Ad Hoc Committee — Portland, ME
Date: 2026-06-23
Time: 12:00

City of Portland
Board of Assessment Review - June 23,
2026
Board Chair Eric Larsson
Board Members Lee Lowry, Samuel Rains
Tuesday, June 23, 2026 at 12:00 PM Room 24,
Portland City Hall, 389 Congress St., Portland,
Maine


To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email ajames@portlandmaine.gov. Submissions must be
received by 12:00 pm the day before the Board of Assessment Review meeting to guarantee their inclusion in
the agenda packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To help ensure your
comment is submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item (see below).



The Board of Assessment Review will conduct this meeting in-person in Room 24 at Portland City Hall. If you
are not able to attend in person, a recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting.

1. Approve minutes of the March 17, 2026 Board of Assessment Review Hearing

 a. Draft March 17, 2026 Board of Assessment Review meeting minutes attached.
 Determination of Jurisdiction RE: Appeal of Assessment of 28 Meadow Avenue, 083A
2.
 A005001, Owners Kathleen Barron and Peter Dedych

 a. 28 Meadow Avenue Application for Appeal to Board of Assessment Review
 Attached
 b. Assessor's Response re 28 Meadow Avenue Attached
3. New Bussiness (if necessary)

4. Adjournment




 1

City of Portland
Board of Assessment Review - June 23,
2026
Board Chair Eric Larsson
Board Members Lee Lowry, Samuel Rains
Tuesday, June 23, 2026 at 12:00 PM Room 24,
Portland City Hall, 389 Congress St., Portland,
Maine


To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email ajames@portlandmaine.gov. Submissions must be
received by 12:00 pm the day before the Board of Assessment Review meeting to guarantee their inclusion in
the agenda packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To help ensure your
comment is submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item (see below).



The Board of Assessment Review will conduct this meeting in-person in Room 24 at Portland City Hall. If you
are not able to attend in person, a recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting.

1. Approve minutes of the March 17, 2026 Board of Assessment Review Hearing

 a. Draft March 17, 2026 Board of Assessment Review meeting minutes attached.
 Determination of Jurisdiction RE: Appeal of Assessment of 28 Meadow Avenue, 083A
2.
 A005001, Owners Kathleen Barron and Peter Dedych

 a. 28 Meadow Avenue Application for Appeal to Board of Assessment Review
 Attached
 b. Assessor's Response re 28 Meadow Avenue Attached
3. New Bussiness (if necessary)

4. Adjournment




 1

 Page 1
 Board of Assessment Review
 Tuesday, March 17, 2026, 1:00 PM
 Meeting Minutes

 Eric Larsson, Chair
 Dale Knapp
 Lee Lowry


The meeting convened at 3:05 p.m. on March 17, 2026 in Room 24 at Portland City Hall, 389
Congress Street, Portland Maine.

Attendees: Board members Eric Larsson, Chair, Dale Knapp, and Lee Lowry, Attorney Jonathan
Hunter representing the board, City Assessor Elisa Marr, Attorney for the city Michael Goldman,
appellant, and board assistant Annie James. Also in attendance were Assessor’s staff Joe
Montefusco. Gynt Grube, and Carl Marshall witnesses for the Assessor, attended remotely via
Zoom.
No members of the public attended. Board attendance was taken by roll call.

Approve the Minutes of the March 11, 2026 Board of Assessment Review Meeting

Board Chair Larsson moved to approve the minutes of the March 11, 2026 Board of Assessment
Review Meeting. Board member Lowry seconded the motion, which was approved by a roll call
vote of (3-0).

Appeal from Patricia Bleech, 24 Willis Street

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). The following individuals spoke: Eric
Larsson, Lee Lowry, Patricia Bleech, Attorney Goldman, Elisa Marr, Attorney Hunter, Annie
James.

Board Chair Larsson introduced all parties and reviewed the meeting’s agenda.

Board Chair Larsson opened the hearing of Patricia Bleech’s appeal. Ms. Bleech presented her
argument and distributed paper copies of materials. When Ms. Bleech was finished presenting
her argument, Board Chair Larsson invited the Assessors to ask questions. The following
individuals asked questions: Attorney Goldman.




 Page 2
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, Dale Knapp.

Board Chair Larsson invited the Assessors to present their response. The following individuals
spoke: Attorney Goldman, Elisa Marr.

When the Assessor was finished presenting her response, the Applicant was given an opportunity
to ask the Assessor questions. The following individuals asked questions: Patricia Bleech.
The following materials were displayed on the screen for the Board to review: Portland’s GIS
website, which is a publicly available resource.

When both parties were finished asking the Assessor questions, the Board was given an
opportunity to ask questions. The Board did not have any questions for the Assessor.

The Assessors brought forth witnesses Gynt Grube and Carl Marshall on behalf of the Assessor.
The following individuals spoke: Gynt Grube, Attorney Goldman, Carl Marshall.
The following materials were displayed on the screen for the Board to review: Assessor’s Exhibit
9 (a PowerPoint later admitted into evidence by the Board), as well as Portland’s GIS website,
which is a publicly available resource.

When the Assessor’s witnesses were finished speaking, the Board asked the witnesses questions.
The following individuals spoke: Eric Larsson, Gynt Grube, Elisa Marr, Carl Marshall, Attorney
Goldman, Attorney Hunter, Dale Knapp.

When the Board was finished asking questions, the applicant was given an opportunity to ask the
witnesses questions. The following individuals spoke: Patricia Bleech, Gynt Grube, Lee Lowry,
Eric Larsson, Elisa Marr, Attorney Hunter, Carl Marshall, Dale Knapp.

Board Chair Larsson invited the appellant to close their argument, which she does. The following
individuals spoke: Patricia Bleech, Lee Lowry.

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

Board Chair Larsson invited the appellant to rebut, which she does. The following individuals
spoke: Patricia Bleech, Attorney Goldman, Attorney Hunter, Lee Lowry, Eric Larsson, Elisa
Marr, Dale Knapp.

5 minute break was called at 3:41 p.m.

The meeting resumed at 3:46 p.m.

The appellant continued her rebuttal. The applicant introduced two additional materials, which
were accepted into evidence by the Board titled: “Notice of Assessment Revaluation Response,
and Tyler Notice of Assessment Revaluation.” Board Chair Larsson also officially admits




 Page 3
Assessor’s Exhibit 9 (PowerPoint) into evidence. The following individuals spoke: Eric Larsson,
Patricia Bleech, Attorney Goldman, Attorney Hunter, Lee Lowry, Carl Marshall.

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

The Board closed the public portion of the meeting and began their deliberations. Attorney
Hunter provided a summary of the Board’s role as the decision-making body. The following
individuals spoke: Attorney Hunter, Eric Larsson, Patricia Bleech, Lee Lowry, Dale Knapp.

Carl Marshall and Gynt Grube departed the meeting at 4:33 p.m.

Patricia Bleech departed the meeting at 4:33 p.m.

Attorney Goldman and Elisa Marr departed the meeting at 4:34 p.m.

The Board continued discussing the factual findings of the appeal. The following individuals
spoke: Eric Larsson, Attorney Hunter, Dale Knapp, Lee Lowry.

Attorney Hunter suggested a motion to deny the appeal based on the finding that the taxpayer did
not demonstrate the assessment of the property was manifestly wrong, and because she presented
no affirmative evidence of just value other than personal opinion which was not credited as
affirmative evidence of just value, and listed the factual findings of the deliberation, which was
moved by Board char Larsson. Board member Lowry seconded the motion, which was approved
by a roll call vote of (3-0).


Board Chair Larsson motioned to authorize the Board’s Attorney to prepare a written decision to
be reviewed and signed within 10 days. Board member Lowry seconded the motion, which
passed by a roll call vote of (3-0).


Adjournment
Board Chair Larsson moved and Board member Knapp seconded the motion to adjourn, which
passed by a roll call vote of (3-0). The meeting concluded at 4:56 p.m.




 Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
 Office of Corporation Counsel
 Michael Goldman, Corporation Counsel
 Amy R. McNally, Associate Corporation Counsel
 Nicole M. Albert, Associate Corporation Counsel
 Rachel L. Millette, Associate Corporation Counsel
 Avery A. Dandreta, Associate Corporation Counsel
 Mary C. Christie, Associate Corporation Counsel




 MEMORANDUM


To: Portland Board of Assessment Review, Eric Larsson, Chair

From: Michael Goldman, Corporation Counsel on behalf of Elisa Marr,
 Assessor

Date: June 16, 2026

Subject: Appeal to Board of Assessment Review;
 28 Meadow Ave. 083A A005001 (“Property”)
 Kathleen Barron and Peter Dedych (Appellant)
 Assessor’s Submission re BOAR Jurisdiction
______________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

The above-referenced appeal is scheduled for a hearing on June 23, 2026 for the limited purpose
of determining whether the appeal should be dismissed for failure to file a timely application to
the Board of Assessment Review. As set forth in more detail below, the City Assessor requests
that the Board dismiss the Appeal on the ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear the
appeal and because the Appeal Application was not timely filed.

Timeline

The following is a timeline of events surrounding the filing of the Abatement and Appeal
Applications in this matter.

12/16/2025 Appellant filed Abatement Application with City Assessor. (Assessor Exs. 1, 2).

12/31/2025 City Assessor’s Office received Abatement Application dated December 16,
 2025. (Assessor Ex. 1).



 389 Congress Street, Room 211 Portland, Maine 04101 | t: 207-874-8480

 Page 30
1/20/2026 The City Assessor issued a 706-A request for additional information (Assessor
 Ex. 3).

2/3/2026 Appellant’s 706-A response filed; received on 2/11/2026 (Assessor Ex. 6).

2/14/2026 60th day after 12/16/2025 (Saturday).

2/16/2026 President’s Day/Holiday.

2/17/2026 Deemed denial date.

3/13/2026 Notice to Appellant that the Abatement Application was denied. (Assessor Ex. 4).

4/14/2026 Notice to Appellant that the Abatement Application was purportedly deemed
 denied on 3/1/26. (Assessor Ex. 5).

4/18/2026 60th day after 2/17/2026 (a Saturday).

4/20/2026 Deadline for filing appeal to Board of Assessment Review.

4/30/2026 Date of Appellant’s Application for Appeal (Assessor Ex. 2)

5/6/2026 Board of Assessment Review receives Appellant’s Application for Appeal
 (Assessor Ex. 2).

List of Assessor’s Exhibits:

 • Assessor Exhibit 1 – Application For Abatement Of Property Taxes dated 12/16/25
 (“Abatement Application”).
 • Assessor Exhibit 2 – Application For Appeal of Assessor’s Decision dated 4/30/26
 (“Appeal Application”).
 • Assessor Exhibit 3 – 706-A Letter to Appellant dated 1/20//26
 • Assessor Exhibit 4 – Notice of Action Letter to Appellant dated 3/13/26
 • Assessor Exhibit 5 – Notice of Action Letter to Appellant dated 4/14/26

Argument

Title 36 M.R.S. §842 provides in pertinent part as follows:




 2



 Page 31
 The assessors or municipal officers shall give to any person applying to them for
 an abatement of taxes notice in writing of their decision upon the application
 within 10 days after they take final action thereon. The notice of decision must
 include the reason or reasons supporting the decision to approve or deny the
 abatement request and state that the applicant has 60 days from the date the notice
 is received to appeal the decision. It must also identify the board or agency
 designated by law to hear the appeal. If the assessors or municipal officers, before
 whom an application in writing for the abatement of a tax is pending, fail to give
 written notice of their decision within 60 days from the date of filing of the
 application, the application is deemed to have been denied, and the applicant may
 appeal as provided in sections 843 and 844, unless the applicant has in writing
 consented to further delay. Denial in this manner is final action for the purposes
 of notification under this section but failure to send notice of decision does not
 affect the applicant's right of appeal. (Emphasis added).

Title 36 M.R.S. § 843 provides, “If a municipality has adopted a board of assessment review and
the assessors or the municipal officers refuse to make the abatement asked for, the applicant may
apply in writing to the board of assessment review within 60 days after notice of the decision
from which the appeal is being taken or after the application is deemed to have been denied.”

Title 36 M.R.S. § 153 ties the filing of abatement and appeal applications to the time of mailing,
not the time of receipt, as follows:

 1. Mail. If any document or payment required or permitted by this Title to be filed or
 paid is transmitted by the United States Postal Service to the person with whom or to
 whom the filing or payment is to be made, the date of the United States Postal Service
 postmark stamped on the envelope is deemed to be the date of filing or payment if that
 document or payment was deposited in the mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed
 to the person with whom or to whom the filing or payment is to be made. If the document
 or payment is not received by that person or if the postmark date is illegible, omitted or
 claimed to be erroneous, the document or payment is deemed to have been filed or paid
 on the mailing date if the sender establishes by competent evidence that the document or
 payment was deposited with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid and
 properly addressed, and, in the case of nonreceipt, files a duplicate document or makes
 payment, as the case may be, within 15 days after receipt of written notification by the
 addressee of the addressee's nonreceipt of the document or payment. A record
 authenticated by the United States Postal Service of mailing by registered mail, certified
 mail or certificate of mailing constitutes competent evidence of such mailing. Any
 reference in this section to the United States Postal Service is deemed to include a
 reference to any delivery service designated by the United States Secretary of the
 Treasury pursuant to section 7502(f)(2) of the Code, and any reference in this section to a
 postmark of the United States Postal Service is deemed to include a reference to any date

 3



 Page 32
 recorded or marked as described in section 7502(f)(2)(C) of the Code by any such
 designated delivery service.

 2. Weekends and holidays. When the last day, including any extension of time,
 prescribed under this Title for the performance of an act falls on Saturday, Sunday or a
 legal holiday in this State, the performance of that act is timely if it occurs on the next
 succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday in this State. (Emphasis
 added).

As the Maine State Board Of Property Tax Review has explained, municipal assessors have
no responsibility to notify a taxpayer when an application is deemed denied, and the taxpayer has
the responsibility to keep track of deadlines. As the State Board pointed out in one case, "If a
municipality does not act on an application, as it is entitled to do, that is the end of the matter at
the assessor level. Assessors have no obligation then to notify a taxpayer of their non-decision. It
is the responsibility of the taxpayer to know when its application for an abatement will be
deemed denied if a municipality does not act on it." Dirigo Dowels & Pins, Inc. v. Town of New
Portland, No. 2000-007, at 5 n.2 (BPTR Apr. 11, 2002); see also Peckham & Trott v. Town of
Lake View Plantation, No. 2014-003 at 5 (BPTR Oct. 24, 2014) ("It is the obligation of a
taxpayer to know when a statutory period for an appeal begins to run and when it ends. It is not
the assessors' job to notify taxpayers of a deemed denial; taxpayers have the responsibility to
keep track of appeal period deadlines.) As the State Board further explained in Peckham, a
taxpayer’s failure to timely appeal deprives the board of jurisdiction, and the board’s jurisdiction
cannot be established by concession or waiver by a municipality. Peckham at 6.

In this case, the Appellant filed their Abatement Application for abatement on December 16,
2025. The City Assessor never requested additional time to issue a decision on that Application,
and the Appellant never consented in writing to a delay beyond the 60-day period allowed under
section 842. Accordingly, the Abatement Application was deemed to have been denied on
February 17, 2026, which was the first day that was not weekend day or holiday after the 60th
day after December 16, 2025. The Appellant then had until April 20, 2026, which was the first
day that was not weekend day or holiday after the 60th day after February 17, 2026, to appeal to
this Board. Because the Applicant signed that Appeal Application under oath and dated the
Appeal Application as April 30, 2026, the Appellant’s Appeal Application could not have been
filed on or before the April 20 deadline. See Assessor Ex. 2. The date stamp of May 6, 2026
located on the Appeal Application supports this conclusion.

It is important to note that due to clerical errors, the City Assessor’s Office did send letters to the
Appellant dated March 13, 2026 and April 14, 2026 that erroneously stated that the deemed
denial date was March 1, 2026 and included a 60-day appeal notice, but as explained above,
appeal deadlines are jurisdictional. Although the City Assessor’s statements might have caused
some confusion, those errors do not relieve the Appellant from being responsible for knowing
the appeal deadlines and those errors do not extend the statutory appeal deadlines or reestablish
the Board’s jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

 4



 Page 33
For the reasons set forth above, the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the
Appellant’s Appeal Application was not timely filed. Accordingly, the City Assessor
respectfully requests that the Board dismiss this appeal.




 5



 Page 34
 ASSESSOR EXHIBIT 1




Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
 ASSESSOR EXHIBIT 2




Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
 ASSESSOR EXHIBIT 3




Page 52
 ASSESSOR EXHIBIT 4




Page 53
 ASSESSOR EXHIBIT 5




Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59