarding the grade or quality of
materials, does not provide a reliable basis for assigning or confirming a quality or grade classification
and should not be relied upon for that purpose.

6. The Appellant does not dispute that the sales listed in Assessor Exhibit 15 were used in the 2025
revaluation. However, the clear departure from uniformity constitutes a manifestly wrong assessment.

Of the 17 comparable sales relied upon by the City, 15 properties (approximately 88 percent) are larger
than the subject Property’s 2,138 square feet, many by several hundred square feet. In addition, 15 of
the 17 comparables (approximately 88 percent) have one or two more bedrooms, providing materially
greater functional utility and buyer appeal. Further, 14 of the 17 comparables (approximately 82
percent) include one or two car garages, while the subject Property has no garage, placing it at a




 Page 74
competitive disadvantage in market demand. Each of these attributes, size, bedroom count, and garage
presence, is independently recognized by the market as value contributing. Taken together, they reflect
a systematic bias toward larger, more functional homes than the subject Property. Sales of homes with
greater square footage, additional bedrooms, and garage amenities indicate the market value of a
different product, not the just value of 61 Granite Street. Reliance on such comparables without
appropriate downward adjustment materially overstates the fair market value of the subject Property.
(See Appellant Exhibit D.)

Even among the smaller sales listed, several properties benefit from street-level and locational
advantages not shared by the subject Property, including quieter interior streets, lower traffic exposure,
and reduced proximity to I-295. These factors materially influence buyer demand and pricing and must
be accounted for through appropriate adjustment. The spreadsheet presentation does not demonstrate
that such adjustments were made. Additionally, although the City characterizes the selected sales as
occurring within the same assessing neighborhood, the comparables span distinct micro-markets,
including Deering Center and Rosemont, with materially different street conditions, traffic exposure, and
neighborhood character. The subject Property, located on Granite Street, is affected by proximity to
I-295, higher traffic volumes, and associated noise, while many of the cited comparables are located on
quieter interior streets with lower traffic exposure. These local differences directly influence buyer
demand and market pricing. Accepted appraisal practice requires that comparables reflect similar
location conditions, or that appropriate adjustments be made where superior micro-market
characteristics exist. Absent such adjustment, reliance on these sales materially overstates the fair
market value of the subject Property. (See Appellant Exhibit E.)

Buyer demand, pricing expectations, and traffic sensitivity differ materially between interior residential
streets and properties adjacent to I-295, regardless of assessing neighborhood designation.

Maine law requires that property be assessed not only at just value, but also uniformly in relation to
comparable properties. (See Me. Const. art. IX, § 8.) Additionally, independent real estate valuation
authorities recognize that home values vary materially at the micro-market level, with valuation models
explicitly segmenting homes by neighborhood and ZIP code and acknowledging that factors such as
street context, traffic exposure, and neighborhood boundaries can produce significant value differences
even among otherwise similar properties.¹ ² ³1

The Assessor’s comparable properties were equal or superior locations are assessed at approximately
71% to 89% of sale price. 61 Granite Street is assessed at 132% of its actual sale price and
approximately 120% of its supported fair market value, despite inferior characteristics. This places the
subject property well outside the assessment ratio range applied to superior properties, demonstrating
substantial overvaluation and lack of uniformity.



 1
 ¹ Zillow Research, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) Methodology (explaining that value estimates are calculated using
 geographically segmented micro-regions based on local market data), https://www.zillow.com/research/zhvi-methodology/
 ² DiGonzini, What Zillow Won’t Tell You About Your Home’s True Value (noting limitations of automated models and the impact of
 micro-location factors such as busy roads and neighborhood boundaries),
 https://www.digonzini.com/blog/what-zillow-wont-tell-you-about-your-homes-true-value
 ³ HomeLight, What Affects Home Value? (identifying location and neighborhood context as primary drivers of value differences
 between otherwise similar homes), https://www.homelight.com/blog/real-estate-property-value/




 Page 75
When the subject Property is valued consistently with the assessment ratios applied to these superior
comparables and adjusted for differences in size, amenities, and location, the resulting fair market
value indication falls well below the current assessment. Based on this analysis, a fair market value of
approximately $767,500 represents a reasonable and equitable reconciliation as of April 1, 2025. The
existing assessment of $923,900 therefore constitutes a substantial overvaluation and lacks uniformity,
supporting a finding that the assessment is manifestly wrong and should be reduced accordingly. (See
Appellant Exhibits D and F.)




7. - 10. The Appellant does not dispute that the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, and
Income Approach are the three generally recognized valuation methodologies, nor that the Income
Approach is not applicable to an owner-occupied residential property. The Appellant also agrees that,
for this property type, the Sales Comparison Approach supported by the Cost Approach is an
appropriate framework for a municipal revaluation. However, the application of those methodologies to
this specific Property failed to adequately account for material differences and external influences,
resulting in an assessed value that exceeds fair market value as of the assessment date.

The mere identification of recognized valuation approaches does not resolve the issues presented in
this appeal. Under IAAO standards, both the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach
require accurate identification of property characteristics and appropriate, market-supported
adjustments for material differences in location, size, utility, and features in order to produce a credible
indication of market value. For purposes of the Sales Comparison Approach, comparable sales must
either be truly similar to the subject property or adjusted to reflect material differences, including
micro-market location, traffic exposure, square footage, bedroom count, garage presence, and other
functional characteristics. Where such adjustments are not adequately made, the resulting value
reflects a materially different product rather than the subject Property.




 Page 76
Likewise, the Cost Approach requires proper recognition of all forms of depreciation, including physical,
functional, and external depreciation. External influences such as proximity to major roadways, traffic
exposure, and neighborhood conditions are recognized sources of depreciation and must be accounted
for in the analysis. Reliance on generalized cost tables or depreciation schedules without sufficient
parcel-specific consideration may therefore overstate value for properties affected by such external
conditions.

Accordingly, the Appellant does not contend that the City relied on improper valuation methodologies,
but that the application of those methodologies to this specific Property failed to adequately account for
material differences and external influences, resulting in an assessed value that exceeds fair market
value as of the assessment date. The question before the Board is not whether recognized appraisal
approaches were cited, but whether the Sales Comparison Approach, as applied, produced a valuation
reflecting just value based on credible comparables and appropriate adjustments. The Appellant’s
evidence demonstrates that it did not.

As reflected in the City’s own cited authorities, the issue in this appeal is not the use of recognized
mass appraisal methodologies, but whether those methodologies were applied with sufficient
parcel-level adjustment to produce a credible indication of just value for the subject Property.

11. Although the City references a detailed explanation of residential value development, the full
methodology, including the underlying formulas and analytical assumptions relied upon, was not
provided to the Appellant in advance of the Assessor’s Response.

The Appellant does not dispute that depreciation tables, dwelling cost factors, and CAMA models are standard
tools used in mass appraisal and that mass appraisal is an appropriate methodology for conducting a
municipal revaluation. However, accepted assessment practice recognizes that mass appraisal is designed to
achieve overall equity across large groups of properties, not to determine the precise fair market value of an
individual parcel in an abatement appeal.

On December 15, 2025 the Appellant requested “the documented fair market value calculation and analysis”
and had to request again on December 16, 2025 “the formulas/calculations and analysis for the creation of the
"Grade & Depreciation" as well as the "Dwelling Computation" (and any additional data you have on the
property and how the values were determined)”. (See Appellant Exhibit B, page 2.) The Property Record
provided on December 16 and the RCFACT (Dwelling Cost Factors) and depreciation tables provided
December 18 limited the Appellant’s ability to review and respond to the specific assumptions, adjustments,
and modeling relied upon for the subject Property. (See Assessor Exhibits 1, 11, 12.) Further, the Appellant
notes that the full mass appraisal methodology referenced by the City as Exhibit 16 is significantly different
from the information provided by Elisa Marr on December 23, 2025 creating uncertainty as to the methodology
actually relied upon. (See Assessor Exhibit Explanation of Mass Appraisal and Residential Value
Methodology [EXHIBIT 16] and Appellant Exhibit B, pages 9 and 10.) The fact that the methodology
materials provided were both incomplete and inconsistent with the documents referenced in the City’s exhibits
materially affected the Appellant’s ability to meaningfully evaluate and respond to the City’s valuation rationale.

When referenced exhibits differ from what is actually produced, it is not possible to confirm which assumptions,
adjustment factors, depreciation tables, or location modifiers were applied to the subject Property versus the




 Page 77
broader dataset. This discrepancy limits the Appellant’s ability to test whether the mass appraisal model
appropriately accounted for property-specific characteristics, micro-market conditions, and locational
influences, or whether generalized factors were applied without sufficient adjustment. As a result, while the
Appellant has responded in good faith using publicly available data and parcel-level evidence, the absence of
the complete and consistent methodology constrains a full rebuttal of the City’s asserted valuation process.

Therefore, while the Appellant has responded based on the information available, the absence of the complete
methodology ahead of the Assessor’s Response constrained the ability to fully assess how property-specific
factors and micro-market conditions were treated in the valuation.

12. The City’s reliance on a city-wide average increase as evidence of fairness is misplaced and
inconsistent with the constitutional requirement that property be assessed according to its just value,
not according to averages. An average, by definition, reflects aggregated market movement and does
not account for the individual characteristics, constraints, or disadvantages of a specific property.
Applying or justifying an assessment based on how closely it tracks an average risks substituting
statistical conformity for equitable valuation.

Equity in assessment requires that each property be valued based on what a willing buyer would pay for that
property, given its size, location, utility, and market conditions, etc.. Properties do not appreciate uniformly,
even within the same revaluation cycle, and the use of a city-wide average as a benchmark fails to recognize
legitimate variation in appreciation rates. A property may be overvalued even if its assessed increase aligns
with, or slightly exceeds, the municipal average.

Accordingly, the fact that the assessed increase for 61 Granite Street approximates or exceeds the city-wide
average does not establish that the assessment is equitable or reflects just value. The proper inquiry is
whether the assessment reflects the fair market value of this Property, based on property-specific evidence,
rather than whether it conforms to an average applied across the City.

Maine law requires that property be assessed according to its just value, meaning the fair market value of the
individual property, not by reference to aggregated averages or statistical conformity. (Me. Const. art. IX, §8.)
The determination of just value must consider the property’s specific characteristics, including location,
condition, utility, and market influences affecting buyer behavior. (36 M.R.S. §701-A.) While mass appraisal
models and revaluation averages are useful tools for evaluating systemwide equity, they are not substitutes for
property-specific valuation analysis and do not establish accuracy for any single parcel.³ Accepted assessment
standards recognize that ratio studies and average appreciation rates are diagnostic indicators, not proof that
an individual assessment reflects fair market value.⁴ Properties therefore may, and often do, appreciate at
different rates within the same revaluation cycle based on legitimate differences in size, location, traffic
exposure, and micro-market conditions.⁵ Accordingly, the fact that an assessment aligns with or exceeds a
city-wide average does not demonstrate that it is equitable or reflects the fair market value of the subject
Property.⁶2

 2
 ³ International Association of Assessing Officers, Standard on Mass Appraisal of Real Property.
 https://www.iaao.org/wp-content/uploads/Standard_on_Mass_Appraisal.pdf
 ⁴ International Association of Assessing Officers, Standard on Ratio
 Studies.https://www.iaao.org/wp-content/uploads/Standard_on_Ratio_Studies.pdf
 ⁵ IAAO appraisal principles regarding market variability and property-specific
 characteristics.https://www.iaao.org/wp-content/uploads/Standard_on_Automated_Valuation_Models.pdf




 Page 78
Conclusion

Comparable properties in equal or superior locations are assessed at approximately 71% to 89% of
sale price. 61 Granite Street is assessed at 132% of its actual sale price and approximately 120% of its
supported fair market value, despite inferior characteristics. This places the subject property well
outside the assessment ratio range applied to superior properties, demonstrating substantial
overvaluation and lack of uniformity.

When the subject Property is valued consistently with the assessment ratios applied to these superior
comparables and adjusted for differences in size, amenities, and location, the resulting fair market
value indication falls well below the current assessment. Based on this analysis, a fair market value of
approximately $767,500 represents a reasonable and equitable reconciliation as of April 1, 2025. The
existing assessment of $923,900 therefore constitutes a substantial overvaluation and lacks uniformity,
supporting a finding that the assessment is manifestly wrong and should be reduced accordingly.

The evidence demonstrates both substantial overvaluation and lack of relative uniformity, satisfying the
standard for a finding that the assessment is manifestly wrong under Maine law.

Requested Relief

The Appellant respectfully requests that the Board determine the assessment of 61 Granite Street to be
manifestly wrong and grant an abatement reflecting a fair market value of $767,500 as of April 1,
2025.




 ⁶ Maine Revenue Services, Property Tax Guidance (defining just value as what a willing buyer would pay for the specific property).




 Page 79
 List of Exhibits

Appellant Exhibits

 Appellant Exhibit AA
 Email Correspondence Dated October 22, 2025
 Appellant Exhibit A
 Assessor Response BOAR 066A A021001Appeal.docx Dated January 7, 2026
 Appellant Exhibit B
 Email Correspondence Dated December 12 - 23, 2025
 Appellant Exhibit C1/C2
 Screenshots from Google Nest Camera Dated January 7, 2025
 Appellant Exhibit D
 Relevant Comparable Information Not Included in “Recent sales of similar properties [EXHIBIT 15]”
 Appellant Exhibit E
 Map of Assessor Comparables from Recent sales of similar properties [EXHIBIT 15]
 Appellant Exhibit F
 Comparable Sales and Adjustment Summary




 Page 80
1/7/26, 7:37 PM Gmail - Clark - 61 Granite St, Portland, Maine Abatement Request

 Appellant Exhibit AA
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Clark - 61 Granite St, Portland, Maine Abatement Request
  Assessors Office <assessors@portlandmaine.gov> Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 8:04 AM
  To: CC <cc26759@gmail.com>
  Cc: Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>

 Hello
 This office is in receipt of your information. If there are any questions, someone will be in touch.

 Thank you
 Brad
 Office Assistant
 Assessor's Office
 City of Portland
 389 Congress Street, Room 115
 Portland, Maine 04101
 Office: 207-874-8486
 assessors@portlandmaine.gov
 www.portlandmaine.gov




 [Quoted text hidden]
 [Quoted text hidden]




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1846683568592751027&simpl=msg-f:1846683568592751027 1/1
 Page 81
 Appellant Exhibit A
 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 13, 2026
 Colleen Clark & Meredith Lubkin Trustees, 61 Granite Street
 Parcel ID 066A A021001



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 trustee
Colleen Clark (“Appellant”), regarding the property located at 61 Granite Street (the “Property”), a
hearing for which is scheduled for January 13, 2026. The Property is owned by the Colleen Clark
and Meredith Lubkin Living Trust.

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 82
 Appellant Exhibit A

TIMELINE

4/1/2025 Assessed value for the April 1, 2025 assessment date (FY26) was as follows:
 $136,500 Land; 8,259 sq. ft. lot
 $822,500 Building; single family dwelling with 2,372 sq. ft. living area
 $959,000 Total Assessed Value [See EXHIBIT 17.]

9/18/2025 Application for Abatement of Property Taxes received from Appellant via email.
 [See EXHIBIT 6.]

10/10/2025 Assessor’s Ofﬁce issued a letter to Appellant requesting additional information
 regarding the Property, including appraisals and other documented evidence
 showing the property was overvalued. [See EXHIBIT 6.]

10/22/2025 Appellant submitted an email in response to the request for additional
 information. The email indicated that an appraisal was being provided, but no
 appraisal was attached to that email or subsequently provided to the Assessor.
 [See EXHIBIT 7.]

10/31/2025 Assessor’s Ofﬁce issued an abatement letter in the amount of $35,100 to reﬂect a
 decrease in the condition factor based on a review of the 2021 listing. [See
 EXHIBITS 8, 14, and 17.]

11/26/2025 Appellant ﬁled an Application for Appeal with the Board of Assessment Review.

12/12/2025 Assessor issued a 706-A Request for Additional information (the “706-A Request”)
 and requested a walkthrough of the Property before December 29, 2025. Note:
 Between December 12th and 20th, the City Assessor made three requests to review
 the Property in person. The Appellant conﬁrmed an appointment after the third
 request, however that appointment is not scheduled until the City Assessor’s
 Response due date of January 7, 2026. [See EXHIBIT 9.]

12/15-23/2025 Appellant responded via email to the 706-A Request indicating that due to the
 holidays they would not be able to comply with the request until January 11, 2026,
 however, the Appellant in turn requested “provide me with the Assessment Record
 prepared for our property, particularly the documented fair market value
 calculation and analysis.” In response, the City Assessor submitted the Property
 Record Card [see EXHIBIT 1] to which the Appellant further requested “also please
 provide me with the formulas/calculations and analysis for the creation of the "Grade &
 Depreciation" as well as the "Dwelling Computation" (and any additional data you have
 on the property and how the values were determined)”. The City Assessor responded
 by providing Explanation of Mass Appraisal and Residential Value Methodology
 [see EXHIBIT 16].



 2 | Page



 Page 83
 Appellant Exhibit A

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Appellant’s Submission:
 ● Application for Abatement of Property Taxes packet, received by Corporation Counsel on
 November 26, 2025 on behalf of the Board of Assessment Review.

City Assessor’s Exhibits:
 ● Subject Property Record Card [EXHIBIT 1]
 ● Appellant’s suggested comparable property at 66 Granite Street Property Record Card
 [EXHIBIT 2]
 ● Appellant’s suggested comparable property at 20 Deane Street Property Record Card
 [EXHIBIT 3]
 ● Appellant’s suggested comparable property at 16 Wolcott Street Property Record Card and
 four listing images from the sale of this property [EXHIBIT 4]
 ● Application for Abatement of Property Taxes to Assessor dated 9/17/2025 and received
 9/18/2025 via email [EXHIBIT 5]
 ● City Assessor’s informal request for additional information [EXHIBIT 6]
 ● Appellant email response to request for information [EXHIBIT 7]
 ● Letter of Abatement dated 10/31/2025 [EXHIBIT 8]
 ● City Assessor’s formal 706-A Request for Additional Information dated
 12/12/2025[EXHIBIT 9]
 ● Appellant’s response to 706-A Request by email dated 12/15/2025 [EXHIBIT 10]
 ● RCFACT – Dwelling Cost Factors [EXHIBIT 11]
 ● RCDEPR – Depreciation Tables [EXHIBIT 12]
 ● Aerial images of subject area [EXHIBIT 13]
 ● Listing images from 2021 sale of Property [EXHIBIT 14]
 ● Recent sales of similar properties [EXHIBIT 15]
 ● Explanation of Mass Appraisal and Residential Value Methodology [EXHIBIT 16]
 ● 2025 Initial Revaluation Property Record Card [EXHIBIT 17]




 3 | Page



 Page 84
 Appellant Exhibit A

 CITY ASSESSOR’S RESPONSE

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. On October 10, 2025 the Assessor’s Ofﬁce issued a letter to request additional information
 about the Property from the Appellant including an appraisal and other documented
 evidence showing the property was overvalued. The Appellant has not provided any
 additional information as outlined in the letter. [see EXHIBIT 6.] The Appellant
 submitted an email in response to the request for additional information indicating that
 an appraisal was being provided but there was no attached appraisal. The Appellant
 provided seven more comparable sales in this communication. Only the sale at 16 Wolcott
 Street [see EXHIBIT 4] is relevant as all of the other sales were after the assessment date
 of April 1, 2025. Included with Exhibit 4 are interior images from the 16 Wolcott Street
 listing. These images are included so that the Board can clearly see that this property is
 not comparable to the subject Property, which is depicted in the images for the 2021 sale
 listing of the Property. [see Exhibit 14].

 On December 12, 2025, the City Assessor ﬁled a second request for information in the
 form of a 706-A request. [See EXHIBIT 9.] Although the Appellant technically has 30 days
 to respond, the City Assessor requested that the Appellant provide the information by
 December 29, 2025 to allow time for review and preparation for the upcoming hearing.
 The Appellant responded that due to the holidays they would not be able to comply with
 the request until January 11, 2026 which is well after the submission date for the Appellant
 and Assessor’s submissions in this appeal.

 In response to the 706-A request, the Appellant also requested additional information
 regarding the development of the Property value. The City Assessor provided the
 Appellant with a copy of RCFACT (Dwelling Cost Factors) [see EXHIBIT 11] and RCDEPR
 (depreciation tables) [see EXHIBIT 12]. This is the type of information used in the mass
 appraisal process and by real estate professionals.

 2. In the Appellant’s Application to the Board of Assessment Review dated November 26,
 2025 (the “Application”), the Appellant provides only two paragraphs of evidence and
 references just two properties and the price per square foot as the evidence of “just value”
 and to support the Appellant’s opinion that the assessment is manifestly wrong.
 Comparing only assessed values is not an accurate comparison of fair market value. It is

 4 | Page



 Page 85
 Appellant Exhibit A

 normal for properties to increase at differing rates in a revaluation, particularly in the
 recent post COVID market. The Appellant’s opinion of value is based solely on a
 lay-person’s comparison of two properties that are not identical to the subject Property.

3. The Application references values of other properties that are reduced by the $25,000
 Homestead Exemption. The exemption should not be applied to a market value
 discussion. The current assessed value is $923,900, $25,000 more than the amount listed
 on the Appeal as being the assessed value. It is not clear whether the actual value
 requested by the Appellant is also $25,000 more than listed on the Appeal or $793,423.

4. Note also that the Property consists of two lots, the main lot with the dwelling unit at
 066A A021001 and an abutting lot with the access driveway and a shed identiﬁed as 066A
 A021001. These two lots were transferred in the same deed as part of the sale and should,
 in fact, be considered one lot for assessing purposes. 066A A022001 is a 5,045 square foot
 lot and is assessed at $10,100 with a shed assessed at $2,400 for a total assessed value of
 $12,500. This low assessed value recognizes the association with the primary lot. The
 actual total lot size is 9,393 square feet.

 The Property is in the RN3 Zone, which requires a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size.
 Due to Re-Code and new zoning, the primary lot is a non-conforming lot at 4,348 square
 feet, is contiguous and in the same name. For these reasons, these two lots will be
 combined for assessing purposes for FY27 and the property owner will receive written
 notiﬁcation.

5. Three aerial images [see Exhibit 13] are included to provide a bird’s eye view of the
 Property. The ﬁrst image shows that the Property is made up of two lots. The second
 aerial image shows the Property from a different angle. The third aerial image shows the
 Property and its relation to the two comparable properties suggested by the Appellant, 20
 Deane Street and 66 Granite.

 Three listing images from the 2021 sale of the Property see EXHIBIT 14], are considered
 too old to be considered representative of the current real estate market and were not used
 as part of the FY26 revaluation. Nonetheless, these images demonstrate the quality of
 construction and condition of the Property:

 The ﬁrst listing image shows a curbside image of the Property. This and the aerial images
 show the investment in hardscaping and landscaping the Property. This type of
 investment can have a potential impact on the grade.

 The second listing image shows an interior image of a circular room with an architectural
 window, which demonstrates the superior grade of the Property. Note the architectural
 features including crown molding. These features are found throughout the house.

 The third listing image shows the unique architectural features including another


 5 | Page



 Page 86
 Appellant Exhibit A

 rounded wall and specialty window.

 The listing description is as follows:

 “About This Home

 In this Portland stunner, modern amenities and thoughtful updates meet old world charm for a
 truly one of a kind home. More than 2,100 square feet of living space on a generous parcel of
 land that affords outdoor dining, gardens, entertaining, and play. Discover why this property is
 so unique. Gleaming hardwood ﬂoors set a warm tone in the kitchen as black granite counter
 tops offer a luxurious prep surface and a perfect display for hors d'oeuvres during a party. Guests
 can ﬂow directly into a family room which features a gorgeous white, wooden plank ceiling.
 Custom cabinets create a butler's nook offering ample space for your very own coffee bar...the
 perfect way to start your day. Hardwood ﬂoors continue throughout the main living space
 including the spacious dining room, and the living room which features a curved wall and gas
 ﬁreplace, a perfect spot to curl up with a great book. Upstairs, are two large bedrooms plus the
 primary suite. The en-suite bath features marble counter tops, and stately tiled ﬂoors. The
 primary closet is to die for, both oversized and bathed in light thanks to large windows, picking
 out your clothes will be a daily treat. This Oakdale neighborhood house offers charm and delight
 at every corner, to be discovered and enjoyed over a lifetime.”

6. The spreadsheet below lists recent sales of similar properties in the same assessing
 neighborhood and used in the development of the 2025 revaluation [see EXHIBIT 15]. The
 Appellant’s Property is in pink and the Appellant’s comparable properties are in yellow.




7. 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.



 6 | Page



 Page 87
 Appellant Exhibit A

8. 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 (comparable) 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. A detailed explanation of the development of residential values can be found in the
 Explanation of Mass Appraisal and Residential Value Methodology. [See EXHIBIT 16.]

12. The Appellant purchased the Property in 2021 for $702,000 and is suggesting a current
 market value increase of just $65,000 or 9% since 2021. The Portland real estate market
 has experienced record growth since the Appellant purchased the Property. The city-wide
 revaluation average increase in value is 43%. The current assessment of the Property
 recognizes the Property as being above average. Accordingly, the value increase in the
 Property of 47% is slightly higher than the city-wide average, indicating that the assessed
 value is in line with the market increase.

13. 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 their burden of proof to
 demonstrate that the assessment was substantially overvalued, based on an unjust
 discrimination or subject to fraud, dishonesty or an illegality.

14. CONCLUSION: 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.


 7 | Page



 Page 88
 Appellant Exhibit A

 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




 8 | Page



 Page 89
1/6/26, 8:00 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov> Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 11:11 AM
  To: "cc26759@gmail.com" <cc26759@gmail.com>

 Good morning:

 This office mailed out a standard 706-A request for information letter to you today. I am attaching the 706-A request to this
 email so that you receive it as soon as possible. Although section 706-A typically allows a taxpayer 30 days to respond to
 an assessor’s inquiries, I ask that you provide this information to me no later than Monday, December 29, 2025 so that it
 can be available for the hearing on your appeal to the Board of Assessment Review. I appreciate your assistance and
 cooperation in this process.

 Elisa A. Marr, CMA-2
 Assessor
 City of Portland, Maine
 389 Congress Street, Room 115
 Portland, Maine 04101
 207-874-8754




 Notice: Under Maine law, documents - including e-mails - in the possession of public officials or city employees about
 government business may be classified as public records. There are very few exceptions. As a result, please be advised
 that what is written in an e-mail could be released to the public and/or the media if requested.

 706A 066A A021001.docx
 103K




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1851319537608009914&simpl=msg-f:1851319537608009914 1/1
 Page 90
1/6/26, 8:00 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  CC <cc26759@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 4:28 PM
  To: Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov>, Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>


 Hi Elisa,

 Thank you for sending the document. Due to the holidays and a recent family matter, we will not be able to complete all
 requested items by December 29, 2025. Under §706-A, a taxpayer has 30 days from receipt of a request to respond, so
 we will need the full timeframe. Please expect the completed materials no later than January 11, 2026.

 In the meantime, if you can please provide me with the Assessment Record prepared for our property, particularly the
 documented fair market value calculation and analysis, I would be greatly appreciative.

 Please feel free to reach out with any questions. Thank you, and happy holidays!

 Colleen Clark

 [Quoted text hidden]
 --


 Colleen M. Clark




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r9035276661974192617&simpl=msg-a:r9035276661974192617 1/1
 Page 91
1/6/26, 8:01 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov> Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 4:39 PM
  To: CC <cc26759@gmail.com>
  Cc: Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman <mig@portlandmaine.gov>

 Ms. Clark:

 Will you be able to schedule the requested walkthrough of the property?

 Thank you,

 Elisa A. Marr, CMA-2
 Assessor
 City of Portland, Maine
 389 Congress Street, Room 115
 Portland, Maine 04101
 207-874-8754




 [Quoted text hidden]




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1851611998271299810&simpl=msg-f:1851611998271299810 1/1
 Page 92
1/6/26, 8:01 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  CC <cc26759@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 4:42 PM
  To: Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov>
  Cc: Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman <mig@portlandmaine.gov>

 Absolutely, just not ahead of January 1 as we will be handing a family matter. Michael, please let me know options and we
 can work out the schedule. Thank you!
 [Quoted text hidden]
 --


 Colleen M. Clark




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r2652639638398647880&simpl=msg-a:r2652639638398647880 1/1
 Page 93
1/6/26, 8:02 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov> Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 4:44 PM
  To: CC <cc26759@gmail.com>
  Cc: Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman <mig@portlandmaine.gov>

 Ms. Clark:

 Are you available for a walkthrough January 6, 7, or 8 between 8:30 and 3:30 p.m.?


 Elisa A. Marr, CMA-2
 Assessor
 City of Portland, Maine
 389 Congress Street, Room 115
 Portland, Maine 04101
 207-874-8754




 [Quoted text hidden]




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1851612300659956549&simpl=msg-f:1851612300659956549 1/1
 Page 94
1/6/26, 8:03 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  CC <cc26759@gmail.com> Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 8:52 AM
  To: Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov>
  Cc: Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman <mig@portlandmaine.gov>

 Good morning! Unfortunately, nothing came through. Can you please resend? Also, we can be made available on any of
 the dates (January 6-8) but morning would be best due to work commitments. Thank you!
 [Quoted text hidden]
 --


 Colleen M. Clark




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r8449298724596377685&simpl=msg-a:r8449298724596377685 1/1
 Page 95
1/6/26, 8:04 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov> Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 2:22 PM
  To: CC <cc26759@gmail.com>
  Cc: Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman <mig@portlandmaine.gov>, Jessica Grondin
  <jgrondin@portlandmaine.gov>, Jim Merrill <jom@portlandmaine.gov>

 Good afternoon Ms. Clark:

 In reviewing your property record card there are some factors that I would like to review further that may help to resolve
 this appeal. We are going to need to schedule an appointment to do a walkthrough at your earliest convenience. Please
 let me know if the proposed dates of January 6 or 7 work for you and what time would be convenient.

 Thank you,

 Elisa A. Marr, CMA-2
 Assessor
 City of Portland, Maine
 389 Congress Street, Room 115
 Portland, Maine 04101
 207-874-8754




 [Quoted text hidden]




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1852237570343930506&simpl=msg-f:1852237570343930506 1/1
 Page 96
1/6/26, 8:05 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  Colleen Clark <cc26759@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 3:53 PM
  To: Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov>
  Cc: Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman <mig@portlandmaine.gov>, Jessica Grondin
  <jgrondin@portlandmaine.gov>, Jim Merrill <jom@portlandmaine.gov>

 Hi Elisa, between 9-11 either day is fine. Is there an estimate of how long it will take? Additionally, if there is any further
 information you can provide as to how the data was used it would be helpful. As it stands, these are just documents with
 the codes, and it is not abundantly clear how the analysis was done for our house overall. We would love to see those
 calculations. Thank you!


 On Dec 22, 2025, at 2:23 PM, Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov> wrote:



 [Quoted text hidden]




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1852243237058392967&simpl=msg-f:1852243237058392967 1/1
 Page 97
1/6/26, 8:05 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov> Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 9:03 AM
  To: Colleen Clark <cc26759@gmail.com>
  Cc: Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman <mig@portlandmaine.gov>, Jessica Grondin
  <jgrondin@portlandmaine.gov>, Jim Merrill <jom@portlandmaine.gov>

 Good morning:

 Senior Appraiser James Morrill will reach out to you to set a time.

 I have submitted your request for information to the City's communications director as a Freedom of Access Act or FOAA
 to allow me time to prepare documents to answer your inquiry. The tables I have provided to you are depreciation tables
 and dwelling cost factors. This is the type of information used in the mass appraisal process and by real estate
 professionals. The revaluation was conducted using mass appraisal.

 Mass appraisal is the systematic valuation of large groups of properties (like all homes in a county) at once, using
 common data, standardized methods, and statistical models (like regression) to determine values, primarily for property
 tax assessment, making it efficient and equitable where individual appraisals are impractical. Instead of valuing one home
 at a time, it uses Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) systems, market data, and algorithms to adjust for features
 like size, age, and location, creating consistent valuations for thousands of parcels.

 Methodology
 The local construction cost index is the ratio of the cost to construct a dwelling in one location compared
 with the cost to construct the same dwelling in another location at a given date. The cost schedules will be
 calibrated to closely reﬂect the region encompassing the City of Portland as of the April 1st date of value for
 the respective year of the reassessment.
 A. The cost index will be developed from an analysis of sales of newly constructed, average
 quality dwellings located within the City of Portland and/or sales of “relatively” new, average quality
 dwellings which have been properly adjusted for time. This is a four-step process that should be
 completed in the following order:
 1. Develop a market trend based on re-sales of improved residential properties within the
 City of Portland.
 2. Trend the construction costs for each new dwelling to be used in the index study to the
 April 1st date of value for the respective year of the reassessment.
 3. Calculate a cost ratio for each new dwelling by comparing the Enterprise Assessment
 replacement cost new (“RCN”) to actual construction costs.
 4. Analyze the individual cost ratios and correlate an overall local construction index.
 In the event that an insufﬁcient number of newly constructed, average quality dwellings are available to
 adequately document the local index, supplemental sources such as an accepted cost indexing service, will
 be used.

 Index Calculation
 The calculation process to establish the local index is as follows:

 1. Trend all sales to be used in the index study to the April 1st date of value for the
 respective year of the reassessment using the monthly trending factor established in the
 market trend analysis.
 2. Subtract the land value estimate from each adjusted sales price. The result is the
 indicated dwelling or building residual value.
 3. Obtain the RCN for each dwelling through Enterprise Assessment.
 4. For each sample, divide the indicated dwelling residual value (found in step 2) by the
 Enterprise Assessment “Base Value.” The result is the index factor for the improvements.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1852308044660966875&simpl=msg-f:1852308044660966875 1/2
 Page 98
1/6/26, 8:05 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal
 Calibrating the Residential Depreciation Tables
 Appellant Exhibit B
 Methodology
 The Enterprise Assessment residential accrued depreciation or percent good tables are a matrix which is set
 up by the “Year Built” and the “Condition, Desirability, and Usefulness” (“CDU”) rating of the dwelling. The
 tables will be calibrated to reﬂect the local market conditions for the City of Portland. The calibration
 process is completed by analyzing veriﬁed sales which are contained in the sales history ﬁle.
 Residential Sales Comparison Approach
 During this step of the valuation process, the City of Portland’s market modeling module will be fully
 deployed for residential improved parcels, where possible, so both the cost and comparable sales approach
 will be considered when arriving at the ﬁnal appraised value. If applicable, up to ﬁve comparable sales for
 each subject will be available for review. These comparable sales will be determined by both the Enterprise
 Assessment as well as values developed using AI technology.
 A market model is a statistical picture of the elements affecting sale price within the market area. By
 determining the relative effect of speciﬁed property characteristics on sale price, market models will be
 constructed and used to predict value for unsold properties.

 The above is the basis for the development of your property value.

 Thank you,

 Elisa A. Marr, CMA-2
 Assessor
 City of Portland, Maine
 389 Congress Street, Room 115
 Portland, Maine 04101
 207-874-8754




 [Quoted text hidden]




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1852308044660966875&simpl=msg-f:1852308044660966875 2/2
 Page 99
1/6/26, 8:06 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  Jim Merrill <jom@portlandmaine.gov> Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 9:46 AM
  To: Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov>
  Cc: Colleen Clark <cc26759@gmail.com>, Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman
  <mig@portlandmaine.gov>, Jessica Grondin <jgrondin@portlandmaine.gov>

 Hi Colleen,

 I'm reaching out to schedule a walkthrough of your property. Based on your email, it sounds like a time between 9:00 and
 11:00 am on January 6 or 7 would work best for you. Would 10:00 am on January 7 be convenient? The walkthrough
 should only take 10-15 minutes.

 Please let me know if this works for you, or if another time would work better.

 Best regards,

 Jim

 James Merrill
 Sr. Tax Appraiser
 389 Congress Street
 Portland, Maine 04101

 [Quoted text hidden]




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1852310783764757557&simpl=msg-f:1852310783764757557 1/1
 Page 100
1/6/26, 8:06 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  Colleen Clark <cc26759@gmail.com> Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 10:06 AM
  To: Jim Merrill <jom@portlandmaine.gov>
  Cc: Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov>, Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman
  <mig@portlandmaine.gov>, Jessica Grondin <jgrondin@portlandmaine.gov>

 That works perfectly. Thank you!


 On Dec 23, 2025, at 9:47 AM, Jim Merrill <jom@portlandmaine.gov> wrote:



 [Quoted text hidden]




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1852312006279936521&simpl=msg-f:1852312006279936521 1/1
 Page 101
 Appellant Exhibit C1
Screenshots from Google Nest Camera
 Dated January 7, 2026




 Page 102
 Appellant Exhibit C2
Screenshots from Google Nest Camera
 Dated January 7, 2026




 Page 103
 Appellant Exhibit D

Relevant Comparable Information Not Included in
“Recent sales of similar properties [EXHIBIT 15]”




 Page 104
 Appellant Exhibit E

  Map of Assessor Comparables from Recent sales of similar
 properties [EXHIBIT 15]


61 Granite Street in green.




 Page 105
Appellant Exhibit F




 Page 106
DATE: January 11, 2026

TO: City of Portland Board of Assessment Review

FROM: Colleen Clark, Trustee and Meredith Lubking, Trustee

RE: FY25 Abatement Appeal – January 13, 2026
 Property: 61 Granite Street
 Parcel ID: 066A A021001

 Appellant’s Amended Response And Supporting Documents

The Appellant’s position is grounded in the same constitutional standard cited by the City: that all
property must be assessed equally according to its just value, meaning fair market value as of the
assessment date. The Appellant does not dispute this mandate, but contends that it was not correctly
applied to the Property located at 61 Granite Street for the assessment year under appeal.

This memorandum, together with the attached exhibits, is submitted for the Board of Assessment
Review’s consideration of the abatement appeal filed by trustee Colleen Clark (“Appellant”) regarding
the Property, which is owned by the Colleen Clark and Meredith Lubking Living Trust. The hearing in
this matter is scheduled for January 13, 2026.

For the reasons set forth herein and in the accompanying exhibits, the Appellant respectfully requests
that the Board of Assessment Review:

A. Conclude that the assessed value of the Property exceeds its fair market/just value as of the
assessment date;
B. Find that the Appellant has met the burden of proving that the assessment is substantially
overvalued and therefore manifestly wrong; and
C. Grant the requested abatement consistent with the evidence presented.

This submission is organized into the following sections:

1. Appellant’s Response to “Assessor Response BOAR 066A A021001Appeal.docx” dated
 January 7, 2026
2. Appellant’s Response to Assessor’s Analysis
3. List of Exhibits




 Page 107
 List of Exhibits

Appellant Exhibits

 Appellant Exhibit AA
 Email Correspondence Dated October 22, 2025
 Appellant Exhibit A
 Assessor Response BOAR 066A A021001Appeal.docx Dated January 7, 2026
 Appellant Exhibit B
 Email Correspondence Dated December 12 - 23, 2025
 Appellant Exhibit C1/C2
 Screenshots from Google Nest Camera Dated January 7, 2026
 Appellant Exhibit D
 Relevant Comparable Information Not Included in “Recent sales of similar properties [EXHIBIT 15]”
 Appellant Exhibit E
 Map of Assessor Comparables from Recent sales of similar properties [EXHIBIT 15]
 Appellant Exhibit F
 Comparable Sales and Adjustment Summary
 Appellant Exhibit G
 Comparable Sale and Assessment Demonstrating Market-Recognized Value Adjustments




 Page 108
 Appellant’s Amended Response to “Assessor Response BOAR 066A A021001Appeal.docx”
 Dated January 7, 2026

FY25 Assessed Value: $923,900
Appellant’s Opinion of Fair Market Value: $767,500
Difference: $156,400 (~17%)

The Appellant respectfully submits that the assessed value materially exceeds fair market value and is
not applied at a relatively uniform rate when compared to the recent sale or assessment comparables
used by the Assessor in the decision dated January 7, 2026. The evidence demonstrates that the
assessment is manifestly wrong due to substantial overvaluation and lack of uniformity.

Assessment-to-Sale Price Ratio: 132%

Assessment-to-Supported FMV Ratio: approximately 120%*

Data from Assessor Exhibit 15




*Assessment-to-FMV Ratio for the subject uses the Appellant’s reconciled fair market value of $767,500.




 Page 109
Data Used from Portland Assessor Database and Zillow Sales Records1

Appellant Exhibit G Comparable Sale and Assessment Demonstrating Market-Recognized Value
Adjustments




Final Reconciliation of Value

Comparable properties in equal or superior locations or functional utility are assessed at a
significantly lower rate. 61 Granite Street is assessed at 132% of its actual sale price and not
supported by potential fair market value, despite inferior characteristics. This places the subject
property well outside the assessment ratio range applied to equal or superior properties,
demonstrating substantial overvaluation and lack of uniformity.

When the subject Property is valued consistently with the assessment ratios applied to these equal or
superior comparables and adjusted for differences in size, amenities, and location, the resulting fair
market value indication falls well below the current assessment. Based on this analysis, a fair market
value of approximately $767,500 represents a reasonable and equitable reconciliation as of April 1,
2025. The existing assessment of $923,900 therefore constitutes a substantial overvaluation and
lacks uniformity, supporting a finding that the assessment is manifestly wrong and should be
reduced accordingly.

The evidence demonstrates both substantial overvaluation and lack of relative uniformity, satisfying the
standard for a finding that the assessment is manifestly wrong under Maine law.

Requested Relief

The Appellant respectfully requests that the Board determine the assessment of 61 Granite Street to be
manifestly wrong and grant an abatement reflecting a fair market value of $767,500 as of April 1,
2025.




 1

 https://assessors.portlandmaine.gov/datalets/datalet.aspx?mode=profileall&sIndex=5&idx=1&LMparent=2
 0; https://assessors.portlandmaine.gov/Datalets/Datalet.aspx?sIndex=6&idx=1;
 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/20-Deane-St-Portland-ME-04102/84950631_zpid/;
 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/25-Deane-St-Portland-ME-04102/157715533_zpid/




 Page 110
 Appellant’s Amended Response to Assessor’s Analysis

1. We respectfully disagree with the characterization of our response to the City Assessor’s
December 12, 2025 706-A request.

The City’s characterization of the October 10, 2025 request is inaccurate. The October 10 letter stated
that the Appellant “can include appraisals and documented evidence” (See Assessor’s City
Assessor’s informal request for additional information [EXHIBIT 6]; it did not require that an
appraisal be submitted. While an appraisal was inadvertently not included with the Appellant’s response
on October 22, 2025, this omission was not intentional, and the City acknowledged receipt of the
information. (See Appellant Exhibit AA). The absence of an appraisal does not preclude consideration
of the Appellant’s valuation evidence and does not affect the Appellant’s ability to present full evidence
at this stage of the appeal.

The Appellant did provide additional information in response to the request, including seven
comparable sales (See Assessor’s Appellant email response to request for information [EXHIBIT
7]), offered to illustrate market context and assessment inconsistency. While the City asserts that only
16 Wolcott Street predates the April 1, 2025 assessment date, Maine law does not require a
professional appraisal to meet the taxpayer’s burden. That burden may be satisfied through credible
market evidence, including comparable sales and property-specific analysis. In fact, The Court held that
the taxpayer must present credible evidence of just value, but it does not require a professional
appraisal. The Court recognized that market evidence may satisfy the burden. (See City of Waterville v.
Waterville Homes, Inc., 655 A.2d 365 (Me. 1995). Further, 36 M.R.S. § 843 (abatement statute)
imposes the burden of proof on the taxpayer but does not specify the form of evidence required.

It is incorrect to state that the Appellant failed to provide additional information or failed to comply with
the December 12, 2025 request. As noted by council in the Assessor Response BOAR 066A
A021001Appeal.docx dated January 7, 2026” letter, the Appellant “technically has 30 days to respond
to a 706-A request” (See Appellant Exhibit A, page 4.). The Assessor’s requested December 29,
2025 turnaround provided fewer than three business weeks for response, which made compliance
impracticable. The Appellant promptly communicated this constraint and provided a reasonable
response date of January 11, 2026, which remains within the statutory response period. (See
Appellant Exhibit B, page 2.) Although the Assessor requested an accelerated response for internal
preparation purposes, the Appellant was entitled to the full 30-day response period and exercised that
right. The Appellant’s response timing is compliant and should not be construed as a delay or failure to
cooperate.

Further, the Appellant promptly responded to Elisa Marr on December 15 requesting available options for the
walkthrough. That same day, Elisa Marr replied offering availability on January 6, 7, or 8 between 8:30 a.m.
and 3:30 p.m. On December 16, 2025, the Appellant again confirmed availability on any of the proposed dates
and noted that morning hours would be preferable due to work commitments. No response to Appellant
availability was received. On December 22, 2025, Elisa Marr replied without acknowledging the Appellant’s
December 15 response. The Appellant replied again on December 22, confirming availability between
9:00–11:00 a.m. on either day and inquiring about the estimated duration of the inspection. On December 23,
2025, Elisa Marr advised that the appraiser would reach out directly. Later that day, Jim Merrill contacted the




 Page 111
Appellant with his availability, and the Appellant confirmed the proposed date and time on December 23,
responding, “That works perfectly. Thank you!” (See Appellant’s Exhibit B, page 12.)

At no point did the Appellant delay, refuse, or fail to respond to inspection requests. To the contrary, the
Appellant responded promptly, confirmed broad availability within the dates proposed by the City, and
scheduled the inspection at the first time coordinated directly with the assigned appraiser.

The fact that the inspection was scheduled for January 7, 2026 reflects the availability proposed by the City
and its appraiser, not any lack of cooperation by the Appellant. Accordingly, it would be inaccurate to suggest
that the timing of the inspection resulted from delay or non-responsiveness on the part of the Appellant.

The Appellant has acted in good faith throughout this appeal and has already provided substantial information
supporting the valuation challenge. The brief extension does not prejudice the City, particularly given that the
request was issued after significant prior submissions had already been made. Accordingly, the Appellant’s
response timeline is both reasonable and consistent with the governing process.

2. The City’s characterization of the Appellant’s November 26, 2025 Application misstates both its
purpose and legal significance.

An application to the Board of Assessment Review is a procedural filing intended to preserve appeal rights, not
to present a taxpayer’s complete evidentiary case. Maine law places the burden on the taxpayer to ultimately
prove overvaluation at hearing, not at the application stage. (See Town of Southwest Harbor v. Harwood, 2000
ME 213, 8, 763 A.2d 115.) The Application provided sufficient information to raise a legitimate question
regarding just value and uniformity and establish a prima facie basis for review, which is all that is required at
filing. Although the Application identifies initial comparables and price-per-square-foot context to establish a
prima facie basis for review, it is not, and Maine law does not treat it as, an evidentiary limitation (See 36
M.R.S. §271.) A taxpayer’s initial application satisfies procedural filing requirements, after which the Board
conducts a hearing where both sides may present written and oral evidence and testimony. Under the Board’s
statutory authority to administer oaths and take testimony, and summon evidence, the hearing phase, not the
initial application, is where the substantive valuation evidence is considered.

Further, the Appellant’s opinion of value, based on a good-faith analysis of comparable sales, assessment
data, and property-specific market factors, is warranted and appropriate for consideration in determining fair
market value. (See M.R. Evid. 701 (permitting lay opinion testimony that is rationally based on the witness’s
perception and helpful to determining a fact in issue).)

3. The City’s suggestion that the homestead exemption should factor into the discussion of fair market
value is misplaced.

Under Maine law, the determination of just value is distinct from any exemption that may later be applied to
reduce taxable value. The Maine Constitution requires that all property be assessed “according to just value,”
meaning fair market value, independent of tax relief mechanisms. Article IX, §8 of the Maine Constitution
establishes that property must be assessed on the basis of its just value, which is commonly interpreted as fair
market value.




 Page 112
Section 701-A requires assessors to determine the property’s just value based on its characteristics, permitted
uses, and relevant market factors. In contrast, the homestead exemption under 36 M.R.S. § 683 operates as a
statutory reduction applied after just value is determined and affects only taxable value, not fair market value.
The exemption reduces the amount of value subject to taxation but does not alter the underlying just value that
is the subject of a valuation appeal.

There is no basis in statute or constitutional valuation principles to conflate exemption reductions with the core
valuation inquiry. The Appellant’s requested valuation relief therefore relates to just value exclusive of the
homestead exemption, and the evidence should be understood in that context.

4. The Appellant does not dispute that the two parcels were conveyed in the same deed or that they
function together. However, that fact does not resolve the issue before the Board, which is whether the
assessed market value reflects just value.

Under Maine law, property must be assessed at just value based on its actual characteristics, permitted uses,
and market utility, rather than solely on deed configuration or technical parcel description. (See Me. Const. art.
IX, § 8; 36 M.R.S. § 701-A.)

The City’s own assessment treatment confirms the limited contribution of the secondary parcel. (See Assessor
Exhibit 1 Subject Property Record Card [EXHIBIT 1]). Parcel 066A A022001, consisting primarily of an
access driveway and shed, is assessed at a combined value of $12,500, reflecting its accessory nature and
lack of independent market utility. The parcel does not add buildable area, frontage, or functional utility
comparable to a conforming residential lot, and therefore does not materially affect the market value of the
improved residential property.

While the combined lot area totals 9,393 square feet, the inclusion of a small, non buildable accessory parcel
does not place the property in a materially different market category than comparable properties with single
residential lots. Whether the parcels are described separately or collectively, the assessment must still reflect
the fair market value of the property as a whole, accounting for the limited and subordinate contribution of the
secondary parcel. The City’s acknowledgment that the secondary parcel carries only nominal value confirms
that it cannot be used to justify or sustain the challenged assessment of the primary residence.

The Appellant does not dispute the City’s authority to prospectively combine contiguous parcels for
assessment purposes. However, the City’s stated intent to combine the parcels for FY27 is not relevant to the
determination of just value for the assessment year under appeal. For the valuation year at issue, the City
assessed the parcels separately and expressly recognized parcel 066A A022001 as accessory in nature by
assigning it a nominal value of $12,500, reflecting its limited utility as a driveway and shed and its lack of
independent market value. Under Maine law, property must be assessed based on its actual characteristics
and permitted uses as of the assessment date, not on prospective zoning administration or future assessment
treatment. Accordingly, whether the parcels may be combined for FY27 does not justify or sustain the
challenged assessment for the year under appeal, which must reflect the limited and subordinate contribution
of the accessory parcel.




 Page 113
5. The Appellant does not dispute the accuracy of the aerial photographs or the existence of
architectural features, however, the City’s reliance on aerial imagery and listing photographs from the
2021 sale does not establish just value for the FY26 assessment year nor does the Assessor
walk-through on January 7, 2026 constitute an adequate inspection.

The Appellant does not dispute the accuracy of the aerial imagery in Assessor Exhibit 13 or that the
Property consists of two parcels. However, the City’s recitation of prior aerial imagery and listing
photographs from the 2021 sale does not advance the determination of just value for the assessment
year at issue. As the City acknowledges, the 2021 listing images were not relied upon in the FY26
revaluation because they are too remote in time to reflect current market conditions. For the same
reason, those images are not probative of improved grade or value in this appeal. Further, aerial
photographs merely depict physical layout and proximity and do not establish market value or support
the Assessor’s conclusions regarding current quality or grading. Moreover, no material hardscaping or
landscaping improvements have been made since. Absent documented evidence of improvement and
value, such images cannot support a higher assessment. (See Assessor Exhibit Aerial images of
subject area [EXHIBIT 13] and Listing images from 2021 sale of Property [EXHIBIT 14].)

Further, the Appellant notes that the appraiser’s walkthrough of the Property on January 7, 2026 lasted
approximately ten minutes and did not include questions regarding the grade or quality of materials,
finishes, or systems. Given the limited duration and scope of the inspection (arrival at approximately
9:57 am and departure at approximately 10:04 am), it would be inappropriate to rely on that
walkthrough as a basis for assigning or confirming a grade for the Property. (See Appellant Exhibit C.)

Accepted appraisal standards recognize that a credible valuation requires an inspection of sufficient
scope to evaluate quality, condition, materials, and functional characteristics of the property. The
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) require that an appraiser perform the
level of inspection necessary to develop a credible assignment result, including gathering information
relevant to quality and condition. (See Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP),
Standards Rule 1-2 and Scope of Work Rule (requiring sufficient inspection and information to produce
credible results) Similarly, IAAO appraisal standards emphasize that accurate valuation and grading
depend on adequate inspection to observe construction quality, materials, and property-specific
characteristics. In practice, a residential appraisal inspection typically requires 30 to 90 minutes,
depending on the size and age of the home, and includes inquiry into material grades, finishes, and
systems.

An inspection limited to approximately ten minutes, without questions regarding the grade or quality of
materials, does not provide a reliable basis for assigning or confirming a quality or grade classification
and should not be relied upon for that purpose.

6. The Appellant does not dispute that the sales listed in Assessor Exhibit 15 were used in the 2025
revaluation. However, the clear departure from uniformity constitutes a manifestly wrong assessment.

Of the 17 comparable sales relied upon by the City, 15 properties (approximately 88 percent) are larger
than the subject Property’s 2,138 square feet, many by several hundred square feet. In addition, 15 of
the 17 comparables (approximately 88 percent) have one or two more bedrooms, providing materially




 Page 114
greater functional utility and buyer appeal. Further, 14 of the 17 comparables (approximately 82
percent) include one or two car garages, while the subject Property has no garage, placing it at a
competitive disadvantage in market demand. Each of these attributes, size, bedroom count, and garage
presence, is independently recognized by the market as value contributing. Taken together, they reflect
a systematic bias toward larger, more functional homes than the subject Property. Sales of homes with
greater square footage, additional bedrooms, and garage amenities indicate the market value of a
different product, not the just value of 61 Granite Street. Reliance on such comparables without
appropriate downward adjustment materially overstates the fair market value of the subject Property.
(See Appellant Exhibit D and G.)

Even among the smaller sales listed, several properties benefit from street-level and locational
advantages not shared by the subject Property, including quieter interior streets, lower traffic exposure,
and reduced proximity to I-295. These factors materially influence buyer demand and pricing and must
be accounted for through appropriate adjustment. The spreadsheet presentation does not demonstrate
that such adjustments were made. Additionally, although the City characterizes the selected sales as
occurring within the same assessing neighborhood, the comparables span distinct micro-markets,
including Deering Center and Rosemont, with materially different street conditions, traffic exposure, and
neighborhood character. The subject Property, located on Granite Street, is affected by proximity to
I-295, higher traffic volumes, and associated noise, while many of the cited comparables are located on
quieter interior streets with lower traffic exposure. These local differences directly influence buyer
demand and market pricing. Accepted appraisal practice requires that comparables reflect similar
location conditions, or that appropriate adjustments be made where superior micro-market
characteristics exist. Absent such adjustment, reliance on these sales materially overstates the fair
market value of the subject Property. (See Appellant Exhibit E and G.)

Buyer demand, pricing expectations, and traffic sensitivity differ materially between interior residential
streets and properties adjacent to I-295, regardless of assessing neighborhood designation.

Maine law requires that property be assessed not only at just value, but also uniformly in relation to
comparable properties. (See Me. Const. art. IX, § 8.) Additionally, independent real estate valuation
authorities recognize that home values vary materially at the micro-market level, with valuation models
explicitly segmenting homes by neighborhood and ZIP code and acknowledging that factors such as
street context, traffic exposure, and neighborhood boundaries can produce significant value differences
even among otherwise similar properties.¹ ² ³2

The Assessor’s comparable properties were equal or superior locations are assessed at approximately
71% to 89% of sale price. 61 Granite Street is assessed at 132% of its actual sale price and
approximately 120% of its supported fair market value, despite inferior characteristics. This places the
subject property well outside the assessment ratio range applied to superior properties, demonstrating
substantial overvaluation and lack of uniformity.
 2
 ¹ Zillow Research, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) Methodology (explaining that value estimates are calculated using
 geographically segmented micro-regions based on local market data), https://www.zillow.com/research/zhvi-methodology/
 ² DiGonzini, What Zillow Won’t Tell You About Your Home’s True Value (noting limitations of automated models and the impact of
 micro-location factors such as busy roads and neighborhood boundaries),
 https://www.digonzini.com/blog/what-zillow-wont-tell-you-about-your-homes-true-value
 ³ HomeLight, What Affects Home Value? (identifying location and neighborhood context as primary drivers of value differences
 between otherwise similar homes), https://www.homelight.com/blog/real-estate-property-value/




 Page 115
When the subject Property is valued consistently with the assessment ratios applied to these superior
comparables and adjusted for differences in size, amenities, and location, the resulting fair market
value indication falls well below the current assessment. Based on this analysis, a fair market value of
approximately $767,500 represents a reasonable and equitable reconciliation as of April 1, 2025. The
existing assessment of $923,900 therefore constitutes a substantial overvaluation and lacks uniformity,
supporting a finding that the assessment is manifestly wrong and should be reduced accordingly. (See
Appellant Exhibits D, F, and G.)




 Page 116
7. - 10. The Appellant does not dispute that the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, and
Income Approach are the three generally recognized valuation methodologies, nor that the Income
Approach is not applicable to an owner-occupied residential property. The Appellant also agrees that,
for this property type, the Sales Comparison Approach supported by the Cost Approach is an
appropriate framework for a municipal revaluation. However, the application of those methodologies to
this specific Property failed to adequately account for material differences and external influences,
resulting in an assessed value that exceeds fair market value as of the assessment date.

The mere identification of recognized valuation approaches does not resolve the issues presented in
this appeal. Under IAAO standards, both the Sales Comparison Approach and the Cost Approach
require accurate identification of property characteristics and appropriate, market-supported
adjustments for material differences in location, size, utility, and features in order to produce a credible
indication of market value. For purposes of the Sales Comparison Approach, comparable sales must
either be truly similar to the subject property or adjusted to reflect material differences, including
micro-market location, traffic exposure, square footage, bedroom count, garage presence, and other
functional characteristics. Where such adjustments are not adequately made, the resulting value
reflects a materially different product rather than the subject Property.

Likewise, the Cost Approach requires proper recognition of all forms of depreciation, including physical,
functional, and external depreciation. External influences such as proximity to major roadways, traffic
exposure, and neighborhood conditions are recognized sources of depreciation and must be accounted
for in the analysis. Reliance on generalized cost tables or depreciation schedules without sufficient
parcel-specific consideration may therefore overstate value for properties affected by such external
conditions.

Accordingly, the Appellant does not contend that the City relied on improper valuation methodologies,
but that the application of those methodologies to this specific Property failed to adequately account for
material differences and external influences, resulting in an assessed value that exceeds fair market
value as of the assessment date. The question before the Board is not whether recognized appraisal
approaches were cited, but whether the Sales Comparison Approach, as applied, produced a valuation
reflecting just value based on credible comparables and appropriate adjustments. The Appellant’s
evidence demonstrates that it did not.

As reflected in the City’s own cited authorities, the issue in this appeal is not the use of recognized
mass appraisal methodologies, but whether those methodologies were applied with sufficient
parcel-level adjustment to produce a credible indication of just value for the subject Property.

11. Although the City references a detailed explanation of residential value development, the full
methodology, including the underlying formulas and analytical assumptions relied upon, was not
provided to the Appellant in advance of the Assessor’s Response.

The Appellant does not dispute that depreciation tables, dwelling cost factors, and CAMA models are standard
tools used in mass appraisal and that mass appraisal is an appropriate methodology for conducting a
municipal revaluation. However, accepted assessment practice recognizes that mass appraisal is designed to




 Page 117
achieve overall equity across large groups of properties, not to determine the precise fair market value of an
individual parcel in an abatement appeal.

On December 15, 2025 the Appellant requested “the documented fair market value calculation and analysis”
and had to request again on December 16, 2025 “the formulas/calculations and analysis for the creation of the
"Grade & Depreciation" as well as the "Dwelling Computation" (and any additional data you have on the
property and how the values were determined)”. (See Appellant Exhibit B, page 2.) The Property Record
provided on December 16 and the RCFACT (Dwelling Cost Factors) and depreciation tables provided
December 18 limited the Appellant’s ability to review and respond to the specific assumptions, adjustments,
and modeling relied upon for the subject Property. (See Assessor Exhibits 1, 11, 12.) Further, the Appellant
notes that the full mass appraisal methodology referenced by the City as Exhibit 16 is significantly different
from the information provided by Elisa Marr on December 23, 2025 creating uncertainty as to the methodology
actually relied upon. (See Assessor Exhibit Explanation of Mass Appraisal and Residential Value
Methodology [EXHIBIT 16] and Appellant Exhibit B, pages 9 and 10.) The fact that the methodology
materials provided were both incomplete and inconsistent with the documents referenced in the City’s exhibits
materially affected the Appellant’s ability to meaningfully evaluate and respond to the City’s valuation rationale.

When referenced exhibits differ from what is actually produced, it is not possible to confirm which assumptions,
adjustment factors, depreciation tables, or location modifiers were applied to the subject Property versus the
broader dataset. This discrepancy limits the Appellant’s ability to test whether the mass appraisal model
appropriately accounted for property-specific characteristics, micro-market conditions, and locational
influences, or whether generalized factors were applied without sufficient adjustment. As a result, while the
Appellant has responded in good faith using publicly available data and parcel-level evidence, the absence of
the complete and consistent methodology constrains a full rebuttal of the City’s asserted valuation process.

Therefore, while the Appellant has responded based on the information available, the absence of the complete
methodology ahead of the Assessor’s Response constrained the ability to fully assess how property-specific
factors and micro-market conditions were treated in the valuation.

12. The City’s reliance on a city-wide average increase as evidence of fairness is misplaced and
inconsistent with the constitutional requirement that property be assessed according to its just value,
not according to averages. An average, by definition, reflects aggregated market movement and does
not account for the individual characteristics, constraints, or disadvantages of a specific property.
Applying or justifying an assessment based on how closely it tracks an average risks substituting
statistical conformity for equitable valuation.

Equity in assessment requires that each property be valued based on what a willing buyer would pay for that
property, given its size, location, utility, and market conditions, etc.. Properties do not appreciate uniformly,
even within the same revaluation cycle, and the use of a city-wide average as a benchmark fails to recognize
legitimate variation in appreciation rates. A property may be overvalued even if its assessed increase aligns
with, or slightly exceeds, the municipal average.

Accordingly, the fact that the assessed increase for 61 Granite Street approximates or exceeds the city-wide
average does not establish that the assessment is equitable or reflects just value. The proper inquiry is




 Page 118
whether the assessment reflects the fair market value of this Property, based on property-specific evidence,
rather than whether it conforms to an average applied across the City.

Maine law requires that property be assessed according to its just value, meaning the fair market value of the
individual property, not by reference to aggregated averages or statistical conformity. (Me. Const. art. IX, §8.)
The determination of just value must consider the property’s specific characteristics, including location,
condition, utility, and market influences affecting buyer behavior. (36 M.R.S. §701-A.) While mass appraisal
models and revaluation averages are useful tools for evaluating systemwide equity, they are not substitutes for
property-specific valuation analysis and do not establish accuracy for any single parcel.³ Accepted assessment
standards recognize that ratio studies and average appreciation rates are diagnostic indicators, not proof that
an individual assessment reflects fair market value.⁴ Properties therefore may, and often do, appreciate at
different rates within the same revaluation cycle based on legitimate differences in size, location, traffic
exposure, and micro-market conditions.⁵ Accordingly, the fact that an assessment aligns with or exceeds a
city-wide average does not demonstrate that it is equitable or reflects the fair market value of the subject
Property.⁶3

Conclusion

Comparable properties in equal or superior locations are assessed at approximately 71% to 89% of
sale price. 61 Granite Street is assessed at 132% of its actual sale price and approximately 120% of its
supported fair market value, despite inferior characteristics. This places the subject property well
outside the assessment ratio range applied to superior properties, demonstrating substantial
overvaluation and lack of uniformity.

When the subject Property is valued consistently with the assessment ratios applied to these superior
comparables and adjusted for differences in size, amenities, and location, the resulting fair market
value indication falls well below the current assessment. Based on this analysis, a fair market value of
approximately $767,500 represents a reasonable and equitable reconciliation as of April 1, 2025. The
existing assessment of $923,900 therefore constitutes a substantial overvaluation and lacks uniformity,
supporting a finding that the assessment is manifestly wrong and should be reduced accordingly.

The evidence demonstrates both substantial overvaluation and lack of relative uniformity, satisfying the
standard for a finding that the assessment is manifestly wrong under Maine law.

Requested Relief

The Appellant respectfully requests that the Board determine the assessment of 61 Granite Street to be
manifestly wrong and grant an abatement reflecting a fair market value of $767,500 as of April 1,
2025.


 3
 ³ International Association of Assessing Officers, Standard on Mass Appraisal of Real Property.
 https://www.iaao.org/wp-content/uploads/Standard_on_Mass_Appraisal.pdf
 ⁴ International Association of Assessing Officers, Standard on Ratio
 Studies.https://www.iaao.org/wp-content/uploads/Standard_on_Ratio_Studies.pdf
 ⁵ IAAO appraisal principles regarding market variability and property-specific
 characteristics.https://www.iaao.org/wp-content/uploads/Standard_on_Automated_Valuation_Models.pdf
 ⁶ Maine Revenue Services, Property Tax Guidance (defining just value as what a willing buyer would pay for the specific property).




 Page 119
 List of Exhibits

Appellant Exhibits

 Appellant Exhibit AA
 Email Correspondence Dated October 22, 2025
 Appellant Exhibit A
 Assessor Response BOAR 066A A021001Appeal.docx Dated January 7, 2026
 Appellant Exhibit B
 Email Correspondence Dated December 12 - 23, 2025
 Appellant Exhibit C1/C2
 Screenshots from Google Nest Camera Dated January 7, 2026
 Appellant Exhibit D
 Relevant Comparable Information Not Included in “Recent sales of similar properties [EXHIBIT 15]”
 Appellant Exhibit E
 Map of Assessor Comparables from Recent sales of similar properties [EXHIBIT 15]
 Appellant Exhibit F
 Comparable Sales and Adjustment Summary
 Appellant Exhibit G
 Comparable Sale and Assessment Demonstrating Market-Recognized Value Adjustments




 Page 120
1/7/26, 7:37 PM Gmail - Clark - 61 Granite St, Portland, Maine Abatement Request

 Appellant Exhibit AA
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Clark - 61 Granite St, Portland, Maine Abatement Request
  Assessors Office <assessors@portlandmaine.gov> Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 8:04 AM
  To: CC <cc26759@gmail.com>
  Cc: Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>

 Hello
 This office is in receipt of your information. If there are any questions, someone will be in touch.

 Thank you
 Brad
 Office Assistant
 Assessor's Office
 City of Portland
 389 Congress Street, Room 115
 Portland, Maine 04101
 Office: 207-874-8486
 assessors@portlandmaine.gov
 www.portlandmaine.gov




 [Quoted text hidden]
 [Quoted text hidden]




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1846683568592751027&simpl=msg-f:1846683568592751027 1/1
 Page 121
 Appellant Exhibit A
 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 13, 2026
 Colleen Clark & Meredith Lubkin Trustees, 61 Granite Street
 Parcel ID 066A A021001



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 trustee
Colleen Clark (“Appellant”), regarding the property located at 61 Granite Street (the “Property”), a
hearing for which is scheduled for January 13, 2026. The Property is owned by the Colleen Clark
and Meredith Lubkin Living Trust.

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 122
 Appellant Exhibit A

TIMELINE

4/1/2025 Assessed value for the April 1, 2025 assessment date (FY26) was as follows:
 $136,500 Land; 8,259 sq. ft. lot
 $822,500 Building; single family dwelling with 2,372 sq. ft. living area
 $959,000 Total Assessed Value [See EXHIBIT 17.]

9/18/2025 Application for Abatement of Property Taxes received from Appellant via email.
 [See EXHIBIT 6.]

10/10/2025 Assessor’s Ofﬁce issued a letter to Appellant requesting additional information
 regarding the Property, including appraisals and other documented evidence
 showing the property was overvalued. [See EXHIBIT 6.]

10/22/2025 Appellant submitted an email in response to the request for additional
 information. The email indicated that an appraisal was being provided, but no
 appraisal was attached to that email or subsequently provided to the Assessor.
 [See EXHIBIT 7.]

10/31/2025 Assessor’s Ofﬁce issued an abatement letter in the amount of $35,100 to reﬂect a
 decrease in the condition factor based on a review of the 2021 listing. [See
 EXHIBITS 8, 14, and 17.]

11/26/2025 Appellant ﬁled an Application for Appeal with the Board of Assessment Review.

12/12/2025 Assessor issued a 706-A Request for Additional information (the “706-A Request”)
 and requested a walkthrough of the Property before December 29, 2025. Note:
 Between December 12th and 20th, the City Assessor made three requests to review
 the Property in person. The Appellant conﬁrmed an appointment after the third
 request, however that appointment is not scheduled until the City Assessor’s
 Response due date of January 7, 2026. [See EXHIBIT 9.]

12/15-23/2025 Appellant responded via email to the 706-A Request indicating that due to the
 holidays they would not be able to comply with the request until January 11, 2026,
 however, the Appellant in turn requested “provide me with the Assessment Record
 prepared for our property, particularly the documented fair market value
 calculation and analysis.” In response, the City Assessor submitted the Property
 Record Card [see EXHIBIT 1] to which the Appellant further requested “also please
 provide me with the formulas/calculations and analysis for the creation of the "Grade &
 Depreciation" as well as the "Dwelling Computation" (and any additional data you have
 on the property and how the values were determined)”. The City Assessor responded
 by providing Explanation of Mass Appraisal and Residential Value Methodology
 [see EXHIBIT 16].



 2 | Page



 Page 123
 Appellant Exhibit A

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Appellant’s Submission:
 ● Application for Abatement of Property Taxes packet, received by Corporation Counsel on
 November 26, 2025 on behalf of the Board of Assessment Review.

City Assessor’s Exhibits:
 ● Subject Property Record Card [EXHIBIT 1]
 ● Appellant’s suggested comparable property at 66 Granite Street Property Record Card
 [EXHIBIT 2]
 ● Appellant’s suggested comparable property at 20 Deane Street Property Record Card
 [EXHIBIT 3]
 ● Appellant’s suggested comparable property at 16 Wolcott Street Property Record Card and
 four listing images from the sale of this property [EXHIBIT 4]
 ● Application for Abatement of Property Taxes to Assessor dated 9/17/2025 and received
 9/18/2025 via email [EXHIBIT 5]
 ● City Assessor’s informal request for additional information [EXHIBIT 6]
 ● Appellant email response to request for information [EXHIBIT 7]
 ● Letter of Abatement dated 10/31/2025 [EXHIBIT 8]
 ● City Assessor’s formal 706-A Request for Additional Information dated
 12/12/2025[EXHIBIT 9]
 ● Appellant’s response to 706-A Request by email dated 12/15/2025 [EXHIBIT 10]
 ● RCFACT – Dwelling Cost Factors [EXHIBIT 11]
 ● RCDEPR – Depreciation Tables [EXHIBIT 12]
 ● Aerial images of subject area [EXHIBIT 13]
 ● Listing images from 2021 sale of Property [EXHIBIT 14]
 ● Recent sales of similar properties [EXHIBIT 15]
 ● Explanation of Mass Appraisal and Residential Value Methodology [EXHIBIT 16]
 ● 2025 Initial Revaluation Property Record Card [EXHIBIT 17]




 3 | Page



 Page 124
 Appellant Exhibit A

 CITY ASSESSOR’S RESPONSE

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. On October 10, 2025 the Assessor’s Ofﬁce issued a letter to request additional information
 about the Property from the Appellant including an appraisal and other documented
 evidence showing the property was overvalued. The Appellant has not provided any
 additional information as outlined in the letter. [see EXHIBIT 6.] The Appellant
 submitted an email in response to the request for additional information indicating that
 an appraisal was being provided but there was no attached appraisal. The Appellant
 provided seven more comparable sales in this communication. Only the sale at 16 Wolcott
 Street [see EXHIBIT 4] is relevant as all of the other sales were after the assessment date
 of April 1, 2025. Included with Exhibit 4 are interior images from the 16 Wolcott Street
 listing. These images are included so that the Board can clearly see that this property is
 not comparable to the subject Property, which is depicted in the images for the 2021 sale
 listing of the Property. [see Exhibit 14].

 On December 12, 2025, the City Assessor ﬁled a second request for information in the
 form of a 706-A request. [See EXHIBIT 9.] Although the Appellant technically has 30 days
 to respond, the City Assessor requested that the Appellant provide the information by
 December 29, 2025 to allow time for review and preparation for the upcoming hearing.
 The Appellant responded that due to the holidays they would not be able to comply with
 the request until January 11, 2026 which is well after the submission date for the Appellant
 and Assessor’s submissions in this appeal.

 In response to the 706-A request, the Appellant also requested additional information
 regarding the development of the Property value. The City Assessor provided the
 Appellant with a copy of RCFACT (Dwelling Cost Factors) [see EXHIBIT 11] and RCDEPR
 (depreciation tables) [see EXHIBIT 12]. This is the type of information used in the mass
 appraisal process and by real estate professionals.

 2. In the Appellant’s Application to the Board of Assessment Review dated November 26,
 2025 (the “Application”), the Appellant provides only two paragraphs of evidence and
 references just two properties and the price per square foot as the evidence of “just value”
 and to support the Appellant’s opinion that the assessment is manifestly wrong.
 Comparing only assessed values is not an accurate comparison of fair market value. It is

 4 | Page



 Page 125
 Appellant Exhibit A

 normal for properties to increase at differing rates in a revaluation, particularly in the
 recent post COVID market. The Appellant’s opinion of value is based solely on a
 lay-person’s comparison of two properties that are not identical to the subject Property.

3. The Application references values of other properties that are reduced by the $25,000
 Homestead Exemption. The exemption should not be applied to a market value
 discussion. The current assessed value is $923,900, $25,000 more than the amount listed
 on the Appeal as being the assessed value. It is not clear whether the actual value
 requested by the Appellant is also $25,000 more than listed on the Appeal or $793,423.

4. Note also that the Property consists of two lots, the main lot with the dwelling unit at
 066A A021001 and an abutting lot with the access driveway and a shed identiﬁed as 066A
 A021001. These two lots were transferred in the same deed as part of the sale and should,
 in fact, be considered one lot for assessing purposes. 066A A022001 is a 5,045 square foot
 lot and is assessed at $10,100 with a shed assessed at $2,400 for a total assessed value of
 $12,500. This low assessed value recognizes the association with the primary lot. The
 actual total lot size is 9,393 square feet.

 The Property is in the RN3 Zone, which requires a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size.
 Due to Re-Code and new zoning, the primary lot is a non-conforming lot at 4,348 square
 feet, is contiguous and in the same name. For these reasons, these two lots will be
 combined for assessing purposes for FY27 and the property owner will receive written
 notiﬁcation.

5. Three aerial images [see Exhibit 13] are included to provide a bird’s eye view of the
 Property. The ﬁrst image shows that the Property is made up of two lots. The second
 aerial image shows the Property from a different angle. The third aerial image shows the
 Property and its relation to the two comparable properties suggested by the Appellant, 20
 Deane Street and 66 Granite.

 Three listing images from the 2021 sale of the Property see EXHIBIT 14], are considered
 too old to be considered representative of the current real estate market and were not used
 as part of the FY26 revaluation. Nonetheless, these images demonstrate the quality of
 construction and condition of the Property:

 The ﬁrst listing image shows a curbside image of the Property. This and the aerial images
 show the investment in hardscaping and landscaping the Property. This type of
 investment can have a potential impact on the grade.

 The second listing image shows an interior image of a circular room with an architectural
 window, which demonstrates the superior grade of the Property. Note the architectural
 features including crown molding. These features are found throughout the house.

 The third listing image shows the unique architectural features including another


 5 | Page



 Page 126
 Appellant Exhibit A

 rounded wall and specialty window.

 The listing description is as follows:

 “About This Home

 In this Portland stunner, modern amenities and thoughtful updates meet old world charm for a
 truly one of a kind home. More than 2,100 square feet of living space on a generous parcel of
 land that affords outdoor dining, gardens, entertaining, and play. Discover why this property is
 so unique. Gleaming hardwood ﬂoors set a warm tone in the kitchen as black granite counter
 tops offer a luxurious prep surface and a perfect display for hors d'oeuvres during a party. Guests
 can ﬂow directly into a family room which features a gorgeous white, wooden plank ceiling.
 Custom cabinets create a butler's nook offering ample space for your very own coffee bar...the
 perfect way to start your day. Hardwood ﬂoors continue throughout the main living space
 including the spacious dining room, and the living room which features a curved wall and gas
 ﬁreplace, a perfect spot to curl up with a great book. Upstairs, are two large bedrooms plus the
 primary suite. The en-suite bath features marble counter tops, and stately tiled ﬂoors. The
 primary closet is to die for, both oversized and bathed in light thanks to large windows, picking
 out your clothes will be a daily treat. This Oakdale neighborhood house offers charm and delight
 at every corner, to be discovered and enjoyed over a lifetime.”

6. The spreadsheet below lists recent sales of similar properties in the same assessing
 neighborhood and used in the development of the 2025 revaluation [see EXHIBIT 15]. The
 Appellant’s Property is in pink and the Appellant’s comparable properties are in yellow.




7. 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.



 6 | Page



 Page 127
 Appellant Exhibit A

8. 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 (comparable) 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. A detailed explanation of the development of residential values can be found in the
 Explanation of Mass Appraisal and Residential Value Methodology. [See EXHIBIT 16.]

12. The Appellant purchased the Property in 2021 for $702,000 and is suggesting a current
 market value increase of just $65,000 or 9% since 2021. The Portland real estate market
 has experienced record growth since the Appellant purchased the Property. The city-wide
 revaluation average increase in value is 43%. The current assessment of the Property
 recognizes the Property as being above average. Accordingly, the value increase in the
 Property of 47% is slightly higher than the city-wide average, indicating that the assessed
 value is in line with the market increase.

13. 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 their burden of proof to
 demonstrate that the assessment was substantially overvalued, based on an unjust
 discrimination or subject to fraud, dishonesty or an illegality.

14. CONCLUSION: 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.


 7 | Page



 Page 128
 Appellant Exhibit A

 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




 8 | Page



 Page 129
1/6/26, 8:00 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov> Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 11:11 AM
  To: "cc26759@gmail.com" <cc26759@gmail.com>

 Good morning:

 This office mailed out a standard 706-A request for information letter to you today. I am attaching the 706-A request to this
 email so that you receive it as soon as possible. Although section 706-A typically allows a taxpayer 30 days to respond to
 an assessor’s inquiries, I ask that you provide this information to me no later than Monday, December 29, 2025 so that it
 can be available for the hearing on your appeal to the Board of Assessment Review. I appreciate your assistance and
 cooperation in this process.

 Elisa A. Marr, CMA-2
 Assessor
 City of Portland, Maine
 389 Congress Street, Room 115
 Portland, Maine 04101
 207-874-8754




 Notice: Under Maine law, documents - including e-mails - in the possession of public officials or city employees about
 government business may be classified as public records. There are very few exceptions. As a result, please be advised
 that what is written in an e-mail could be released to the public and/or the media if requested.

 706A 066A A021001.docx
 103K




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1851319537608009914&simpl=msg-f:1851319537608009914 1/1
 Page 130
1/6/26, 8:00 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  CC <cc26759@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 4:28 PM
  To: Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov>, Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>


 Hi Elisa,

 Thank you for sending the document. Due to the holidays and a recent family matter, we will not be able to complete all
 requested items by December 29, 2025. Under §706-A, a taxpayer has 30 days from receipt of a request to respond, so
 we will need the full timeframe. Please expect the completed materials no later than January 11, 2026.

 In the meantime, if you can please provide me with the Assessment Record prepared for our property, particularly the
 documented fair market value calculation and analysis, I would be greatly appreciative.

 Please feel free to reach out with any questions. Thank you, and happy holidays!

 Colleen Clark

 [Quoted text hidden]
 --


 Colleen M. Clark




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r9035276661974192617&simpl=msg-a:r9035276661974192617 1/1
 Page 131
1/6/26, 8:01 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov> Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 4:39 PM
  To: CC <cc26759@gmail.com>
  Cc: Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman <mig@portlandmaine.gov>

 Ms. Clark:

 Will you be able to schedule the requested walkthrough of the property?

 Thank you,

 Elisa A. Marr, CMA-2
 Assessor
 City of Portland, Maine
 389 Congress Street, Room 115
 Portland, Maine 04101
 207-874-8754




 [Quoted text hidden]




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1851611998271299810&simpl=msg-f:1851611998271299810 1/1
 Page 132
1/6/26, 8:01 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  CC <cc26759@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 4:42 PM
  To: Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov>
  Cc: Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman <mig@portlandmaine.gov>

 Absolutely, just not ahead of January 1 as we will be handing a family matter. Michael, please let me know options and we
 can work out the schedule. Thank you!
 [Quoted text hidden]
 --


 Colleen M. Clark




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r2652639638398647880&simpl=msg-a:r2652639638398647880 1/1
 Page 133
1/6/26, 8:02 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov> Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 4:44 PM
  To: CC <cc26759@gmail.com>
  Cc: Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman <mig@portlandmaine.gov>

 Ms. Clark:

 Are you available for a walkthrough January 6, 7, or 8 between 8:30 and 3:30 p.m.?


 Elisa A. Marr, CMA-2
 Assessor
 City of Portland, Maine
 389 Congress Street, Room 115
 Portland, Maine 04101
 207-874-8754




 [Quoted text hidden]




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1851612300659956549&simpl=msg-f:1851612300659956549 1/1
 Page 134
1/6/26, 8:03 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  CC <cc26759@gmail.com> Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 8:52 AM
  To: Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov>
  Cc: Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman <mig@portlandmaine.gov>

 Good morning! Unfortunately, nothing came through. Can you please resend? Also, we can be made available on any of
 the dates (January 6-8) but morning would be best due to work commitments. Thank you!
 [Quoted text hidden]
 --


 Colleen M. Clark




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r8449298724596377685&simpl=msg-a:r8449298724596377685 1/1
 Page 135
1/6/26, 8:04 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov> Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 2:22 PM
  To: CC <cc26759@gmail.com>
  Cc: Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman <mig@portlandmaine.gov>, Jessica Grondin
  <jgrondin@portlandmaine.gov>, Jim Merrill <jom@portlandmaine.gov>

 Good afternoon Ms. Clark:

 In reviewing your property record card there are some factors that I would like to review further that may help to resolve
 this appeal. We are going to need to schedule an appointment to do a walkthrough at your earliest convenience. Please
 let me know if the proposed dates of January 6 or 7 work for you and what time would be convenient.

 Thank you,

 Elisa A. Marr, CMA-2
 Assessor
 City of Portland, Maine
 389 Congress Street, Room 115
 Portland, Maine 04101
 207-874-8754




 [Quoted text hidden]




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1852237570343930506&simpl=msg-f:1852237570343930506 1/1
 Page 136
1/6/26, 8:05 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  Colleen Clark <cc26759@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 3:53 PM
  To: Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov>
  Cc: Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman <mig@portlandmaine.gov>, Jessica Grondin
  <jgrondin@portlandmaine.gov>, Jim Merrill <jom@portlandmaine.gov>

 Hi Elisa, between 9-11 either day is fine. Is there an estimate of how long it will take? Additionally, if there is any further
 information you can provide as to how the data was used it would be helpful. As it stands, these are just documents with
 the codes, and it is not abundantly clear how the analysis was done for our house overall. We would love to see those
 calculations. Thank you!


 On Dec 22, 2025, at 2:23 PM, Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov> wrote:



 [Quoted text hidden]




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1852243237058392967&simpl=msg-f:1852243237058392967 1/1
 Page 137
1/6/26, 8:05 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov> Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 9:03 AM
  To: Colleen Clark <cc26759@gmail.com>
  Cc: Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman <mig@portlandmaine.gov>, Jessica Grondin
  <jgrondin@portlandmaine.gov>, Jim Merrill <jom@portlandmaine.gov>

 Good morning:

 Senior Appraiser James Morrill will reach out to you to set a time.

 I have submitted your request for information to the City's communications director as a Freedom of Access Act or FOAA
 to allow me time to prepare documents to answer your inquiry. The tables I have provided to you are depreciation tables
 and dwelling cost factors. This is the type of information used in the mass appraisal process and by real estate
 professionals. The revaluation was conducted using mass appraisal.

 Mass appraisal is the systematic valuation of large groups of properties (like all homes in a county) at once, using
 common data, standardized methods, and statistical models (like regression) to determine values, primarily for property
 tax assessment, making it efficient and equitable where individual appraisals are impractical. Instead of valuing one home
 at a time, it uses Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) systems, market data, and algorithms to adjust for features
 like size, age, and location, creating consistent valuations for thousands of parcels.

 Methodology
 The local construction cost index is the ratio of the cost to construct a dwelling in one location compared
 with the cost to construct the same dwelling in another location at a given date. The cost schedules will be
 calibrated to closely reﬂect the region encompassing the City of Portland as of the April 1st date of value for
 the respective year of the reassessment.
 A. The cost index will be developed from an analysis of sales of newly constructed, average
 quality dwellings located within the City of Portland and/or sales of “relatively” new, average quality
 dwellings which have been properly adjusted for time. This is a four-step process that should be
 completed in the following order:
 1. Develop a market trend based on re-sales of improved residential properties within the
 City of Portland.
 2. Trend the construction costs for each new dwelling to be used in the index study to the
 April 1st date of value for the respective year of the reassessment.
 3. Calculate a cost ratio for each new dwelling by comparing the Enterprise Assessment
 replacement cost new (“RCN”) to actual construction costs.
 4. Analyze the individual cost ratios and correlate an overall local construction index.
 In the event that an insufﬁcient number of newly constructed, average quality dwellings are available to
 adequately document the local index, supplemental sources such as an accepted cost indexing service, will
 be used.

 Index Calculation
 The calculation process to establish the local index is as follows:

 1. Trend all sales to be used in the index study to the April 1st date of value for the
 respective year of the reassessment using the monthly trending factor established in the
 market trend analysis.
 2. Subtract the land value estimate from each adjusted sales price. The result is the
 indicated dwelling or building residual value.
 3. Obtain the RCN for each dwelling through Enterprise Assessment.
 4. For each sample, divide the indicated dwelling residual value (found in step 2) by the
 Enterprise Assessment “Base Value.” The result is the index factor for the improvements.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1852308044660966875&simpl=msg-f:1852308044660966875 1/2
 Page 138
1/6/26, 8:05 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal
 Calibrating the Residential Depreciation Tables
 Appellant Exhibit B
 Methodology
 The Enterprise Assessment residential accrued depreciation or percent good tables are a matrix which is set
 up by the “Year Built” and the “Condition, Desirability, and Usefulness” (“CDU”) rating of the dwelling. The
 tables will be calibrated to reﬂect the local market conditions for the City of Portland. The calibration
 process is completed by analyzing veriﬁed sales which are contained in the sales history ﬁle.
 Residential Sales Comparison Approach
 During this step of the valuation process, the City of Portland’s market modeling module will be fully
 deployed for residential improved parcels, where possible, so both the cost and comparable sales approach
 will be considered when arriving at the ﬁnal appraised value. If applicable, up to ﬁve comparable sales for
 each subject will be available for review. These comparable sales will be determined by both the Enterprise
 Assessment as well as values developed using AI technology.
 A market model is a statistical picture of the elements affecting sale price within the market area. By
 determining the relative effect of speciﬁed property characteristics on sale price, market models will be
 constructed and used to predict value for unsold properties.

 The above is the basis for the development of your property value.

 Thank you,

 Elisa A. Marr, CMA-2
 Assessor
 City of Portland, Maine
 389 Congress Street, Room 115
 Portland, Maine 04101
 207-874-8754




 [Quoted text hidden]




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1852308044660966875&simpl=msg-f:1852308044660966875 2/2
 Page 139
1/6/26, 8:06 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  Jim Merrill <jom@portlandmaine.gov> Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 9:46 AM
  To: Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov>
  Cc: Colleen Clark <cc26759@gmail.com>, Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman
  <mig@portlandmaine.gov>, Jessica Grondin <jgrondin@portlandmaine.gov>

 Hi Colleen,

 I'm reaching out to schedule a walkthrough of your property. Based on your email, it sounds like a time between 9:00 and
 11:00 am on January 6 or 7 would work best for you. Would 10:00 am on January 7 be convenient? The walkthrough
 should only take 10-15 minutes.

 Please let me know if this works for you, or if another time would work better.

 Best regards,

 Jim

 James Merrill
 Sr. Tax Appraiser
 389 Congress Street
 Portland, Maine 04101

 [Quoted text hidden]




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1852310783764757557&simpl=msg-f:1852310783764757557 1/1
 Page 140
1/6/26, 8:06 PM Gmail - Board of Assessment Review Appeal

 Appellant Exhibit B
 CC <cc26759@gmail.com>



  Board of Assessment Review Appeal
  Colleen Clark <cc26759@gmail.com> Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 10:06 AM
  To: Jim Merrill <jom@portlandmaine.gov>
  Cc: Elisa Marr <emarr@portlandmaine.gov>, Meredith Lubking <meredithlubking@gmail.com>, Michael Goldman
  <mig@portlandmaine.gov>, Jessica Grondin <jgrondin@portlandmaine.gov>

 That works perfectly. Thank you!


 On Dec 23, 2025, at 9:47 AM, Jim Merrill <jom@portlandmaine.gov> wrote:



 [Quoted text hidden]




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=837a53a37a&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1852312006279936521&simpl=msg-f:1852312006279936521 1/1
 Page 141
 Appellant Exhibit C1
Screenshots from Google Nest Camera
 Dated January 7, 2026




 Page 142
 Appellant Exhibit C2
Screenshots from Google Nest Camera
 Dated January 7, 2026




 Page 143
 Appellant Exhibit D

Relevant Comparable Information Not Included in
“Recent sales of similar properties [EXHIBIT 15]”




 Page 144
 Appellant Exhibit E

  Map of Assessor Comparables from Recent sales of similar
 properties [EXHIBIT 15]


61 Granite Street in green.




 Page 145
Appellant Exhibit F




 Page 146
 Appellant Exhibit G

 Comparable Sale and Assessment Demonstrating Market-Recognized Value Adjustments1

Subject Property: 61 Granite Street
Comparable Property: 20 Deane Street and 25 Deane Street




Observation:
The comparable properties located at 20 and 25 Deane Street are similarly situated residential properties
within the same neighborhood and market area as the subject property. Each comparable possesses equal
or superior functional utility and grade, including the presence of garages, and is assessed at or near its
indicated fair market value.

In contrast, the subject property at 61 Granite Street lacks comparable functional features yet is assessed at
a substantially higher ratio of assessed value to fair market value. This disparity indicates that recognized
differences in functional utility have not been consistently reflected in the assessment of the subject
property when compared to similarly situated parcels.




1
 Footnotes / Valuation Support



 1. Garage Value: International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO), Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration (recognizing garages as significant value-contributing features); regional paired-
 sales analysis commonly applied in residential appraisal practice.
 2. Bedroom Contribution: Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate (15th ed.) (functional utility adjustments for bedroom count).
 3. Lot Size: IAAO, Fundamentals of Mass Appraisal (land size and site utility adjustments); market-based price-per-square-foot analysis.
 4. Bathroom Count: Appraisal Institute, Residential Market Analysis and Highest and Best Use (bathroom count as a measurable utility adjustment).
 5. External Obsolescence / Location: IAAO, Standard on Mass Appraisal of Real Property (recognizing traffic, highway proximity, and noise as external depreciation factors).
 6. Accessory Parcel Value: City Assessor Property Record Card for Parcel 066A A022001 (assessed at $12,500 as an accessory, non-buildable parcel); 36 M.R.S. §701-A (assessment based on actual
 utility and contribution to value).




 1

 Page 147
Conclusion: Article IX, Section 8 of the Maine Constitution and Title 36 M.R.S. §701-A require that
property be assessed at its just value and that assessments be applied at a relatively uniform rate
among comparable properties. Uniformity, rather than absolute accuracy, is the controlling standard
for assessment equity.

After accounting for functional utility differences and the acknowledged contributory value of $12,500
attributable to the accessory parcel, the reconciled fair market value of $767,500 reflects a valuation
supported by market evidence and consistent with the assessment treatment of comparable properties
in the neighborhood.

The current assessment of $923,900 represents a material overvaluation relative to similarly
situated properties and results in a disproportionate assessment ratio. As such, the assessment of
61 Granite Street is not applied at a relatively uniform rate, contrary to Maine constitutional and
statutory assessment standards and should reconciled at a fair market value of $767,500.




 2

 Page 148
 ​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 13, 2026​
 ​Colleen Clark & Meredith Lubkin Trustees, 61 Granite Street​
 ​Parcel ID 066A A021001​



​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​ ​trustee​
  ​Colleen​​Clark​​(“Appellant”),​​regarding​​the​​property​​located​​at​​61​​Granite​​Street​​(the​​“Property”),​​a​
 ​hearing​​for​​which​​is​​scheduled​​for​​January​​13,​​2026.​ ​The​​Property​​is​​owned​​by​​the​​Colleen​​Clark​
 ​and Meredith Lubkin Living Trust.​

​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 149
​TIMELINE​

​4/1/2025​ ​Assessed value for the April 1, 2025 assessment date (FY26) was as follows:​
 ​$136,500 Land; 8,259 sq. ft. lot​
 ​$822,500​​Building; single family dwelling with 2,372 sq. ft. living area​
 ​$959,000 Total Assessed Value [​See​​EXHIBIT 17.​]​

​9/18/2025​ ​Application​ ​for​ ​Abatement​ ​of​ ​Property​ ​Taxes​ ​received​ ​from​ ​Appellant​ ​via​ ​email.​
 ​[See EXHIBIT 6.]​

​10/10/2025​ ​Assessor’s​ ​Office​ ​issued​ ​a​ ​letter​ ​to​ ​Appellant​ ​requesting​ ​additional​ ​information​
 ​regarding​ ​the​ ​Property​,​ ​including​ ​appraisals​ ​and​ ​other​ ​documented​ ​evidence​
 ​showing the property was overvalued​.​​[See EXHIBIT​​6.]​

​10/22/2025​ ​Appellant​ ​submitted​ ​an​ ​email​ ​in​ ​response​ ​to​ ​the​ ​request​ ​for​ ​additional​
 ​information.​ ​The​ ​email​ ​indicated​ ​that​ ​an​ ​appraisal​ ​was​ ​being​ ​provided,​ ​but​ ​no​
 ​appraisal​ ​was​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​that​ ​email​ ​or​ ​subsequently​ ​provided​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Assessor.​
 ​[See EXHIBIT 7.]​

​10/31/2025​ ​Assessor’s​ ​Office​ ​issued​ ​an​ ​abatement​​letter​​in​​the​​amount​​of​​$35,100​​to​​reflect​​a​
 ​decrease​ ​in​ ​the​ ​condition​ ​factor​ ​based​ ​on​ ​a​ ​review​ ​of​ ​the​ ​2021​ ​listing.​ ​[See​
 ​EXHIBITS 8, 14, and 17.]​

​11/26/2025​ ​Appellant filed an Application for Appeal with the Board of Assessment Review.​

​12/12/2025​ ​Assessor​​issued​​a​​706-A​​Request​​for​​Additional​​information​​(the​​“706-A​​Request”)​
 ​and​ ​requested​ ​a​ ​walkthrough​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Property​ ​before​ ​December​ ​29,​ ​2025.​ ​Note​:​
 ​Between​​December​​12th​​and​​20th,​​the​​City​​Assessor​​made​​three​​requests​​to​​review​
 ​the​ ​Property​ ​in​​person.​ ​The​​Appellant​​confirmed​​an​​appointment​​after​​the​​third​
 ​request,​ ​however​ ​that​ ​appointment​ ​is​ ​not​ ​scheduled​ ​until​ ​the​ ​City​ ​Assessor’s​
 ​Response due date of January 7, 2026.​​[See EXHIBIT​​9.]​

​12/15-23/2025​ ​Appellant​ ​responded​ ​via​ ​email​ ​to​ ​the​ ​706-A​ ​Request​ ​indicating​ ​that​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​
 ​holidays​​they​​would​​not​​be​​able​​to​​comply​​with​​the​​request​​until​​January​​11,​​2026,​
 ​however,​​the​​Appellant​​in​​turn​​requested​​“​provide​​me​​with​​the​​Assessment​​Record​
 ​prepared​ ​for​ ​our​ ​property,​ ​particularly​ ​the​ ​documented​ ​fair​ ​market​ ​value​
 ​calculation​ ​and​ ​analysis.”​ ​In​ ​response,​ ​the​ ​City​ ​Assessor​ ​submitted​ ​the​ ​Property​
 ​Record​​Card​​[see​​EXHIBIT​​1]​​to​​which​​the​​Appellant​​further​​requested​​“​also​​please​
 ​provide​​me​​with​​the​​formulas/calculations​​and​​analysis​​for​​the​​creation​​of​​the​​"Grade​​&​
 ​Depreciation"​​as​​well​​as​​the​​"Dwelling​​Computation"​​(and​​any​​additional​​data​​you​​have​
 ​on​​the​​property​​and​​how​​the​​values​​were​​determined)”.​ ​The​​City​​Assessor​​responded​
 ​by​ ​providing​ ​Explanation​ ​of​ ​Mass​ ​Appraisal​ ​and​ ​Residential​ ​Value​ ​Methodology​
 ​[see EXHIBIT 16]​.​



 ​2​​|​​Page​



 Page 150
​LIST OF ATTACHMENTS​

​Appellant’s Submission:​
 ​●​ ​Application for Abatement of Property Taxes packet, received by Corporation Counsel on​
 ​November 26, 2025 on behalf of the Board of Assessment Review.​

​City Assessor’s Exhibits:​
 ​●​ ​Subject Property Record Card​​[EXHIBIT 1]​
 ​●​ ​Appellant’s suggested comparable property at 66 Granite Street Property Record Card​
 ​[EXHIBIT 2]​
 ​●​ ​Appellant’s suggested comparable property at 20 Deane Street Property Record Card​
 ​[EXHIBIT 3]​
 ​●​ ​Appellant’s suggested comparable property at 16 Wolcott Street Property Record Card and​
 ​four listing images from the sale of this property​​[EXHIBIT 4]​
 ​●​ ​Application for Abatement of Property Taxes to Assessor dated 9/17/2025 and received​
 ​9/18/2025 via email​​[EXHIBIT 5]​
 ​●​ ​City Assessor’s informal request for additional information​​[EXHIBIT 6]​
 ​●​ ​Appellant email response to request for information​​[EXHIBIT 7]​
 ​●​ ​Letter of Abatement dated 10/31/2025​​[EXHIBIT 8]​
 ​●​ ​City Assessor’s formal 706-A Request for Additional Information dated​
 ​12/12/2025​[EXHIBIT 9]​
 ​●​ ​Appellant’s response to 706-A Request by email dated 12/15/2025​​[EXHIBIT 10]​
 ​●​ ​RCFACT – Dwelling Cost Factors​​[EXHIBIT 11]​
 ​●​ ​RCDEPR – Depreciation Tables​​[EXHIBIT 12]​
 ​●​ ​Aerial images of subject area​​[EXHIBIT 13]​
 ​●​ ​Listing images from 2021 sale of Property​​[EXHIBIT​​14]​
 ​●​ ​Recent sales of similar properties​​[EXHIBIT 15]​
 ​●​ ​Explanation of Mass Appraisal and Residential Value Methodology​​[EXHIBIT 16]​
 ​●​ ​2025 Initial Revaluation Property Record Card​​[EXHIBIT 17]​




 ​3​​|​​Page​



 Page 151
 ​CITY ASSESSOR’S RESPONSE​

​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.​ ​On​​October​​10,​​2025​​the​​Assessor’s​​Office​​issued​​a​​letter​​to​​request​​additional​​information​
 ​about​ ​the​ ​Property​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Appellant​ ​including​ ​an​ ​appraisal​ ​and​ ​other​ ​documented​
 ​evidence​ ​showing​ ​the​ ​property​ ​was​ ​overvalued​.​ ​The​ ​Appellant​ ​has​ ​not​ ​provided​ ​any​
 ​additional​ ​information​ ​as​ ​outlined​ ​in​ ​the​ ​letter.​ ​[see​ ​EXHIBIT​ ​6.]​ ​The​ ​Appellant​
 ​submitted​ ​an​ ​email​ ​in​​response​​to​​the​​request​​for​​additional​​information​​indicating​​that​
 ​an​ ​appraisal​ ​was​ ​being​ ​provided​ ​but​ ​there​ ​was​ ​no​ ​attached​ ​appraisal.​ ​The​ ​Appellant​
 ​provided​​seven​​more​​comparable​​sales​​in​​this​​communication.​ ​Only​​the​​sale​​at​​16​​Wolcott​
 ​Street​​[see​​EXHIBIT​​4]​​is​​relevant​​as​​all​​of​​the​​other​​sales​​were​​after​​the​​assessment​​date​
 ​of​ ​April​ ​1,​ ​2025.​ ​Included​ ​with​ ​Exhibit​ ​4​ ​are​ ​interior​ ​images​​from​​the​​16​​Wolcott​​Street​
 ​listing.​ ​These​​images​​are​​included​​so​​that​​the​​Board​​can​​clearly​​see​​that​​this​​property​​is​
 ​not​​comparable​​to​​the​​subject​​Property,​​which​​is​​depicted​​in​​the​​images​​for​​the​​2021​​sale​
 ​listing of the Property. [see​​Exhibit 14]​.​

 ​On​ ​December​ ​12,​ ​2025,​ ​the​ ​City​ ​Assessor​ ​filed​ ​a​ ​second​ ​request​ ​for​ ​information​ ​in​ ​the​
 ​form​​of​​a​​706-A​​request.​ ​[See​​EXHIBIT​​9.]​​Although​​the​​Appellant​​technically​​has​​30​​days​
 ​to​ ​respond,​ ​the​ ​City​ ​Assessor​ ​requested​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Appellant​ ​provide​ ​the​ ​information​ ​by​
 ​December​ ​29,​ ​2025​ ​to​ ​allow​ ​time​ ​for​ ​review​ ​and​ ​preparation​ ​for​ ​the​​upcoming​​hearing.​
 ​The​ ​Appellant​​responded​​that​​due​​to​​the​​holidays​​they​​would​​not​​be​​able​​to​​comply​​with​
 ​the​​request​​until​​January​​11,​​2026​​which​​is​​well​​after​​the​​submission​​date​​for​​the​​Appellant​
 ​and Assessor’s submissions in this appeal.​

 ​In​ ​response​ ​to​ ​the​ ​706-A​ ​request,​ ​t​he​ ​Appellant​ ​also​ ​requested​ ​additional​ ​information​
 ​regarding​ ​the​ ​development​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Property​ ​value.​ ​The​ ​City​ ​Assessor​ ​provided​ ​the​
 ​Appellant​ ​with​ ​a ​copy​ ​of​ ​RCFACT​ ​(Dwelling​ ​Cost​ ​Factors)​​[see​​EXHIBIT​​11]​​and​​RCDEPR​
 ​(depreciation​ ​tables)​ ​[see​​EXHIBIT​​12].​ ​This​​is​​the​​type​​of​​information​​used​​in​​the​​mass​
 ​appraisal process and by real estate professionals. ​

 ​2.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​Appellant’s​ ​Application​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Board​ ​of​ ​Assessment​ ​Review​ ​dated​ ​November​ ​26,​
 ​2025​ ​(the​ ​“Application”),​ ​the​ ​Appellant​ ​provides​ ​only​ ​two​ ​paragraphs​ ​of​ ​evidence​ ​and​
 ​references​​just​​two​​properties​​and​​the​​price​​per​​square​​foot​​as​​the​​evidence​​of​​“just​​value”​
 ​and​ ​to​ ​support​ ​the​ ​Appellant’s​ ​opinion​ ​that​ ​the​ ​assessment​ ​is​ ​manifestly​ ​wrong.​
 ​Comparing​ ​only​ ​assessed​ ​values​​is​​not​​an​​accurate​​comparison​​of​​fair​​market​​value.​​It​​is​

 ​4​​|​​Page​



 Page 152
 ​normal​ ​for​ ​properties​ ​to​ ​increase​ ​at​ ​differing​ ​rates​ ​in​ ​a​ ​revaluation,​ ​particularly​ ​in​ ​the​
 ​recent​ ​post​ ​COVID​ ​market.​ ​The​ ​Appellant’s​ ​opinion​ ​of​ ​value​ ​is​ ​based​ ​solely​ ​on​ ​a​
 ​lay-person’s comparison of two properties that are not identical to the subject Property.​

​3.​ ​The​ ​Application​ ​references​ ​values​ ​of​ ​other​ ​properties​ ​that​ ​are​ ​reduced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​$25,000​
 ​Homestead​ ​Exemption.​ ​The​ ​exemption​ ​should​ ​not​ ​be​ ​applied​ ​to​ ​a​ ​market​ ​value​
 ​discussion.​ ​The​​current​​assessed​​value​​is​​$923,900,​​$25,000​​more​​than​​the​​amount​​listed​
 ​on​ ​the​ ​Appeal​ ​as​ ​being​ ​the​ ​assessed​ ​value.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​not​ ​clear​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​actual​ ​value​
 ​requested by the Appellant is also $25,000 more than listed on the Appeal or $793,423.​

​4.​ ​Note​ ​also​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Property​ ​consists​ ​of​ ​two​ ​lots,​ ​the​ ​main​ ​lot​ ​with​ ​the​ ​dwelling​ ​unit​ ​at​
 ​066A​​A021001​​and​​an​​abutting​​lot​​with​​the​​access​​driveway​​and​​a​​shed​​identified​​as​​066A​
 ​A021001.​​These​​two​​lots​​were​​transferred​​in​​the​​same​​deed​​as​​part​​of​​the​​sale​​and​​should,​
 ​in​​fact,​​be​​considered​​one​​lot​​for​​assessing​​purposes.​ ​066A​​A022001​​is​​a​​5,045​​square​​foot​
 ​lot​ ​and​​is​​assessed​​at​​$10,100​​with​​a​​shed​​assessed​​at​​$2,400​​for​​a​​total​​assessed​​value​​of​
 ​$12,500.​ ​This​ ​low​ ​assessed​ ​value​ ​recognizes​ ​the​ ​association​ ​with​ ​the​ ​primary​​lot.​ ​The​
 ​actual total lot size is 9,393 square feet.​

 ​The​ ​Property​ ​is​ ​in​ ​the​ ​RN3​ ​Zone,​ ​which​ ​requires​ ​a​ ​5,000​​square​​foot​​minimum​​lot​​size.​
 ​Due​​to​​Re-Code​​and​​new​​zoning,​​the​​primary​​lot​​is​​a​​non-conforming​​lot​​at​​4,348​​square​
 ​feet,​ ​is​ ​contiguous​ ​and​ ​in​ ​the​ ​same​ ​name.​ ​For​ ​these​ ​reasons,​ ​these​ ​two​ ​lots​ ​will​ ​be​
 ​combined​ ​for​ ​assessing​ ​purposes​ ​for​ ​FY27​ ​and​ ​the​ ​property​ ​owner​ ​will​ ​receive​ ​written​
 ​notification.​

​5.​ ​Three​ ​aerial​ ​images​ ​[see​ ​Exhibit​ ​13]​ ​are​ ​included​ ​to​ ​provide​ ​a​ ​bird’s​ ​eye​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​
 ​Property.​ ​The​ ​first​ ​image​ ​shows​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Property​ ​is​ ​made​ ​up​ ​of​ ​two​ ​lots.​ ​The​ ​second​
 ​aerial​​image​​shows​​the​​Property​​from​​a​​different​​angle.​​The​​third​​aerial​​image​​shows​​the​
 ​Property​​and​​its​​relation​​to​​the​​two​​comparable​​properties​​suggested​​by​​the​​Appellant,​​20​
 ​Deane Street and 66 Granite.​

 ​Three​ ​listing​ ​images​ ​from​​the​​2021​​sale​​of​​the​​Property​​see​​EXHIBIT​​14]​,​​are​​considered​
 ​too​​old​​to​​be​​considered​​representative​​of​​the​​current​​real​​estate​​market​​and​​were​​not​​used​
 ​as​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​FY26​ ​revaluation.​ ​Nonetheless,​ ​these​ ​images​ ​demonstrate​ ​the​ ​quality​ ​of​
 ​construction and condition of the Property:​

 ​The​​first​​listing​​image​​shows​​a​​curbside​​image​​of​​the​​Property.​ ​This​​and​​the​​aerial​​images​
 ​show​ ​the​ ​investment​ ​in​ ​hardscaping​ ​and​ ​landscaping​ ​the​ ​Property.​ ​This​ ​type​ ​of​
 ​investment can have a potential impact on the grade.​

 ​The​​second​​listing​​image​​shows​​an​​interior​​image​​of​​a​​circular​​room​​with​​an​​architectural​
 ​window,​ ​which​ ​demonstrates​ ​the​ ​superior​ ​grade​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Property.​ ​Note​​the​​architectural​
 ​features including crown molding. These features are found throughout the house.​

 ​The​ ​third​ ​listing​ ​image​ ​shows​ ​the​ ​unique​ ​architectural​ ​features​ ​including​ ​another​


 ​5​​|​​Page​



 Page 153
 ​rounded wall and specialty window.​

 ​The listing description is as follows:​

 ​“​A bout This Home​

 ​In​​this​​Portland​​stunner,​​modern​​amenities​​and​​thoughtful​​updates​​meet​​old​​world​​charm​​for​​a​
 ​truly​ ​one​ ​of​ ​a​ ​kind​ ​home.​ ​More​ ​than​ ​2,100​ ​square​ ​feet​​of​​living​​space​​on​​a​​generous​​parcel​​of​
 ​land​ ​that​​affords​​outdoor​​dining,​​gardens,​​entertaining,​​and​​play.​​Discover​​why​​this​​property​​is​
 ​so​ ​unique.​ ​Gleaming​ ​hardwood​ ​floors​ ​set​ ​a​ ​warm​​tone​​in​​the​​kitchen​​as​​black​​granite​​counter​
 ​tops​​offer​​a​​luxurious​​prep​​surface​​and​​a​​perfect​​display​​for​​hors​​d'oeuvres​​during​​a​​party.​​Guests​
 ​can​ ​flow​ ​directly​ ​into​ ​a​ ​family​ ​room​ ​which​ ​features​ ​a​ ​gorgeous​ ​white,​ ​wooden​ ​plank​ ​ceiling.​
 ​Custom​ ​cabinets​ ​create​ ​a​ ​butler's​ ​nook​ ​offering​ ​ample​ ​space​​for​​your​​very​​own​​coffee​​bar...the​
 ​perfect​ ​way​ ​to​ ​start​ ​your​ ​day.​ ​Hardwood​ ​floors​ ​continue​ ​throughout​ ​the​ ​main​ ​living​ ​space​
 ​including​ ​the​ ​spacious​​dining​​room,​​and​​the​​living​​room​​which​​features​​a​​curved​​wall​​and​​gas​
 ​fireplace,​ ​a​​perfect​​spot​​to​​curl​​up​​with​​a​​great​​book.​​Upstairs,​​are​​t wo​​large​​bedrooms​​plus​​the​
 ​primary​ ​suite.​ ​The​ ​en-suite​ ​bath​ ​features​ ​marble​ ​counter​ ​tops,​ ​and​ ​stately​ ​tiled​ ​floors.​ ​The​
 ​primary​​closet​​is​​to​​die​​for,​​both​​oversized​​and​​bathed​​in​​light​​thanks​​to​​large​​windows,​​picking​
 ​out​​your​​clothes​​will​​be​​a​​daily​​treat.​​This​​Oakdale​​neighborhood​​house​​offers​​charm​​and​​delight​
 ​at every corner, to be discovered and enjoyed over a lifetime.”​

​6.​ ​The​ ​spreadsheet​ ​below​ ​lists​ ​recent​ ​sales​ ​of​ ​similar​ ​properties​ ​in​ ​the​ ​same​ ​assessing​
 ​neighborhood​​and​​used​​in​​the​​development​​of​​the​​2025​​revaluation​​[see​​EXHIBIT​​15].​​The​
 ​Appellant’s Property is in pink and the Appellant’s comparable properties are in yellow.​




​7.​ ​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.​



 ​6​​|​​Page​



 Page 154
​8.​ ​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​ ​(comparable)​ ​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​.​

​9.​ ​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​.​

​10.​ ​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​.​

​11.​ ​A​ ​detailed​ ​explanation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​development​ ​of​ ​residential​ ​values​ ​can​ ​be​ ​found​ ​in​ ​the​
 ​Explanation of Mass Appraisal and Residential Value Methodology.​​[See EXHIBIT 16.]​

​12.​ ​The​ ​Appellant​ ​purchased​ ​the​ ​Property​ ​in​ ​2021​ ​for​ ​$702,000​ ​and​​is​​suggesting​​a​​current​
 ​market​ ​value​​increase​​of​​just​​$65,000​​or​​9%​​since​​2021.​ ​The​​Portland​​real​​estate​​market​
 ​has​​experienced​​record​​growth​​since​​the​​Appellant​​purchased​​the​​Property.​​The​​city-wide​
 ​revaluation​ ​average​ ​increase​ ​in​ ​value​ ​is​ ​43%.​ ​The​ ​current​ ​assessment​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Property​
 ​recognizes​ ​the​ ​Property​ ​as​ ​being​ ​above​ ​average.​ ​Accordingly,​ ​the​ ​value​ ​increase​ ​in​ ​the​
 ​Property​​of​​47%​​is​​slightly​​higher​​than​​the​​city-wide​​average,​​indicating​​that​​the​​assessed​
 ​value is in line with the market increase.​

​13.​ ​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​ ​their​ ​burden​ ​of​ ​proof​ ​to​
 ​demonstrate​ ​that​ ​the​ ​assessment​ ​was​ ​substantially​ ​overvalued,​ ​based​ ​on​ ​an​ ​unjust​
 ​discrimination or subject to fraud, dishonesty or an illegality.​

​14.​ ​CONCLUSION​:​ ​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.​


 ​7​​|​​Page​



 Page 155
 ​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​




 ​8​​|​​Page​



 Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
 Parcel ID Location Address NBHD HGT YRBT BED BATH HLF Grade CDU Sale Date Sale Amt Lot Size Land Building  Total Assess
 135 A002001 535 Stevens Ave 111 2 1900 5 3 0 B Good 10/2/2024 $1,240,000 13,384 $128,500 $1,022,500  $1,151,000
 176 F016001 69 Montrose Ave 111 2 1913 4 2 0 C+ery Good 12/20/2024 $1,205,000 8,300 $148,700 $708,500 $857,200
 131 F005001 39 Lawn Ave 111 2 1910 5 2 0 C+ Good 12/3/2024 $1,135,000 5,355 $139,600 $668,900 $808,500
 125 G002001 435 Deering Ave 111 2 1900 4 2 2 B Good 7/22/2022 $1,100,000 5,394 $139,700 $843,300 $983,000
 121 E008001 15 Highland St 1111  2 1938 4 2 1 C+ Average 8/1/2022 $1,100,000 9,651 $175,100 $723,200 $898,300
  131 J004001 15 Amherst St 111 2 1913 3 2 1 B- Good 7/26/2023 $1,085,000 6,125 $142,000 $818,600 $960,600
 132 F019001 50 Lawn Ave 111 2 1910 4 2 1 B-ery Good 4/1/2025 $1,025,000 5,788 $140,900 $765,200 $906,100
 180 E006001 59 Mabel St 111 2 1900 4 2 1 B-Excellent 10/31/2023 $1,010,000 10,000 $153,900 $789,300 $943,200
 116 A011001 94 Dartmouth 111 2 1913 5 3 2 B-ery Good 5/31/2024 $1,005,000 8,228 $148,400 $879,100  $1,027,500
 134 F019001 19 Richardson St 111 2 1903 4 2 1 C+ Good 5/5/2023 $1,002,000 5,000 $138,500 $646,900 $785,400
 130 E008001 16 Nevens St 111 2 1900 4 1 1 C+ Good 10/3/2024 $942,500 9,872 $153,500 $773,600 $927,100
 135 C017001 162 Hartley St 111 2 1905 4 1 1 C Good 6/3/2024 $900,000 5,500 $140,000 $605,100 $745,100
 125 C002001 464 Deering Ave 111 2 1877 4 2 1 B Good 8/1/2022 $885,000 10,937 $155,800 $858,500  $1,014,300
 133 G015001 245 Concord St W 111 2 1900 4 2 0 C+Excellent 11/25/2024 $865,000 3,482 $133,800 $682,500 $816,300
 123 L001001 277 Woodford St 111 2 1902 4 2 1 C+ery Good 7/29/2022 $850,000 4,301 $136,400 $728,300 $864,700
 136 C004001 48 Hartley St 111  2 1902 3 1 1 C+Excellent 6/3/2024 $848,000 7,100 $145,000 $589,200 $734,200
 176 F001001 456 Woodford St 111 2 1922 4 2 0 C+ Good 7/19/2024 $840,000 10,000 $153,900 $696,600 $850,500
066A C001001 20 Deane St 111 2 1900 4 1 1 C+ Good 12/26/2024 $744,000 5,353 $139,600 $602,800 $742,400
066A C002001 66 Granite 111 2 1909 3 1 0 C+ Average N/A N/A 4,807 $137,900 $427,500 $565,400
066A A021001 61 Granite 111 2 1918 3 2 1 B Good N/A N/A 4,348 $136,500 $787,400 $923,900




 Page 192
Sq Ft LA
  3,161
  2,399
  2,453
  2,308
  2,588
  2,366
  2,122
  2,267
  2,345
  2,067
  2,646
  2,450
  2,472
  2,219
  2,252
  1,681
  2,022
  1,978
  1,575
  2,138




 Page 193

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
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.
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.