Ad Hoc Committee — Portland, ME
Date: 2026-03-10
Time: 15:00

City of Portland
Remote Board of Assessment Review -
March 10, 2026
Board Chair Eric Larsson, Board Members Dale
Knapp and Lee Lowry
Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 3:00 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/83579004289

Phone one-tap:
+19292056099,,83579004289# US (New York)
+13017158592,,83579004289# 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
+1 253 205 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
+1 669 444 9171 US
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 689 278 1000 US
+1 719 359 4580 US

 1
City of Portland Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 3:00 PM
Remote Board of Assessment via Zoom
Review - March 10, 2026
Webinar ID: 835 7900 4289
International numbers available: https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/u/kbJt22wVhX

1. Approve minutes of December 17, 2025 Board of Assessment Review Hearing

 a. Draft December 17, 2025 Board of Assessment Review meeting minutes attached.
 Appeal of Assessment of 1353 Westbrook Street, 218 C005001, owners Adam
2.
 Pietrapaolo & Micala Andersen

 a. 1353 Westbrook Street Application for Appeal to Board of Assessment Review
 Attached
 b. Assessor's Response re 1353 Westbrook 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 10, 2026
Board Chair Eric Larsson, Board Members Dale
Knapp and Lee Lowry
Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 3:00 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/83579004289

Phone one-tap:
+19292056099,,83579004289# US (New York)
+13017158592,,83579004289# 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
+1 253 205 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
+1 669 444 9171 US
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 689 278 1000 US
+1 719 359 4580 US

 1

 Page 1
City of Portland Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 3:00 PM
Remote Board of Assessment via Zoom
Review - March 10, 2026
Webinar ID: 835 7900 4289
International numbers available: https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/u/kbJt22wVhX

1. Approve minutes of December 17, 2025 Board of Assessment Review Hearing

 a. Draft December 17, 2025 Board of Assessment Review meeting minutes attached.
 Appeal of Assessment of 1353 Westbrook Street, 218 C005001, owners Adam
2.
 Pietrapaolo & Micala Andersen

 a. 1353 Westbrook Street Application for Appeal to Board of Assessment Review
 Attached
 b. Assessor's Response re 1353 Westbrook Street Attached
 c. Materials Admitted During the Hearing Attached
3. New Bussiness (if necessary)

4. Adjournment




 2

 Page 2
 Board of Assessment Review
 Wednesday, December 17, 2025, 12:00 PM
 Meeting Minutes

 Eric Larsson, Chair
 Dale Knapp
 Lee Lowry


The meeting convened at 11:59 a.m. on December 17, 2025 in Room 24 at Portland City Hall,
389 Congress Street, Portland Maine.

Attendees: Board members Eric Larsson, chair, Dale Knapp, and Lee Lowry, Attorney Stephen
W. Wagner representing the board, City Assessor Elisa Marr, Attorney for the city Michael
Goldman, appellants Kevin and Elizabeth Samson, and board assistant Annie James. Also in
attendance were Assessor’s staff Matthew Caton, and Joe Montefusco,
No members of the public attended. Board attendance was taken by roll call.

Appeal from Kevin Samson, 4 Greenwood 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).

Board chair Larsson opened the hearing of Kevin & Elizabeth Samson’s appeal. Mr. Samson
requested an assessment reduction of $400,000-$500,000, presented his argument and, when
done, answered questions. The following Board members asked Mr. Samson questions: Lee
Lowry, Dale Knapp, and Eric Larsson.

Board chair Larsson inquired about postponing the hearing so the applicant can get an
independent appraisal of the property. Attorney Goldman objected to that motion because there
was clear notice of the deadlines of the required materials. Attorney Wagner read from the
Board’s rules and cited that good cause/fairness as determined by the board is required to
postpone hearing. Board member Lee Lowry asked if the owner can appeal next year, Attorney
Goldman confirmed that they can appeal next year’s assessment, after the commitment date. No
motion to postpone was made.

Board chair Larsson invited the Assessors to present their response. Attorney Goldman asked the
applicant questions and requested a motion that the Assessor’s exhibits be accepted. Board
member Lowry moved to accept all materials and Board member Knapp seconded the motion,




 Page 3
which was approved by a roll call vote of (3-0). The Assessors continued their response. The
following individuals spoke: Attorney Goldman, Lee Lowry, Elisa Marr, and Attorney Wagner.
Eric Larsson. The following exhibits were displayed on the screen for the Board to review:
Assessor’s Exhibits 8, 2, 12.

When the Assessor was finished presenting her response, the Board was given an opportunity to
ask questions. The following individuals asked questions: Eric Larsson, Lee Lowry, and Dale
Knapp.

Board member Knapp asked a question about an adjacent property’s property card, and the
Assessor provided the requested information. The Assessor shared the property card, which is a
public document, on the screen for the Board to Review.

The appellants rebutted the Assessor’s response. The following individuals spoke: Kevin
Samson, Elizabeth Samson.

Attorney Wagner asked the appellants to clarify the requested reduction amount. Mr. Samson
responded that they are requesting a reduction of around ~500k bringing the final valuation
around $1.2m. Board chair Larsson calculated and proposed that $430,100 is the requested
reduction, with no objections.

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 close their argument, which they do. The following
individuals spoke: Kevin Samson, Elizabeth Samson.

Board chair Larsson opened the hearing to public comment. No members of the public were
present. The following individuals spoke: Lee Lowry, Attorney Goldman, Attorney Wagner, and
Eric Larsson.

Kevin Samson and Elizabeth Samson departed the meeting at 1:34 p.m.

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

Attorney Wagner suggested a motion to deny the abatement application because the applicant
had not demonstrated that the assessment of the property was manifestly wrong, and listed the
factual findings of the deliberation. Board chair Larsson moved and Board member Lowry
seconded the motion, which was approved by a roll call vote of (3-0).
The Board discussed factual findings supporting the motion.
The Assessor and staff departed at 1:53 p.m.




 Page 4
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 Lowry seconded the motion, which
passed by a roll call vote of (3-0).
Adjournment
Board member Lowry moved and Board chair Larsson seconded the motion to adjourn, which
passed by a roll call vote of (3-0). The meeting concluded at 2:01 p.m.




 Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
 ​Assessor’s Office​
  ​Elisa A. Marr, CMA-2​
 ​City Assessor​




​DATE:​ ​January 14, 2026​

​TO:​ ​City of Portland Board of Assessment Review​

​FROM:​ ​Elisa Marr, City Assessor​

​RE:​ ​FY26 Abatement Appeal – January 21, 2026​
 ​Adam Pietrapaolo & Micala Andersen, 1353 Westbrook Street​
 ​Parcel ID 218 C005001​



​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 Elizabeth​
  ​and Kevin Samson (“Appellant”), regarding the property located at 1353 Westbrook Street (the​
 ​“Property”), a hearing for which is scheduled for January 21, 2026.​

​For the reasons set forth in this memorandum and its attachments, the City Assessor respectfully​
 ​requests that the Board of Assessment Review:​

 ​A.​ ​Conclude that the property is assessed at its fair market value and at a relatively uniform​
 ​rate with comparable properties;​

 ​B.​ ​Rule that the Appellant has failed to meet its burden of proving that the property is​
 ​substantially overvalued, that the assessment was based on unjust discrimination, fraud,​
 ​dishonesty, illegality or that the assessment was otherwise manifestly wrong; and​

 ​C.​ ​Deny the Appellant’s application.​

​This submission is organized into the following sections:​

 ​1.​ ​Timeline​
 ​2.​ ​Exhibits / List of Attachments​
 ​3.​ ​City Assessor’s Response​
 ​4.​ ​Legal References​




 Page 12
​TIMELINE​

​1/13/2023​ ​Appellant purchased the Property for $465,000;​​Book 39943, Page 344.​

​4/1/2025​ ​Assessed value for the April 1, 2025 assessment​​date (FY26) was as follows:​
 ​$134,100 Land; .40 acre lot​
 ​$435,100​ ​Building; single family dwelling​
 ​$569,200 Total Assessed Value​

​5/27/2025​ ​Appellant had an informal hearing with a​​representative of Tyler Technologies.​
 ​The Tyler representative felt that the assessment was in line with the market and​
 ​did not recommend changing the value of the Property.​

​9/26/2025​ ​Appellant emailed​​assessors@portlandmaine.gov​​to dispute the assessed value of​
 ​the Property.​

​9/30/2025​ ​The Appellant submitted an Application for​​Abatement of Property Taxes to the​
 ​Assessor’s Office. (Exhibit 2).​

​10/10/2025​ ​The Assessor’s Office issued a denial​​letter to the Appellant’s Abatement​
 ​Application. (Exhibit 3). The Appellant had submitted very little information to​
 ​support their opinion of value. (Exhibit 2).​

​12/3/2025​ ​Appellant appeals to the Board of Assessment​​Review for a reduction of $69,200 or​
 ​a value of 500,000.​

​1/8/2026​ ​City Assessor mailed Appellant a section​​706-A request for additional information​
 ​requesting:​
 ​1. Any recent appraisals​
 ​2. Evidence of hazard / property insurance coverage​
 ​3. Any other information indicating that Property is worth less than the​
 ​purchase price​
 ​4. Copies of any analysis and market studies​

 ​The Assessor had thought the hearing was scheduled for 2/20/2026 and that the​
 ​requested information would be returned prior to the due date of this response.​
 ​No responsive information has been provided as of the date of this submission.​




 ​2​​|​​Page​



 Page 13
​LIST OF ATTACHMENTS​

​Appellant’s Submissions:​
 ​●​ ​Application for Abatement of Property Taxes packet, received by Corporation Council on​
 ​December 3, 2025 on behalf of the Board of Assessment Review.​

​City Assessor’s Exhibits:​
 ​●​ ​Current Property Record Card for 218 C005001 [​Exhibit​​1​]​
 ​●​ ​Formal Appeal to the City Assessor received from Appellant dated 9/30/25 [​Exhibit 2​]​
 ​●​ ​Denial letter dated 10/10/25 [​Exhibit 3​]​
 ​●​ ​706-A letter dated January 8, 2026 requesting additional information​​[Exhibit 4]​
 ​●​ ​Aerial image of the Property​​[Exhibit 5]​
 ​●​ ​Recent Sales of Similar Properties​​[Exhibit 6]​

​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.​ ​In the Appellant’s application to the Board of Assessment Review received 12/03/2025 the​
 ​Appellant provides a closing disclosure dated January 11, 2023 as evidence to support their​
 ​opinion of value. This document confirms the purchase price and closing costs but does​
 ​not have much more relevancy than that, particularly given that it is approximately three​
 ​years old.​

 ​2.​ ​The Appellant also offers an undated single page estimate of value and refers to it as an​
 ​MLS estimate when in fact the document refers to NMLS #159548 which is not an MLS​
 ​listing value but a licensing number for Michael Wilson, Branch Manager of an​
 ​undisclosed bank. A Google search defines NMLS as:​

 ​NMLS stands for the ​Nationwide Multistate Licensing​​System & Registry​, a centralized online​
 ​database used by U.S. regulatory agencies to license and track mortgage loan originators (MLOs),​
 l​enders, and other financial services professionals. Created after the 2008 financial crisis, it​
 ​ensures accountability, enhances transparency, and protects consumers by allowing them to​
 ​verify a professional's credentials, licensing status, and any disciplinary actions through a unique​
 ​NMLS ID. ​



 ​3​​|​​Page​



 Page 14
​3.​ ​Appellant offers comparable sales dating from July to November of 2025 which is well​
 ​after the assessment date of April 1, 2025. These sales had not occurred prior to the​
 ​assessment date, were not used as part of the revaluation and are therefore not relevant to​
 ​the values established for the revaluation.​

 ​The sales time period reviewed for the revaluation was 4/1/23 – 4/1/25 making the​
 ​January 2023 sale of the Property not valid for comparison.​

​4.​ ​The property is located in the historic Stroudwater neighborhood.​ ​[see EXHIBIT 5]​




​5.​ ​Photos of the Property are available online from the 2023 sales listing by accessing​
 ​various real estate sites. The images in this Response are taken from the Redfin site.​
 ​Additional images are available to the Board through this site.​
 ​https://www.redfin.com/ME/Portland/1353-Westbrook-St-04102/home/85735271​

 ​The listing referred to the Property as:​​Wonderful​​Cape located in Historic Stroudwater. This​
 ​very charming home offers two BR's & 1.5 Baths, hardwood throughout, a front to back Living​
 ​Room with fireplace, office and eat-in K. Finished FR (family room) w/frpl in basement. and​
 ​3-season Sunroom off Dining area.​

 ​The following images are taken from the 2023 listing:​




 ​4​​|​​Page​



 Page 15
​Renovated Kitchen​




 ​5​​|​​Page​



 Page 16
​Back yard with sunroom​




 ​Sunroom​




 ​6​​|​​Page​



 Page 17
 ​Finished room in basement​

​6.​ ​Recent sales of similar properties​​[see EXHIBIT 6]​​used in the development of the 2025​
 ​revaluation include:​




​7.​ ​There are three recognized approaches used to value properties, which include the Cost​
 ​Approach, the Sales Approach, and the Income and Expense Approach. In the 2025​
 ​revaluation for this type of property the Sales Approach was used, supported by the Cost​
 ​Approach. The Income and Expense Approach does not apply in this case as that is​
 ​typically applied for income producing or commercial properties.​



 ​7​​|​​Page​



 Page 18
 ​●​ ​The Sales Comparison Approach (SCA) in​​International Association of Assessing​
 ​Officers (IAAO) appraisal is​​a core method comparing​​a subject property to​
 ​recently sold, similar properties (comparables) in the same market, making​
 ​adjustments for differences (location, size, features) to find the most probable​
 ​value, relying on principles like substitution and contribution, and involves steps​
 ​like data collection, analysis, and reconciliation to arrive at an accurate market​
 ​value for mass appraisal or individual property valuation​.​

 ​●​ ​The Cost Approach is viewed by the IAAO (International Association of Assessing​
 ​Officers) as​​a core valuation method, estimating property​​value by calculating the​
 ​current cost to build a new equivalent structure, subtracting all forms of​
 ​depreciation (physical, functional, external), and then adding the value of the land​.​

 ​●​ ​The​​IAAO (International Association of Assessing Officers)​​Income Approach​
 ​defines property value by converting its expected future income into a present​
 ​worth, treating it as an investment by analyzing potential gross income,​
 ​subtracting vacancy/expenses to get Net Operating Income (NOI), then dividing​
 ​NOI by a market-derived capitalization rate (Cap Rate) to find value​, a core method​
 ​for income-producing properties like apartments or offices​.​

​8.​ ​The assessed valuation of the property demonstrates that it is assessed at its fair market​
 ​value and that it is assessed at a relatively uniform rate with comparable properties in the​
 ​district. Appellant has not submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy its burden to​
 ​demonstrate that the assessment was substantially overvalued, based on an unjust​
 ​discrimination or subject to fraud, dishonesty or an illegality.​

​9.​ ​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.​




 ​8​​|​​Page​



 Page 19
 ​LEGAL REFERENCES​

​●​ ​Article IX, § 8 of the Maine Constitution provides that “All taxes upon real and personal​
 ​estate, assessed by authority of this State, shall be apportioned and assessed equally​
 ​according to the just value thereof.” According to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, “Just​
 ​value means market value.”​​Weekley v. Town of Scarborough​,​​676 A.2d 932, 934 (Me. 1996);​
 ​see also​​Terfloth v. Town of Scarborough​, 2014 ME​​57, ¶ 11, 90 A.3d 1131 (“fair market value”).​

​●​ ​Assessments must be supported by two findings: 1) the property must be assessed at its​
 ​fair market value, and 2) the property must be assessed at a relatively uniform rate with​
 ​comparable property in the district.​​Terfloth v. Town​​of Scarborough​, 2014 ME 57, ¶ 11, 90​
 ​A.3d 1131.​

​●​ ​The City Assessor’s assessment of the Property is presumed to be valid.​​Petrin v. Town of​
 ​Scarborough​, 2016 ME 136, ¶ 14, 147 A.3d 842, 849.​​The Appellant has the burden of proving​
 ​to the Board of Assessment Review that “the assessed value of the property is ‘manifestly​
 ​wrong.’” In order to do so, it must be demonstrated "(1) that [the] property was​
 ​substantially overvalued and an injustice resulted from the overvaluation; (2) that there​
 ​was unjust discrimination in the valuation of the property; or (3) that the assessment was​
 ​fraudulent, dishonest, or illegal."​​Id.​; see also​​City of Waterville v. Waterville Homes​, 655 A.2d​
 ​365 (Me. 1995);​​Yusem v. Raymond​, 2001 ME 61, 769​​A.2d 865;​​Weekley v. Town of​
 ​Scarborough​, 676 A.2d 932 (Me. 1996); Southwest Harbor​​v. Harwood, 763 A.2d 115 (Me.​
 ​2000);​​Northeast Empire Limited Partnership #2 v.​​Ashland​, 2003 ME 28, 818 A.2d 1021 ;​
 ​Terfloth v. Town of Scarborough​, 2014 ME 57, 90 A.3d​​1131.​

​●​ ​It is the total assessment that controls under Maine law. If either the land or building value​
 ​is too high or too low, so long as the total assessment is not “manifestly wrong,” the​
 ​taxpayer has not met his burden of proof.​​Roberts​​v. Town of Southwest Harbor​, 2004 ME​
 ​132, 861 A.2d 617​




 ​9​​|​​Page​



 Page 20
 EXHIBIT 1




Page 21
Page 22
 EXHIBIT 2




Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
 EXHIBIT 3




Page 29
 EXHIBIT 4




Page 30
 EXHIBIT 5




Page 31
 EXHIBIT 6




Page 32
 PROPERTY TAX
 ASSESSMENT
 APPEAL FOR
 1353
 WESTBROOK
 STREET,
 PORTLAND,
 MAINE
UNDERSTANDING THE

 3/12/2026
PROCESS TO
CHALLENGE
PROPERTY TAX
VALUATIONS 1


 Page 33
LEGAL
FRAMEWORK
AND
STANDARDS
 Page 34
 3/12/2026 4
 Fair Market Value Requirement
 Maine law mandates municipal assessments to reflect fair market
 value, known as just value.

 Assessment Validity Range
 Assessments are presumed valid if within ±10% of the property's
 probable selling price.

 Taxpayer Burden of Proof
 Taxpayers must prove when assessments exceed the reasonable
 10% tolerance.
 APPLICABLE LEGAL
 STANDARD UNDER Board's Authority to Grant Abatements
 MAINE LAW The Board must grant abatements when credible evidence shows
 assessment deviation beyond tolerance.
SAMPLE FOOTER TEXT 3/12/2026 5


 Page 35
 SAMPLE FOOTER TEXT




SUBJECT
PROPERTY
AND MARKET
EVIDENCE
 Page 36
 3/12/2026 6
 Property Location and Type
 The property is a single-family home located in
 Portland’s Stroudwater neighborhood, built in 1939.

 Property Size and Layout
 The home offers approximately 1,460 to 1,590 square
 feet, with two bedrooms and one and a half bathrooms.

 Lot Size and Neighborhood Context
 Situated on a 0.40-acre lot, the property’s
 characteristics align with typical homes in the
 surrounding area.
OVERVIEW OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY Renovation and Market Value Baseline
 No major renovations have been made, establishing a
 baseline for market value comparison with nearby
 3/12/2026 7

 homes.
 Page 37
 Arm’s-Length Transaction Definition
 The sale involved unrelated parties acting independently without
 pressure or compulsion, ensuring fairness.

 Open Market Exposure
 The property was publicly listed and exposed to the market before
 the sale, ensuring transparency.

 Fair Market Value Indicator
 The arm’s-length sale is the strongest indicator of fair market value
 under Maine assessment guidelines.


 ARM’S-LENGTH SALE No Unusual Conditions
 No unusual incentives, concessions, or non-market conditions
 OF THE SUBJECT
 influenced the sale price or terms.
 PROPERTY
SAMPLE FOOTER TEXT 3/12/2026 8


 Page 38
 SAMPLE FOOTER TEXT




ASSESSMEN
T VERSUS
MARKET
VALUEPage 39
 3/12/2026 9
COMPARISON OF CITY City Assessment Value
ASSESSMENT TO The City of Portland assessed the property at $569,200, which
VERIFIED SALE PRICE is significantly higher than the sale price (+22% higher).

 Verified Sale Price
 The verified sale price was $465,000, indicating the market
 value demonstrated by the recent transaction (sale price a
 mere 78 days before 4/1)

 Assessment vs Market Value Gap
 The assessment exceeds the sale price by 22%, surpassing
 Maine's 10% legal tolerance for valuation discrepancies.

 Question on Assessment Reasonableness
 The significant deviation raises concerns about whether the
 assessment is reasonable under statutory limits.
 3/12/2026 10


 Page 40
 SAMPLE FOOTER TEXT




COMPARABL
E SALES
ANALYSIS
 Page 41
 3/12/2026 11
SUBJECT PROPERTY (REMINDER FOR
CONTEXT)
• Address: 1353 Westbrook St, Portland, ME
• Sale Date: Jan 13, 2023
• Sale Price: $465,000
• Property Type: Single-Family Residence
• Living Area: ~1,460
• Bedrooms / Bathrooms: 2 BR / 1.5 BA
• Lot Size: .4 acres
• Year Built: 1939
• Additional notes: 25+ year roof, 30+ year old heating
  system, no central air, dated kitchen (remodeled in
  2001), no sup-pump (basement flooded in 2025),
  fireplace not in working condition, active electrical
  issues in the house. House faces a busy street with
  lots of ambient noise and car/foot traffic. 3/12/2026 12


 Page 42
EXAMPLES OF COMPARABLE SALES (4/1/23
– 4/1/25)

• Address: 101 Gilman St, Porland, ME 04012
• Sale Date: September 28, 2023
• Sale Price: $461,000
• Property Type: Single-Family Residence
• Living Area: ~1,250 sq ft
• Bedrooms / Bathrooms: 3 BR / 1 BA
• Lot Size: Oversized lot, 2-car garage
• Year Built: 1946
• Location Relevance: Same ZIP code and market area
• Board Relevance: More bedrooms and garage, yet
  sold almost identical to my purchase price, not
  $569K
 3/12/2026 13


 Page 43
EXAMPLES OF COMPARABLE SALES (4/1/23
– 4/1/25)
• Address: 87 Stevens Avenue, Portland, ME 04102
• Sale Date: July 2, 2025
• Sale Price: $430,000
• Property Type: Single-Family Residence
• Living Area: ~1,456 sq ft
• Bedrooms / Bathrooms: 3 BR / 1 BA
• Lot Size: ~0.30 acres
• Year Built: Mid‑20th century
• Condition Notes: Typical condition; no luxury features
• Location Relevance: Approximately 0.5 miles from
  subject
• Board Relevance: Nearly identical size with more
  bedrooms; sold below assessment. Strong evidence
  that size-adjusted values do not approach $569K. 3/12/2026 14


 Page 44
EXAMPLES OF COMPARABLE SALES
(4/1/23 – 4/1/25)

• Address: 4 Poe St, Portland, ME 04102
• Sale Date: December 2024
• Sale Price: $500,000
• Property Type: Single-Family Residence
• Living Area: ~1,260 sq ft
• Bedrooms / Bathrooms: 3 BR / 2 BA
• Lot Size: ~0.8 acres
• Condition Notes: Quiet side road, semi-rural feel
• Location Relevance: Similar square footage.
• Board Relevance: More land (2X) and bathrooms than
 my home, still below $569K


 SAMPLE FOOTER TEXT 3/12/2026 15


 Page 45
EXAMPLES OF COMPARABLE SALES
(4/1/23 – 4/1/25)

• Address: 1144 Westbrook Street, Portland, ME 04102
• Sale Date: October 18, 2024
• Sale Price: $392,500
• Property Type: Single-Family Residence
• Living Area: ~936 sq ft
• Bedrooms / Bathrooms: 3 BR / 1 BA
• Lot Size: ~0.35 acres
• Year Built: 1945
• Condition Notes: Updated kitchen and bathroom (2020);
 single-level layout
• Location Relevance: Same street and neighborhood as
 subject property.
• Board Relevance: Smaller but updated home sold
 significantly below subject value. Confirms lower bound
 of SAMPLE
 market on Westbrook St.
 FOOTER TEXT 3/12/2026 16


 Page 46
EXAMPLES OF COMPARABLE SALES (4/1/23
– 4/1/25)

• Address: 137 Web Street, Portland ME 04102
• Sale Date: August 2025
• Sale Price: $390,000
• Property Type: Single-Family Residence
• Living Area: ~1,200 sq ft
• Bedrooms / Bathrooms: 3 BR / 2 BA
• Year Built: Mid‑century
• Condition Notes: Standard condition; smaller
  footprint
• Location Relevance: Same ZIP code and market area
• Board Relevance: Similar square footage, more
  bedrooms, much lower sale price
 3/12/2026 17


 Page 47
SUMMARY OF COMPARABLE SALES (2023–2025)


 Comparable Property Sales
 Reviewed several single-family home sales in ZIP code 04102 between 2023 and
 2025 to assess market value.

 Sale Price Range
 Sale prices of comparable properties ranged from $392,500 to $500,000 during the
 review period.

 Assessment Discrepancy
 None of the comparable homes approached the city’s assessed value of $569,200,
 indicating a valuation gap.

  SAMPLE FOOTER TEXT 3/12/2026 18


 Page 48
MARKET SAMPLE FOOTER TEXT




CONCLUSION
S AND
REQUESTED
RELIEF
 Page 49
 3/12/2026 19
 MARKET RANGE AND
 REQUESTED
 ASSESSED VALUE
 Comparable Sales Range
 Comparable sales cluster between $430,000 and
 $470,000, establishing a consistent market range for
 similar homes.

 Discrepancy in Assessed Value
 The current assessed value of $569,200 exceeds fair
 market value significantly, unsupported by market
 evidence.

 Requested Assessed Value
 The requested assessed value of $465,000 aligns with
SAMPLE FOOTER TEXT
 verified sale prices and satisfies legal requirements.
 3/12/2026 20


 Page 50

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.
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
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.