Ad Hoc Committee — Portland, ME
Date: 2026-03-17
Time: 13:00

City of Portland
 Board of Assessment Review - March 17,
2026
Board Chair Eric Larsson, Board Members Dale
Knapp and Lee Lowry
Tuesday, March 17, 2026 at 1:00 PM Room 24,
Portland City Hall, 389 Congress St., Portland,
Maine


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



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

1. Approve minutes of the March 11, 2026 Board of Assessment Review Hearing

 a. Draft March 11, 2026 Board of Assessment Review meeting minutes attached.
 Appeal of Assessment of 24 Willis Street, Parcel ID 015 E002001, owner Patricia M.
2.
 Bleech

 a. 24 Willis Street Application for Appeal to Board of Assessment Review Attached
 b. Assessor's Response re 24 Willis Street Attached
 c. Materials Admitted During the Hearing Attached
3. New Bussiness (if necessary)

4. Adjournment




 1

City of Portland
 Board of Assessment Review - March 17,
2026
Board Chair Eric Larsson, Board Members Dale
Knapp and Lee Lowry
Tuesday, March 17, 2026 at 1:00 PM Room 24,
Portland City Hall, 389 Congress St., Portland,
Maine


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



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

1. Approve minutes of the March 11, 2026 Board of Assessment Review Hearing

 a. Draft March 11, 2026 Board of Assessment Review meeting minutes attached.
 Appeal of Assessment of 24 Willis Street, Parcel ID 015 E002001, owner Patricia M.
2.
 Bleech

 a. 24 Willis Street Application for Appeal to Board of Assessment Review Attached
 b. Assessor's Response re 24 Willis Street Attached
 c. Materials Admitted During the Hearing Attached
3. New Bussiness (if necessary)

4. Adjournment




 1

 Page 1
 Board of Assessment Review
 Wednesday, March 11, 2026, 2:00 PM
 Meeting Minutes

 Eric Larsson, Chair
 Dale Knapp
 Lee Lowry


The meeting convened at 2:06 p.m. on March 11, 2026 via Zoom.

Attendees: Board members Eric Larsson, chair, Dale Knapp, and Lee Lowry, Attorney Stephen
W. Wagner representing the board, City Assessor Elisa Marr, Attorney Michael Goldman
representing the city, appellants Colleen Clark and Meredith Lubking, and board assistant Annie
James.
No members of the public attended. Board attendance was taken by roll call.

Approve the Minutes of the March 10, 2026 Board of Assessment Review Meeting

Board chair Larsson moved to approve the minutes of the March 10, 2026 Board of Assessment
Review Meeting. Board member Knapp seconded the motion, which was approved by a roll call
vote of (3-0).

Appeal from Colleen Clark and Meredith Lubking, 61 Granite Street

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

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

Board chair Larsson opened the hearing of Colleen Clark and Meredith Lubking’s appeal. The
appellants presented their argument. When done, Board chair Larsson invited the Assessors to
ask questions. Before asking questions, Attorney Goldman confirmed that all submitted materials
and exhibits were admitted to the record, to which there were no objections. The following
individuals asked questions, and the appellant answered them: Attorney Goldman.

When the Assessors were finished asking questions, the Board was given an opportunity to ask
the appellant questions. The following Board members asked questions: Lee Lowry, Eric




 Page 2
Larsson.

Board chair Larsson invited the Assessors to present their response. The following individuals
spoke: Attorney Goldman, Elisa Marr.
The following exhibits were displayed on the screen for the Board to review: Assessor’s Exhibit
16, 1, 17, 11, 13, 14, 15, Appellant’s Exhibit F, D.

Ms. Clark objected to the relevance of lots included in Assessor’s Exhibit 13. Board member
Lowry asked the Assessor if the lots are treated and valued as a single parcel, and the Assessor
confirmed that even though the lots are different types, they are not divisible. Chair Larsson
ruled the exhibit would remain in the record but noted the Board would take the appellant's
points into consideration. The Assessors continued to present their response.

A technical error in the PDF of Assessor’s Exhibit 15 resulted in a missing column of data. Ms.
Clark objected to the inclusion of the additional column to the Exhibit, and cited that the figures
were different than her information. Attorney Goldman offered to email the missing column to
all parties, which he does.

A break was called at 3:13 p.m.

The meeting reconvened at 3:20 p.m.

Attorney Goldman introduced the missing data as Assessor’s Exhibit 18. Ms. Clark confirmed
that she found discrepancies in the data. Attorney Goldman mentions that this data is available
and public record on the assessor’s database. Chair Larsson advised that both parties could rely
on their respective figures, and the Board would weigh the evidence accordingly. The Assessors
continued to present their response.
The following exhibits were displayed on the screen for the Board to review: Assessor’s Exhibit
18

When the Assessors were finished presenting their response, the Applicant was given an
opportunity to ask questions. The following individuals asked questions, and the Assessor
answered them: Colleen Clark, Attorney Goldman.
The following materials were displayed on the screen for the Board to review: Zillow listings of
20 Dean St and 61 Granite Street.

When both parties were finished asking questions, the Board was given an opportunity to ask
questions, and the Assessor answered them. The following Board members asked questions: Eric
Larsson, Lee Lowry, Dale Knapp.

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

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




 Page 3
Board chair Larsson invited the Assessors to close their argument, which they do. The following
individuals spoke: Attorney Goldman.

Attorney Wagner provided a summary of the Board’s role as the decision-making body.

The Board closed the public portion of the meeting and began their deliberations. The following
individuals spoke: Eric Larsson, Dale Knapp, Lee Lowry.

Colleen Clark and Meredith Lubking departed the meeting at 4:50 p.m.

Attorney Goldman and Elisa Marr departed the meeting at 4:51 p.m.

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

Board member Lowry moved to deny the abatement application based on the finding that the
applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to overturn assessor’s valuation and that the
assessment of the property was manifestly wrong, and listed the factual findings of the
deliberation. Board chair Larsson seconded the motion, which was approved by a roll call vote of
(3-0).
Board member Knapp motioned to authorize the Board’s Attorney to prepare a written decision
to be reviewed and signed within 10 days. Board chair Larsson seconded the motion, which
passed by a roll call vote of (3-0).
Adjournment
Board chair Larsson moved and Board member Lowry seconded the motion to adjourn, which
passed by a roll call vote of (3-0). The meeting concluded at 5:13 p.m.




 Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
 Assessor’s Office
 Elisa A. Marr, CMA-2
 City Assessor




DATE:​ ​ March 10, 2026​ ​ ​ ​ ​
TO:​ ​ City of Portland Board of Assessment Review
FROM:​​ Elisa Marr, City Assessor
RE:​ ​ FY26 Abatement Appeal – March 17, 2026
 Patricia M. Bleech; 24 Willis Street; Parcel ID 015 E002001



The mission of the Assessor’s Office is defined by the Maine Constitution, which states: “All taxes
upon real and personal estate, assessed by authority of this State shall be apportioned and assessed
equally according to the just value thereof.”

This memorandum, accompanied by the attached exhibits, is submitted for the Board of
Assessment Review’s consideration of the above-referenced abatement appeal filed by Patricia M.
Bleech (“Appellant”), regarding the property located at 24 Willis Street (the “Property”), a hearing
for which is scheduled for March 17, 2026.

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

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

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

 C.​ Deny the Appellant’s application.

This submission is organized into the following sections:

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




 Page 13
TIMELINE

5/29/2025​ Appellant had an informal hearing with a representative of Tyler Technologies.
 The Tyler representative noted that: HER MAIN CONCERN IS HER LAND VALUE
 BEING WAY TOO HIGH, THINKS LAND VALUE SHOULD BE ONLY $150,000 BASED
 ON FACT ITS UNBUILDABLE AND IN HISTORICAL PRESERVATION AREA
 LOT APPEARS TO HAVE OFF-ST PARKING? IF NOT APPLY -30% TO LAND VALUE
 NEED MORE INFO TO VERIFY GRADE/COND/CDU OF BLDG
 VALUE IN LINE. RECOMMENDATION – NO CHANGE IN VALUE

9/30/2025​ The Appellant submitted an Application for Abatement of Property Taxes to the
 Assessor’s Office for a value reduction of $248,300 or a total value of $331,500.
 [Exhibit 2]

10/20/2025​ The Assessor’s Office issued a denial letter to the Appellant’s Abatement
 Application. [Exhibit 3]

12/22/2025​ Appellant appeals to the Board of Assessment Review for a value reduction of
 $200,000 or a total value of $378,800.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Appellant’s Submissions:​

 ●​ Application for Appeal of Assessor’s Decision on Abatement of Municipal Property Taxes
 (36 M.R.S.A. Section 843) packet, received by Corporation Counsel on December 22, 2025
 on behalf of the Board of Assessment Review.

City Assessor’s Exhibits:​

 ●​ Current Property Record Card for 015 E002001 [Exhibit 1]
 ●​ Abatement Application to the City Assessor received 9/30/2025 [Exhibit 2]
 ●​ Denial letter dated 10/20/25 [Exhibit 3]
 ●​ 2022 City of Portland, Maine Board of Assessment Review Decision on Appeal of Patricia
 Bleech 24 Willis Street [Exhibit 4]
 ●​ Recent Sales of Similar Properties (Appellant’s comparable sales highlighted) [Exhibit 5]
 ●​ Spatial Distribution of Comparable Units – Map [Exhibit 6]
 ●​ Aerial images of the Property [Exhibit 7]
 ●​ Revaluation Methodology [Exhibit 8]




CITY ASSESSOR’S RESPONSE



 2 | Page



 Page 14
Appellant has not met the burden to prove the assessment is “manifestly wrong.” The burden of
proof is upon the taxpayer to demonstrate through credible evidence that the assessment was
“manifestly wrong” by proving indisputably that:

 A.​ The property was substantially overvalued and an injustice resulted from the
 overvaluation;
 B.​ That there was unjust discrimination in the valuation of the property; or
 C.​ That the assessment was fraudulent, dishonest, or illegal.

A taxpayer must provide affirmative evidence of the property’s “just value” (i.e., its market value)
in the form of an appraisal, actual comparable sales data, or the opinion of a properly qualified
expert. The City Assessor’s Response is set out in the following numbered paragraphs:​

 1.​ In her Application for Abatement of Property Taxes to the Assessor’s Office, the Appelant
 initially requested a value reduction of $248,300 to a total value for the Property of
 $331,500. [Exhibit 2]. The Appellant then requested a value reduction of $379,800 in her
 appeal to the Board. The difference in these amounts indicates that the Appellant has no
 true or accurate data to support their opinion of value. Moreover, the Appellant is
 requesting a value that is just $9,100 (about 2.5%) above the pre-revaluation value of
 $370,700. Appellant has provided no evidence to support her claim that the value of a
 property on the East End has increased by only 2.5% in the last five years in what has
 been a historic real estate market. [Exhibit 2]​

 2.​ In her appeal to this Board and in her Abatement Application to the Assessor, the
 Appellant challenged the land value and not the total value of the Property. [Exhibit 2].
 As stated in the denial letter dated October 20, 2025 [Exhibit 3], “An appeal of the
 valuation can only be on the total valuation amount. Appeals of just the land portion or
 building portion are not permitted by law. See Roberts v. Town of Southwest Harbor, 2004
 ME 132, 861 A.2d 617; see also the Board’s decision in the appeal of John Babin, 72 Sheridan
 Street, available at:
 https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/me-portland/984276b4-6593-4e6b-9f4b-857cdaf
 e0d8b?cache=1800.

 3.​ Appellant appears to suggest that the valuation of her Property, particularly the valuation
 of her land, was the result of unjust discrimination. As the Law Court has explained, “We
 have never sustained an unjust discrimination claim based only on a single component of
 a total assessment, without showing that the property's total assessment was
 discriminatory. Previous cases in this Court have found discrimination after comparing
 the total assessed values of similarly situated properties. . . . Accordingly, a taxpayer
 seeking to prove unjust discrimination must demonstrate that his property, as a whole,
 has been valued differently than other comparable properties.” Roberts v. Town of
 Southwest Harbor, 2004 ME 132, 861 A.2d 617. Appellant, therefore, can only prevail in her
 appeal if she demonstrates an error in the total valuation of the Property, and not just in
 the value of her land. ​

 4.​ Notably, in 2022, the Appellant filed an appeal with the Board of Assessment Review
 following the 2021 revaluation and made essentially the same arguments that she is

 3 | Page



 Page 15
 making now. She argued that her property was functionally obsolete, that she had a
 nonconforming lot, and that there was a disproportionate increase in her land value. As
 the Board explained in denying the Appellant’s claims in that appeal, “It is the total
 assessed value of the property that controls. As long as the overall assessed value is not
 “manifestly wrong,” the taxpayer has not met their burden of proof.” [Ex. 7 (citing Roberts
 v. Town of Southwest Harbor, 2004 ME 132, 861 A.2d 617)].

5.​ The Board further explained in the Appellant’s 2022 appeal that “Impeachment of the
 assessor’s methodology alone is insufficient to meet” the taxpayer’s burden to show the
 assessment is “manifestly wrong” – the taxpayer also must show the property is
 overvalued. [Ex.7 (citing Yusem v. Town of Raymond, 2001 ME 61, 769 A.2d 865)]. In the 2022
 Appeal, the Board also explained that “The methodology employed by Tyler Technologies
 is also outside of the scope of the Board’s review, unless it could be shown that this
 particular assessment “necessarily resulted” in unjust discrimination against the subject
 property in comparison to other similarly situated properties (citing Moser v. Town of
 Phippsburg, 553 A.2d 1249, 1250 (Me. 1989). The Board concluded in that appeal, as it
 should do here, that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the assessment was
 overvalued. [See Exhibit 4]

6.​ Recent sales of similar properties [see Exhibit 5] used in the development of the 2025
 revaluation include:​
 ​




 ​
 ​
 The properties in Exhibit 5 (including the highlighted properties, which are the properties
 listed in Appellant’s appeal), support the Assessor’s valuation of the Property. With the
 total assessment requirement in mind, a review of the sales comparisons provided by the
 Appellant reflect assessed values below or within 10% of market value, indicating fair and
 equitable assessments for those properties, but they do not demonstrate that the
 Assessor’s valuation of the Property was manifestly wrong. Again, it is not enough for the
 Appellant to simply demonstrate that the value of her land is higher than the land value
 for a comparable property. Furthermore, it is important to note that some of the
 comparable sales submitted by the Appellant are in less valuable neighborhoods than the
 subject Property, which is located about 1 block from the Eastern Promenade. [See
 Exhibits 5 & 6]




 4 | Page



 Page 16
7.​ Aerial image of the subject Property [Exhibit 7]:
 ​




8.​ The Appellant’s methodology of establishing market value based on the per square foot
 value of just the land is not the method used in establishing value for the 2025
 revaluation. [See Exhibit 8]

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

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

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


 5 | Page



 Page 17
 depreciation (physical, functional, external), and then adding the value of the land.​

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

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

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

 A.​ Conclude that the Property is assessed at its fair market value and at a relatively
 uniform rate with comparable properties;
 B.​ Rule that the Appellant has failed to meet its burden of proving that the property is
 substantially overvalued, that the assessment was based on unjust discrimination,
 fraud, dishonesty, illegality or that the assessment was otherwise manifestly
 wrong; and
 C.​ Deny the Appellant’s application.




 6 | Page



 Page 18
 LEGAL REFERENCES​

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

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

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

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




 7 | Page



 Page 19
EXHIBIT 1




 Page 20
Page 21
 EXHIBIT 2




Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
 EXHIBIT 3




Page 43
 EXHIBIT 4




Page 44
Page 45
 EXHIBIT 5




Page 46
 EXHIBIT 6




Page 47
 EXHIBIT 7




Page 48
Page 49
 EXHIBIT 8




Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
2025 Reassessment
Value Comparison

  24 Willis St – Portland, ME




 Page 57
Subject – 24 Willis St
Lot Size – 1,750 square feet
Distance from Promenade: 1 BLOCK Subject
Land Value – $423,300
Total Value – $579,800

 • Comp #1 – 21 Greenleaf St
 Comp #3
 Lot Size – 5,644 square feet
 Distance from Eastern Promenade: 6-7 BLOCKS
 BOTTOM OF THE HILL – OFF WASHINGTON
 Land Value – $326,000
 Total Value – $582,400
 Sale Price – $580,000

 • Comp #2 – 27 Anderson St
 Lot Size – 2,531 square feet
 Distance from Eastern Promenade: 7-8 BLOCKS
 BOTTOM OF THE HILL – OFF WASHINGTON
 Land Value – $321,600 Comp #1
 Total Value – $677,800
 Sale Price – $667,000


 • Comp #3 – 38 Turner St
 Lot Size – 2,032 square feet (NO OFF-ST PARKING)
 Distance from Eastern Promenade: 4 BLOCKS BOTTOM OF
 Comp #2
 Land Value – $320,100
 Total Value – $555,500
 Sale Price – $580,000




 Page 58
Subject – 24 Willis St
Lot Size – 1,750 square feet
Distance from Promenade: 1 BLOCK Subject
Land Value – $423,300
Total Value – $579,800
 Comp #5
 Comp #3
 Comp #4


 • Comp #4 – 48 Montreal St
 Lot Size – 2.967 square feet
 Distance from Eastern Promenade: 1 BLOCK
 Land Value – $447,000
 Total Value – $888,500
 Sale Price – $905,000

 • Comp #5 – 9 Gould St
 Lot Size – 6,093 square feet Comp #1
 Distance from Eastern Promenade: 6-7 BLOCKS
 BOTTOM OF THE HILL – OFF WASHINGTON
 Land Value – $329,200
 Total Value – $560,900
 Sale Price – $617,500
 Comp #2




 Page 59
Land Value Comparison
Subject – 24 Willis St
Lot Size – 1,750 square feet Subject
Land Value – $423,300 $423,300


 Comp #5
 Comp #3
 $329,200 Comp #4 $320,100
 • Comp #1 – 21 Greenleaf St $447,000 (NO OFF-ST PKG)
 Lot Size – 5,644 square feet
 Land Value – $326,000

 • Comp #2 – 27 Anderson St
 Lot Size – 2,531 square feet
 Land Value – $321,600

 • Comp #3 – 38 Turner St
 Lot Size – 2,032 square feet (NO OFF-ST PARKING)
 Land Value – $320,100 Comp #1
 • Comp #4 – 48 Montreal St $326,000
 Lot Size – 2.967 square feet
 Land Value – $447,000

 • Comp #5 – 9 Gould St Comp #2
 Lot Size – 6,093 square feet $321,600
 Land Value – $329,200




 Page 60
Sale Price ASR Comparison
Subject – 24 Willis St
Lot Size – 1,750 square feet
 Subject
Land Value – $423,300
 • Comp #1 – 21 Greenleaf St
 Lot Size – 5,644 square feet Comp #5
 Total Value – $582,400 Comp #3
 91% Comp #4
 Sale Price – $580,000 96%)
 ASR – 100% 98%
 • Comp #2 – 27 Anderson St
 Lot Size – 2,531 square feet
 Total Value – $677,800
 Sale Price – $667,000
 ASR – 102%
 • Comp #3 – 38 Turner St
 Lot Size – 2,032 square feet (NO OFF-ST PARKING)
 Total Value – $555,500
 Sale Price – $580,000
 ASR – 96% Comp #1
 • Comp #4 – 48 Montreal St 100%
 Lot Size – 2.967 square feet
 Total Value – $888,500
 Sale Price – $905,000
 ASR – 98% Comp #2
 • Comp #5 – 9 Gould St 102%
 Lot Size – 6,093 square feet
 Land Value – $329,200
 Total Value – $560,900
 Sale Price – $617,500
 ASR – 91%




 Page 61
Additional Sales
Subject – 24 Willis St
Lot Size – 1,750 square feet Comp #3
 Subject
 $563,300
Land Value – $423,300 (NO OFF-ST PKG) $579,800
Total Value – $579,800

 • Comp #1 – 4 Romasco Ln
 Lot Size – 475 square feet (NO OFF-ST PARKING)
 Distance from Eastern Promenade: 7-8 BLOCKS Comp #2
 Land Value – $223,100 $475,600
 Total Value – $388,900 (NO OFF-ST PKG)
 Sale Price – $400,000


 • Comp #2 – 15 E Cove St
 Lot Size – 902 square feet (NO OFF-ST PARKING)
 Distance from Eastern Promenade: 6 BLOCKS
 Land Value – $271,100
 Total Value – $475,600
 Sale Price – $510,000 Comp #1
 $388,900
 (NO OFF-ST PKG)
 • Comp #3 – 190 Washington Ave
 Lot Size – 1,246 square feet (NO OFF-ST PARKING)
 Distance from Eastern Promenade: 6-7 BLOCKS
 Land Value – $275,600
 Total Value – $563,300
 Sale Price – $595,000




 Page 62
Land Value Comparison – Willis St
Subject – 24 Willis St
Lot Size – 1,750 square feet
Land Value – $423,300


 • 41 Montreal St 41 Montreal St
 Lot Size –2,500 square feet $437,900
 Land Value – $437,900


 • 20 Willis St – NO OFF-ST PARKING
 22 Willis St
 Lot Size – 1,250 square feet
 $423,300
 Land Value – $289,500
 20 Willis St
 • 22 Willis St $289,500
 NO OFF-ST PKG Subject
 Lot Size – 1,750 square feet $423,300
 Land Value – $423,300 28 Willis St
 $421,300

 • 28 Willis St
 Lot Size – 1,650 square feet
 Land Value – $421,300




 Page 63
Neighborhood Sales Ratio Statistics




 Page 64
 Land Value Formula Calculation
(((BASE SIZE x BASE RATE +/- (INC RATE/DEC RATE * SF)) x INFL FACTOR 1) x INFL FACTOR 2)))
 24 Willis St – Land Value Calculation




 ((4,500 x 141.30 - (26.00 * 2,750)) x .75) = $423,260




 Page 65

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.
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
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.