Ad Hoc Committee — Portland, ME
Date: 2026-06-04
Time: 13:00

City of Portland
Board of Assessment Review - June 4, 2026
Board Chair Eric Larsson
Board Members Dale Knapp, Lee Lowry, Samuel
Rains
Thursday, June 4, 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).

REMOTE ACCESS INFORMATION:
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.
 Appeal of Assessment of 91 Atlantic Street, CBL no. 016 A009001, owner 91 Atlantic
2.
 LLC

 a. 91 Atlantic Street Application for Appeal to Board of Assessment Review Attached
 b. Assessor's Response re 91 Atlantic Street Attached
 Appeal of Assessment of 87 Atlantic Street, CBL no. 016 A010001, owner 87 Atlantic
3.
 LLC

 a. 87 Atlantic Street Application for Appeal to Board of Assessment Review Attached
 b. Assessor's Response re 87 Atlantic Street Attached
4. New Bussiness (if necessary)

5. Adjournment




 1

City of Portland
Board of Assessment Review - June 4, 2026
Board Chair Eric Larsson
Board Members Dale Knapp, Lee Lowry, Samuel
Rains
Thursday, June 4, 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).

REMOTE ACCESS INFORMATION:
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.
 Appeal of Assessment of 91 Atlantic Street, CBL no. 016 A009001, owner 91 Atlantic
2.
 LLC

 a. 91 Atlantic Street Application for Appeal to Board of Assessment Review Attached
 b. Assessor's Response re 91 Atlantic Street Attached
 Appeal of Assessment of 87 Atlantic Street, CBL no. 016 A010001, owner 87 Atlantic
3.
 LLC

 a. 87 Atlantic Street Application for Appeal to Board of Assessment Review Attached
 b. Assessor's Response re 87 Atlantic Street Attached
4. New Bussiness (if necessary)

5. 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
 BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW
 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF
 ASSESSOR'S DECISION ON
 ABATEMENT OF MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAXES
 (36 M.R.S.A. Section 843)
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.
 91 Atlantic LLC
  1. Name:_____________________________________________________________________
  2. PO Box 15372 Portland, ME 04112
 Mailing address: _____________________________________________________________
  3. 91 Atlantic Street Portland, ME
 Physical address (if different than mailing address): _________________________________16-A-9
 207-522-4345 livchase@yahoo.com
  4. Phone: _____________________________Email: __________________________________
  5. FY26
 Tax year for abatement: ............................................................................... _______________
  6. $1,168,700
 Assessed value of real estate: .....................................................................$ ______________
  7. $315,675
 Reduction of real estate value requested:....................................................$ ______________
  8. N/A
 Assessed value of personal property: ..........................................................$ ______________
 N/A
  9. Reduction of personal property value requested: ........................................$ ______________
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. Please see the
 Please see the following attachments
 instructions on the following page.): ______________________________________________
 __________________________________________________________________________
 1) Reason for Requested Abatement
 __________________________________________________________________________
 2) Original Application for Abatement dated 11/8/25
 __________________________________________________________________________
 3) Form 706-A for 2026
 4) Denial Letter from the Assessor dated 2/12/26
 __________________________________________________________________________
 __________________________________________________________________________
 __________________________________________________________________________
 __________________________________________________________________________
 __________________________________________________________________________
 __________________________________________________________________________
 __________________________________________________________________________


APPLICATION FOR ABATEMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH 36 M.R.S.A. §
843(4) Pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 843(4), the applicant hereby certifies that he or she has paid, by
the due date, either the amount of taxes not in dispute for the current tax year or an amount equal to
the amount of taxes paid in the previous tax year, whichever is greater. The statements contained in
this application are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.



 2/25/26
_____________________________________________________________ __________________
  Signature of applicant Date




 Page 5
 INSTRUCTIONS

Submit this application to the Portland Board of Assessment Review within 60 days of the date of the
Assessor's decision. Check with your municipal assessor to find out the exact date of that decision.
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, available here: https://www.maine.gov/revenue/sites/
maine.gov.revenue/files/inline-files/bull10.pdf

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 6
 REASON FOR REQUESTED ABATEMENT*
 91 ATLANTIC STREET
91 Atlantic Street is a commercial property with an assessed value determined by the
income approach. According to Tyler Technologies and Assessor Joe Montefusco, the formula
for determining the value is as follows:

Gross Rent - Expenses (not including property taxes) = NOI

NOI divided by 8% CAP rate = the determination of value

All properties that are considered commercial, 6-units or more, have a determination of value
using the income approach listed above.

As I am sure you are aware, the City of Portland has a rent control ordinance. This ordinance is
listed under Chapter 6 Buildings and Building Regulations, Art. XII. Rent Control and Tenant
Protections, §§6-230—6-244.

By definition, the rent control ordinance places limitations on the total gross rent that an owner
can collect.

We are appearing before the board to address an error in the calculation of the value of our
property at 91 Atlantic Street in Portland.

The information that was used to calculate our value was incorrect.

City of Portland Data:

Gross Income: $177,188
Expenses: $83,689
NOI: $93,499
Value Determination: $1,168,700

The maximum amount of rent that we could have collected under the rent control ordinance
was as follows:
$12,165/mth X 12 months = $145,980

The actual amount of rent that we collected was as follows:
$11,949.17/mth X 12 = $143,390




 Page 7
We are requesting an abatement in the amount of $315,675 based on the actual numbers for
the property.

Actual Data for 91 Atlantic Street is as follows
Gross Income: $143,390
Expenses: $75,148
NOI: $68,242
Value Determination: $853,025

*Please note: the specific reason for the denial of the Abatement of Property Taxes was due to
not filing Form 706-A
In the letter dated January 5, 2026 from the Assessor’s Oﬃce, 2026 Commercial Real Estate
Declaration Form and Request for Form 706-A, it clearly states that the owner of the property
has until May 1, 2026 to complete the form. We have included Form 706-A for your reference.




 Page 8
 APPLICATION FOR ABATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES

Appeal Process

In the State of Maine, a taxpayer has the right to appeal their assessed value. Abatements, or tax appeals,
are made through the statutory abatement process governed by 36 MRS §§ 841-849. An abatement
process provides a path for a taxpayer who disagrees with their property tax assessment to present
evidence and request a reduction in property tax; however, a taxpayer must do more than simply
disagree with the assessment, which is presumed to be valid. See, e.g., Madison Paper Industries v. Town of
Madison, 2021 ME 35, 253 A.3d. 575, noting that the burden of proof is upon the taxpayer to demonstrate
through credible evidence that the assessment was “manifestly wrong” by proving indisputably that:

 1.​ 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. While we understand some may have
 concerns about affordability, high tax, or change in value from one year to the next, these are not
 sufficient grounds for an appeal.

An appeal is to be based on the estimated market value of the property. According to Maine law, “a
sufficient defense of the assessment that it is accurate within reasonable limits of practicality, except
when a proven deviation of 10% or more from the relevant assessment ratio of the municipality or
primary assessing area exists.” See 36 MRS § 848-A (2025). In other words, a property's valuation is
considered reasonable for assessment purposes if it is within 9.99% of its probable selling price.

Your assessment may be appealed for the following reasons:


 YES NO

 The assessed value is substantially Your financial ability to pay taxes.
 higher than market value.

 The assessed value is inequitable with The percentage increase over the
 similar properties. previous assessed value.

 The assessed value is calculated An opinion that taxes are too high.
 incorrectly due to a clerical error.



Assessment vs. Taxation

The City of Portland’s assessment function is distinct from the taxation function. The Assessor appraises
and classifies property to determine assessed value. Whereas the City Council approves the municipal
and school budget. This is an open process and residents do have a say in the matter. Residents then
confirm the approved school budget through referendum.
 Page 1 of 7


 Page 9
Total assessment and revenues are combined with the approved budget to determine the property tax
rate or mil rate. Taxes are collected by the City of Portland’s Treasury Department.

NOTE: The Assessor’s Office does not determine your property taxes. If you believe that your assessment
accurately reflects the market value of your property, but you still believe that your property taxes are too
high, then you may wish to address this matter with the City Council, county officials, and other local
elected officials. The Assessor cannot assist you with tax matters, but only with matters pertaining to the
assessed value of your property.

Steps of an Appeal

1. Informal Valuation Review

The majority of assessment concerns can often be addressed without a formal appeal just by having an
informal discussion with the Assessor’s Office. If you believe the market value of your property on April
1st is less than the amount shown on your tax bill, then you may arrange for an informal review of your
assessment before pursuing a formal valuation appeal. You should be prepared to:

 A.​ Review your property record card and report any inaccuracies to the Assessor's Office;
 B.​ Review sales of similar properties and familiarize yourself with local market conditions; and
 C.​ Present clear and credible evidence that your property is significantly overvalued as well as what
 the valuation ought to be.

NOTE: You should be aware that whenever an assessment appeal is initiated, the assessment can be
lowered, sustained (kept the same), or raised. If we receive new information as a result of the informal
appeals process, then that information will need to be considered. It is important to weigh the potential
benefits and drawbacks before proceeding. If you would like to set up an informal valuation review, then
please contact the Assessor's Office via one of the following methods:

 ●​ Email (preferred): Email an explanation to assessors@portlandmaine.gov. Attach relevant
 documents to your email, if applicable.

 ●​ Telephone: Call the Assessor’s Office at 207-874-8486 between 8am and 4:30pm, Monday
 through Friday. If you reach voicemail, please leave a brief message with your name, address,
 telephone number and email address, if applicable.

PERTINENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A TAXPAYER'S CASE
 ●​ A recent sale of the subject property;
 ●​ Recent sales of comparable properties (within the past 24 months preceding April 1st);
 ●​ An appraisal prepared by a licensed appraiser;
 ●​ For income-producing property: income and expense information; and
 ●​ Any other supporting evidence you think will help your opinion of value.



 Page 2 of 7


 Page 10
2. Formal Valuation Appeal

If an informal valuation review with the Assessor does not result in a reduction in your assessment (and
you still believe your assessment is too high), you may make a formal abatement request. Please note,
however, that in making a formal abatement appeal, the assessment is presumed valid. The burden is on
the taxpayer:

 1.​ To show that the assessment is manifestly wrong in relation to just value (see CMP v Town of
 Moscow, 649 A.2d 320 (ME. 1994)); and

 2.​ Provide credible, affirmative evidence of just value (see City of Waterville v. Waterville Homes, 655
 A.2d 365, 367-68 (1995)).

A taxpayer has 185 days from the date of commitment to file a formal appeal. The Assessor's Office has
60 days to review and respond to a formal appeal request. An abatement application that is not acted on
within 60 days from the date of the filing of the application is deemed to have been denied. See 36 MRS §
842 (2025).

APPEAL DEADLINE: The formal appeal period is 185 days from the date of commitment. Maine Revenue
Services’ Bulletin No. 10 provides guidance on the abatement and appeals procedure. See MRS, Property
Tax Abatement and Appeals Procedures (rev. July 7, 2024).

3. Board of Assessment Review

A taxpayer has 60 days to appeal the formal decision of the Assessor to the Board of Assessment Review
(the “Board”). See 36 MRS § 843 (2025). The Board will convene for a public hearing where the taxpayer
and Assessor will provide written and/or oral testimony.

4. Continuation of Current Tax Obligation(s)

Take particular note that filing an application for abatement of assessed value:
 ●​ Does not suspend, stop, or exclude you from paying your taxes on time prior to deadline dates;
 ●​ Does not guarantee a reduced assessment; and
 ●​ Opens you up to the re-assessment process that may result in a decrease, increase, or no change
 in the assessed value of your property.




 Page 3 of 7


 Page 11
APPLICATION FOR ABATEMENT OF ASSESSED VALUE

1. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION

(a) Parcel Location: 91 Atlantic Street
 _____________________________ Parcel ID 16-A-9
 #:____________________

(b) Owner(s): 91 Atlantic LLC
 _______________________________________________________________
 (Print Name)
(c) Mailing Address for all correspondence relating to appeal:

 Street Address:____________________________________________________________
 PO Box 15372


 City, State, ZIP:____________________________________________________________
 Portland, ME 04112


(d) Daytime Phone #: 207-522-4345
 ___________________________ Email:________________________
 livchase@yahoo.com


(e) Name of Petitioner or Authorized Agent: _______________________________________
 Liv Chase and Brent Adler


2. ESTIMATE OF FAIR VALUE

(a) Assessor’s Estimate of (b) Your Estimate of Fair (c) Reduction of Value
 Fair Market Value Market Value Requested: (a) - (b) = (c)

Real Prop. $________________
 1,168,700 Real Prop. $________________
 853,025 Real Prop. $________________
 315,675

Bus. Pers. Prop. $ __________ Bus. Pers. Prop. $ __________ Bus. Pers. Prop. $ __________


3. GENERAL PROPERTY INFORMATION

(a) Lot Size (acres): 0.124
 ___________________________________
(b) Zoning or Permitted Use:____________________________
 6 unit
(c) Description of Building: _____________________________
 6 unit
(d) Waterfront or Waterview: ⃞ Yes ✔⃞ No


4. PURCHASE & REMODELING INFORMATION

(a) Purchase price of property: unknown- a portion
 ______________________________
 of a larger sale


(b) Date of purchase: March 26, 2021
 _______________________________________

(c) Remodeled or improved since purchase: ⃞ Yes ✔⃞ No | If yes, cost?____________

(d) Has the property been recently appraised? ⃞ Yes ✔⃞ No
 If yes, then appraisal date: _______  By whom?______________________________
 Appraised value: _______________ Purpose of the appraisal: __________________
(It may be helpful to submit a copy of the appraisal.)


 Page 4 of 7


 Page 12
5. REASONS FOR REQUESTING ABATEMENT

NOTE: The Maine Supreme Court has held in tax abatement cases that in order to prevail, the
taxpayer must indisputably prove one of the following three things for an assessment to be
“manifestly wrong”:
 1)​ The judgment of the Assessor was irrational or so unreasonable in light of the
 circumstances that the property is substantially overvalued and an injustice results;
 2)​ There was unjust discrimination; or
 3)​ The assessment was fraudulent, dishonest or illegal.
For a thorough explanation of the abatement and appeal process, see Maine Revenue Services
Property Tax Division’s Bulletin No. 10, Property Tax Abatement and Appeals Procedures
(online at https://www.portlandmaine.gov/238/Property-Tax-Bulletins).

State the reason(s) for requesting an abatement. Please be specific, stating the grounds for
belief that assessment is "manifestly wrong” for assessment purposes. If this appeal concerns
income producing property, please attach a statement of income and expenses for the past
three years as well as copies of any leases or rental agreements. (Attach documents / evidence
supporting your appeal, as necessary.)
This abatement is based on a calculation error that was previously addressed. Please
see Income and Expense data for the property at 91 Atlantic Street. This is a 6 unit
building that is assessed using the Income Approach.


City of Portland Data:

Gross Income: $177,188
Expenses: $83,689
NOI: $93,499
Value Determination: $1,168,738



Actual Data for 91 Atlantic Street:

Gross Income: $143,390
Expenses: $75,148
NOI: $68,242
Value Determination: $853,025




 Page 5 of 7


 Page 13
6. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WORKSHEET
Most recent sales of comparable property (within 24 months preceding April 1st):

 Map / Lot Address Land Size Sale Price Sale Date

 a.

 b.

 c.

 d.

 e.


7. CONTACT INFORMATION


 Liv Chase
 Applicant: ___________________________________________________________________

 PO Box 15372
 Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________________

 Portland, ME 04112
 City, State, ZIP:_______________________________________________________________

 207-522-4345 livchase@yahoo.com
 Daytime Phone #: ___________________________Email:____________________________



8. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT AND SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT / OWNER

 ***** THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED. *****

 NOTE: A separate application form should be filed for each separately assessed parcel of real
 property claimed to be “manifestly wrong.”

 I UNDERSTAND and AGREE that pursuant to 36 M.R.S. § 706A the Assessor may ask questions
 and/or request additional information and I shall answer such questions in writing and provide
 the necessary information and documentation, including:
 1.​ A copy of your current insurance rider that indicates the replacement cost of all
 structures.
 2.​ A copy of any and all real estate appraisals within the last two (2) years.
 3.​ Commercial Properties - income and expense data along with vacancy and collection
 loss data for the previous two (2) years, plus copies of all lease agreements and rent rolls.
 If desired, such data and documentation should be labelled “Proprietary & Confidential”.
 4.​ Such other relevant information the Assessor deems necessary or appropriate to grant
 an abatement of taxes including, but not limited to, an exterior and interior inspection
 (or reinspection) of the property. The Assessor may dismiss the appeal if the taxpayer
 does not permit the inspection.


 Page 6 of 7


 Page 14
To the Assessor of the City of Portland, Maine:

DECLARATION(S) UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY. In accordance with the provisions of
36 MRS § 841, I hereby make a written application for abatement and certify that the above
statements are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

I further understand that failure to answer the Assessor’s questions in writing and/or to provide
the Assessor with additional information and documentation, as requested, shall bar me from
appealing the Assessor’s decision.

 11/8/25
Applicant / Owner Signature _______________________________ Date:________________



*****SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE*****

NOTE: If signed by an authorized representative, please submit a copy of written authorization
to act on behalf of the owner / taxpayer.

Name of Agent / Representative (print or type): ___________________________________

Signature of Agent / Representative: _____________________________ Date: ___________

Title / Relationship: ___________________________________________________________
(i.e., president, attorney, tax consultant, relative, etc.)

Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________________

City, State, ZIP:______________________________________________________________

Daytime Phone #: ___________________________Email:____________________________



APPEALS DEADLINE: ​ Completed applications must be filed within 185 days from the date of
 commitment.

MAIL TO:​ ASSESSOR’S OFFICE
 389 CONGRESS STREET, ROOM 115
 PORTLAND, MAINE 04101
 TEL. 207-874-8486

EMAIL TO: ASSESSORS@PORTLANDMAINE.GOV




 Page 7 of 7


 Page 15
 APPLICATION FOR ABATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES

Appeal Process

In the State of Maine, a taxpayer has the right to appeal their assessed value. Abatements, or tax appeals,
are made through the statutory abatement process governed by 36 MRS §§ 841-849. An abatement
process provides a path for a taxpayer who disagrees with their property tax assessment to present
evidence and request a reduction in property tax; however, a taxpayer must do more than simply
disagree with the assessment, which is presumed to be valid. See, e.g., Madison Paper Industries v. Town of
Madison, 2021 ME 35, 253 A.3d. 575, noting that the burden of proof is upon the taxpayer to demonstrate
through credible evidence that the assessment was “manifestly wrong” by proving indisputably that:

 1.​ 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. While we understand some may have
 concerns about affordability, high tax, or change in value from one year to the next, these are not
 sufficient grounds for an appeal.

An appeal is to be based on the estimated market value of the property. According to Maine law, “a
sufficient defense of the assessment that it is accurate within reasonable limits of practicality, except
when a proven deviation of 10% or more from the relevant assessment ratio of the municipality or
primary assessing area exists.” See 36 MRS § 848-A (2025). In other words, a property's valuation is
considered reasonable for assessment purposes if it is within 9.99% of its probable selling price.

Your assessment may be appealed for the following reasons:


 YES NO

 The assessed value is substantially Your financial ability to pay taxes.
 higher than market value.

 The assessed value is inequitable with The percentage increase over the
 similar properties. previous assessed value.

 The assessed value is calculated An opinion that taxes are too high.
 incorrectly due to a clerical error.



Assessment vs. Taxation

The City of Portland’s assessment function is distinct from the taxation function. The Assessor appraises
and classifies property to determine assessed value. Whereas the City Council approves the municipal
and school budget. This is an open process and residents do have a say in the matter. Residents then
confirm the approved school budget through referendum.
 Page 1 of 7


 Page 16
Total assessment and revenues are combined with the approved budget to determine the property tax
rate or mil rate. Taxes are collected by the City of Portland’s Treasury Department.

NOTE: The Assessor’s Office does not determine your property taxes. If you believe that your assessment
accurately reflects the market value of your property, but you still believe that your property taxes are too
high, then you may wish to address this matter with the City Council, county officials, and other local
elected officials. The Assessor cannot assist you with tax matters, but only with matters pertaining to the
assessed value of your property.

Steps of an Appeal

1. Informal Valuation Review

The majority of assessment concerns can often be addressed without a formal appeal just by having an
informal discussion with the Assessor’s Office. If you believe the market value of your property on April
1st is less than the amount shown on your tax bill, then you may arrange for an informal review of your
assessment before pursuing a formal valuation appeal. You should be prepared to:

 A.​ Review your property record card and report any inaccuracies to the Assessor's Office;
 B.​ Review sales of similar properties and familiarize yourself with local market conditions; and
 C.​ Present clear and credible evidence that your property is significantly overvalued as well as what
 the valuation ought to be.

NOTE: You should be aware that whenever an assessment appeal is initiated, the assessment can be
lowered, sustained (kept the same), or raised. If we receive new information as a result of the informal
appeals process, then that information will need to be considered. It is important to weigh the potential
benefits and drawbacks before proceeding. If you would like to set up an informal valuation review, then
please contact the Assessor's Office via one of the following methods:

 ●​ Email (preferred): Email an explanation to assessors@portlandmaine.gov. Attach relevant
 documents to your email, if applicable.

 ●​ Telephone: Call the Assessor’s Office at 207-874-8486 between 8am and 4:30pm, Monday
 through Friday. If you reach voicemail, please leave a brief message with your name, address,
 telephone number and email address, if applicable.

PERTINENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A TAXPAYER'S CASE
 ●​ A recent sale of the subject property;
 ●​ Recent sales of comparable properties (within the past 24 months preceding April 1st);
 ●​ An appraisal prepared by a licensed appraiser;
 ●​ For income-producing property: income and expense information; and
 ●​ Any other supporting evidence you think will help your opinion of value.



 Page 2 of 7


 Page 17
2. Formal Valuation Appeal

If an informal valuation review with the Assessor does not result in a reduction in your assessment (and
you still believe your assessment is too high), you may make a formal abatement request. Please note,
however, that in making a formal abatement appeal, the assessment is presumed valid. The burden is on
the taxpayer:

 1.​ To show that the assessment is manifestly wrong in relation to just value (see CMP v Town of
 Moscow, 649 A.2d 320 (ME. 1994)); and

 2.​ Provide credible, affirmative evidence of just value (see City of Waterville v. Waterville Homes, 655
 A.2d 365, 367-68 (1995)).

A taxpayer has 185 days from the date of commitment to file a formal appeal. The Assessor's Office has
60 days to review and respond to a formal appeal request. An abatement application that is not acted on
within 60 days from the date of the filing of the application is deemed to have been denied. See 36 MRS §
842 (2025).

APPEAL DEADLINE: The formal appeal period is 185 days from the date of commitment. Maine Revenue
Services’ Bulletin No. 10 provides guidance on the abatement and appeals procedure. See MRS, Property
Tax Abatement and Appeals Procedures (rev. July 7, 2024).

3. Board of Assessment Review

A taxpayer has 60 days to appeal the formal decision of the Assessor to the Board of Assessment Review
(the “Board”). See 36 MRS § 843 (2025). The Board will convene for a public hearing where the taxpayer
and Assessor will provide written and/or oral testimony.

4. Continuation of Current Tax Obligation(s)

Take particular note that filing an application for abatement of assessed value:
 ●​ Does not suspend, stop, or exclude you from paying your taxes on time prior to deadline dates;
 ●​ Does not guarantee a reduced assessment; and
 ●​ Opens you up to the re-assessment process that may result in a decrease, increase, or no change
 in the assessed value of your property.




 Page 3 of 7


 Page 18
APPLICATION FOR ABATEMENT OF ASSESSED VALUE

1. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION

(a) Parcel Location: 91 Atlantic Street
 _____________________________ Parcel ID 16-A-9
 #:____________________

(b) Owner(s): 91 Atlantic LLC
 _______________________________________________________________
 (Print Name)
(c) Mailing Address for all correspondence relating to appeal:

 Street Address:____________________________________________________________
 PO Box 15372


 City, State, ZIP:____________________________________________________________
 Portland, ME 04112


(d) Daytime Phone #: 207-522-4345
 ___________________________ Email:________________________
 livchase@yahoo.com


(e) Name of Petitioner or Authorized Agent: _______________________________________
 Liv Chase and Brent Adler



2. ESTIMATE OF FAIR VALUE

(a) Assessor’s Estimate of (b) Your Estimate of Fair (c) Reduction of Value
 Fair Market Value Market Value Requested: (a) - (b) = (c)

Real Prop. $________________
 1,168,700 Real Prop. $________________
 853,025 Real Prop. $________________
 315,675

Bus. Pers. Prop. $ __________ Bus. Pers. Prop. $ __________ Bus. Pers. Prop. $ __________


3. GENERAL PROPERTY INFORMATION

(a) Lot Size (acres): 0.124
 ___________________________________
(b) Zoning or Permitted Use:____________________________
 6 unit
(c) Description of Building: _____________________________
 6 unit
(d) Waterfront or Waterview: ⃞ Yes ✔⃞ No


4. PURCHASE & REMODELING INFORMATION

(a) Purchase price of property: unknown- a portion
 ______________________________
 of a larger sale


(b) Date of purchase: March 26, 2021
 _______________________________________

(c) Remodeled or improved since purchase: ⃞ Yes ✔⃞ No | If yes, cost?____________

(d) Has the property been recently appraised? ⃞ Yes ✔⃞ No
 If yes, then appraisal date: _______  By whom?______________________________
 Appraised value: _______________ Purpose of the appraisal: __________________
(It may be helpful to submit a copy of the appraisal.)


 Page 4 of 7


 Page 19
5. REASONS FOR REQUESTING ABATEMENT

NOTE: The Maine Supreme Court has held in tax abatement cases that in order to prevail, the
taxpayer must indisputably prove one of the following three things for an assessment to be
“manifestly wrong”:
 1)​ The judgment of the Assessor was irrational or so unreasonable in light of the
 circumstances that the property is substantially overvalued and an injustice results;
 2)​ There was unjust discrimination; or
 3)​ The assessment was fraudulent, dishonest or illegal.
For a thorough explanation of the abatement and appeal process, see Maine Revenue Services
Property Tax Division’s Bulletin No. 10, Property Tax Abatement and Appeals Procedures
(online at https://www.portlandmaine.gov/238/Property-Tax-Bulletins).

State the reason(s) for requesting an abatement. Please be specific, stating the grounds for
belief that assessment is "manifestly wrong” for assessment purposes. If this appeal concerns
income producing property, please attach a statement of income and expenses for the past
three years as well as copies of any leases or rental agreements. (Attach documents / evidence
supporting your appeal, as necessary.)
This abatement is based on a calculation error that was previously addressed. Please
see Income and Expense data for the property at 91 Atlantic Street. This is a 6 unit
building that is assessed using the Income Approach.


City of Portland Data:

Gross Income: $177,188
Expenses: $83,689
NOI: $93,499
Value Determination: $1,168,738



Actual Data for 91 Atlantic Street:

Gross Income: $143,390
Expenses: $75,148
NOI: $68,242
Value Determination: $853,025




 Page 5 of 7


 Page 20
6. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WORKSHEET
Most recent sales of comparable property (within 24 months preceding April 1st):

 Map / Lot Address Land Size Sale Price Sale Date

 a.

 b.

 c.

 d.

 e.


7. CONTACT INFORMATION

 Liv Chase
 Applicant: ___________________________________________________________________

 PO Box 15372
 Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________________

 Portland, ME 04112
 City, State, ZIP:_______________________________________________________________

 207-522-4345 livchase@yahoo.com
 Daytime Phone #: ___________________________Email:____________________________



8. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT AND SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT / OWNER

 ***** THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED. *****

 NOTE: A separate application form should be filed for each separately assessed parcel of real
 property claimed to be “manifestly wrong.”

 I UNDERSTAND and AGREE that pursuant to 36 M.R.S. § 706A the Assessor may ask questions
 and/or request additional information and I shall answer such questions in writing and provide
 the necessary information and documentation, including:
 1.​ A copy of your current insurance rider that indicates the replacement cost of all
 structures.
 2.​ A copy of any and all real estate appraisals within the last two (2) years.
 3.​ Commercial Properties - income and expense data along with vacancy and collection
 loss data for the previous two (2) years, plus copies of all lease agreements and rent rolls.
 If desired, such data and documentation should be labelled “Proprietary & Confidential”.
 4.​ Such other relevant information the Assessor deems necessary or appropriate to grant
 an abatement of taxes including, but not limited to, an exterior and interior inspection
 (or reinspection) of the property. The Assessor may dismiss the appeal if the taxpayer
 does not permit the inspection.


 Page 6 of 7


 Page 21
To the Assessor of the City of Portland, Maine:

DECLARATION(S) UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY. In accordance with the provisions of
36 MRS § 841, I hereby make a written application for abatement and certify that the above
statements are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

I further understand that failure to answer the Assessor’s questions in writing and/or to provide
the Assessor with additional information and documentation, as requested, shall bar me from
appealing the Assessor’s decision.

 11/8/25
Applicant / Owner Signature _______________________________ Date:________________



*****SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE*****

NOTE: If signed by an authorized representative, please submit a copy of written authorization
to act on behalf of the owner / taxpayer.

Name of Agent / Representative (print or type): ___________________________________

Signature of Agent / Representative: _____________________________ Date: ___________

Title / Relationship: ___________________________________________________________
(i.e., president, attorney, tax consultant, relative, etc.)

Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________________

City, State, ZIP:______________________________________________________________

Daytime Phone #: ___________________________Email:____________________________



APPEALS DEADLINE: ​ Completed applications must be filed within 185 days from the date of
 commitment.

MAIL TO:​ ASSESSOR’S OFFICE
 389 CONGRESS STREET, ROOM 115
 PORTLAND, MAINE 04101
 TEL. 207-874-8486

EMAIL TO: ASSESSORS@PORTLANDMAINE.GOV




 Page 7 of 7


 Page 22
 2026 COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE PROPERTY DECLARATION FORM
 ASSESSOR’S OFFICE, ROOM 115
 389 CONGRESS STREET
 PORTLAND, MAINE 04101
THIS SCHEDULE MUST BE PRESENTED TO THE ASSESSOR’S OFFICE, ROOM 115, CITY HALL, PORTLAND, MAINE, EITHER IN PERSON,
ELECTRONICALLY SUBMITTED VIA E-MAIL TO ASSESSORS@PORTLANDMAINE.GOV OR MAILED TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS ON OR BEFORE THE
FIRST DAY OF MAY 2026. FAILURE TO FILE this report, in the form and manner as herein prescribed, shall result in a presumption of your ownership
(leased or otherwise), and subsequent tax liability of any taxable real or personal property items in your possession. This schedule is required under the
statutes of the State of Maine (see Section 706-A below) and includes those items which are normally assessed for taxation by the City of Portland. Although this
schedule will be accepted by the City Assessor as in substantial compliance with the statutes, neither the City Assessor nor the City of Portland can guarantee that
the courts will accept it as a “true and perfect list” should the taxpayer desire to appeal as provided by law, from the value placed by the City Assessor.




 Parcel Id: 16-A-9
 Land Use: 6-unit
 Property Location: 91 Atlantic Street
 Re:



Check correct title (owner will be assumed unless otherwise noted: Owner ( ) Party in Possession (✔)

 36 M.R.S. §§ 551 and 706-A
Sec. 551. REAL ESTATE; DEFINED. - Real estate, for the purposes of taxation, shall include all lands in the State and all buildings, mobile homes and other
things affixed to the same, such as, but not limited to, camp trailers, together with the water power, shore privileges and rights, forests and mineral deposits
appertaining thereto; interests and improvements in land, the fee of which is in the State; interests by contract or otherwise in real estate exempt from taxation; and
lines of electric light and power companies. Buildings, mobile homes and other things affixed to the land, on leased land or on land not owned by the owner of the
buildings, shall be considered real estate for purposes of taxation and shall be taxed in the place where said land is located. Mobile homes, except stock in trade,
shall be considered real estate for purposes of taxation.


Sec. 706-A. TAXPAYERS TO LIST PROPERTY, NOTICE, PENALTY, VERIFICATION - Before making an assessment, the assessor or assessors, chief
assessor of a primary assessing area or State Tax Assessor in the case of the unorganized territory may give seasonable notice in writing to all persons liable to
taxation or qualifying for exemption pursuant to subchapter 4-C in the municipality, the primary assessing area or the unorganized territory to furnish to the
assessor or assessors, chief assessor or State Tax Assessor true and perfect lists of all the property the taxpayer possessed on the first day of April of the same
year and may at the time of the notice or thereafter require the taxpayer to answer in writing all proper inquiries as to the nature, situation and value of the
taxpayer's property liable to be taxed in the State or subject to exemption pursuant to subchapter 4-C. The list and answers are not conclusive upon the assessor
or assessors, chief assessor or State Tax Assessor.

As may be reasonably necessary to ascertain the value of property according to the income approach to value pursuant to the requirements of section 208-A or
generally accepted assessing practices, these inquiries may seek information about income and expense, manufacturing or operational efficiencies, manufactured
or generated sales price trends or other related information.

A taxpayer has 30 days from receipt of a request for a true and perfect list or of proper inquiries to respond to the request or inquiries. Upon written request to the
assessor or assessors, chief assessor of a primary assessing area or State Tax Assessor in the case of the unorganized territory, a taxpayer is entitled to a 30-day
extension to respond to the request for a true and perfect list or proper inquiries, and the assessor may at any time grant additional extensions upon written
request. Information provided by the taxpayer in response to an inquiry that is proprietary information, and is clearly labeled by the taxpayer as proprietary and
confidential information, is confidential and is not a public record for purposes of Title 1, chapter 13.

A notice to or inquiry of a taxpayer made under this section may be by mail directed to the last known address of the taxpayer or by any other method that provides
reasonable notice to the taxpayer. If notice is given by mail and the taxpayer does not furnish the list and answers to all proper inquiries, the taxpayer may not
apply to the assessor or assessors, chief assessor of a primary assessing area or State Tax Assessor in the case of the unorganized territory for an abatement or
appeal an application for abatement of those taxes unless the taxpayer furnishes the list and answers with the application and satisfies the assessing authority or
authority to whom an appeal is made that the taxpayer was unable to furnish the list and answers in the time required. The list and answers are not conclusive
upon the assessor or assessors, chief assessor or State Tax Assessor.

If the assessor or assessors, chief assessor of a primary assessing area or State Tax Assessor in the case of the unorganized territory fails to give notice by mail,
the taxpayer is not prohibited from applying for an abatement; however, upon demand, the taxpayer shall furnish the list and answer in writing all proper inquiries
as to the nature, situation and value of the taxpayer's property liable to be taxed in the State. A taxpayer's refusal or neglect to answer the inquiries bars an appeal,
but the list and answers are not conclusive upon the assessor or assessors, chief assessor or State Tax Assessor.

The assessor or assessors, chief assessor of a primary assessing area or State Tax Assessor in the case of the unorganized territory may require the person
furnishing the list and answers to all proper inquiries to subscribe under oath to the truth of the list and answers.

 DECLARATION OF REAL ESTATE OWNED IN PORTLAND ON APRIL 1st, 2026
LOCATION (Street and number, or other brief description. Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
91 Atlantic Street Portland, ME
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 *** PLEASE COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE ***
 Page 23
 PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 2026 Income and Expense Report
Pursuant to 36 M.R.S. § 706-A, the City of Portland Assessor’s Office is requesting the below information relative to the financial
operating statement of your property. Please note: this is not a request for the business financials, only the property. We are
requesting current income and expense information for the 2025 calendar year. Prompt attention to this request will help
ensure that your assessment will be based on the most accurate information available. Refusal or neglect to provide
this data may result in the loss of your right to appeal. Please complete the requested information below or attach copies of
your 2025 operating statements and return to the Assessor’s Office on or before 5/01/2026.


Gross Annual Income Annual Operating Expenses

Commercial Buildings: 2025 Fixed Expenses: 2025
 Gross Square Footage

First Floor: Retail _________ $___________ Real Estate Taxes: 14,001.03
 $_____________

 : Office _________ $___________ Building Insurance: 6,589
 $_____________

 : Warehouse _________ $___________ Personal Property Taxes: $_____________

 : Parking _________ $___________ Total Fixed Expenses: 20,590.03
 $_____________

Upper Floors: Retail _________ $____________ Variable Expenses:
 : Office _________ $____________ Professional (Legal & Accounting): $_____________

 : Apartment _________ $____________ Advertising: $_____________

 : Warehouse _________ $____________ Management Fees: $_____________

 : Parking _________ $____________ Administration (Salaries & Related): $_____________

 Other: Reimbursed Expenses $____________ Travel: $_____________

 : Miscellaneous $____________ Heat & Hot Water: $_____________

 : Surface Parking $____________ Electricity: $_____________

Total Comm. Building Income: $____________ Utilities/Water/Sewer/Gas: $_____________

 Cleaning & Trash Removal: $_____________
Apartment Buildings: 2025
 Maintenance & Fees: $_____________

Type No. of Units x $ Per Month = Total Gross Income Fit-out: $_____________

Efficiency ______ x $ ________ = $______________ Roads, Grounds. & Security: $_____________

 ______ x $ ________ = 113,390
 5 9449.16
1 Bedroom $______________ Other: $_____________

2 Bedroom 1
 ______ 2500 = $______________
 x $ ________ 30,000 Total Variable Expenses: 75,148
 $_____________

3 Bedroom ______ x $ ________ = $______________

Other Income $______________

Total Apt. Building Income: 143,390
 $______________

OWNER OCCUPIED? (Yes) ___ (No) ___✔ If Yes, please explain what area is occupied. Use a separate sheet if needed.______________________________.
UTILITIES INCLUDED? (Yes) ___ (No) ✔ _________________________________________________________.
 ___ If Yes, please explain. Heat, electricity, etc. heat, hot water, electric, water,sewer, stormwater, parking, oil
APPLIANCES INCLUDED? (Yes) ___ ✔ (No) ___ If Yes, please give number of stoves____,
 6 refrigerators____, 6 clothes washing machines____, 1 dryers____.
 1


I hereby certify, having read the above, that as to the items upon which a report is made they are full, true, and correct, to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

Signature: ____________________________________ Liv Chase
 Printed Name: ______________________________ 11/8/25
 Date: _____________________

Official Title:___________________________________ livchase@yahoo.com
 Email: _____________________________________ 207-522-4345
 Phone #: _______________________


 Page 24
Assessor’s Office
Elisa A. Marr, CMA-2
City Assessor




January 5, 2026

Dear Property Owner:

In order to accurately value your commercial property, it is important that we understand the economic conditions
that affect the market value of the property.

Under Maine law, Title 36, M.S.R.A. § 706A the property owner is required to respond in writing to “all proper
inquiries as to the nature, situation and value of the taxpayer's property,” including by providing all financial
information requested by the Assessor reasonably calculated to assist in valuing the property. Refusal or neglect to
answer such inquiry and subscribe same will bar any abatement appeal under Title 36, M.S.R.A.§ 841. This
request is being made pursuant to § 706A.

Please take a moment to fill out the enclosed Income and Expense Questionnaire and provide information on
rents, vacancy and expenses associated with the ownership of your property for calendar year 2025. This
information is vital to understanding of the current real estate market for apartment, commercial and industrial
properties, and allows us to carry out the State-mandated role of valuing all such properties in a fair and equitable
manner.

The information that you provide to this Office is not open to public inspection and will be kept confidential.

If the property is owner-occupied, please make note of this and report expense information to the best of your
ability. Financial applications, such as QuickBooks or Mint, are accepted as an electronic report in place of the
enclosed form.

Please mail return to: Assessor’s Office

 389 Congress Street Rm 115

 Portland, ME 04101

or submit via email at assessors@portlandmaine.gov.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Kindly submit your income and expense documents to the Assessor’s
Office no later than May 1, 2026.


Sincerely,



City of Portland Assessor’s Office

Enc.




 389 Congress Street, Room 115, Portland, Maine 04101 | 207-874-8486 | assessors@portlandmaine.gov



 Page 25
Page 26
 APPLICATION FOR ABATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES
 UNDER TITLE 36 SECTION 841 MRSA


Name(s) of Applicant(s) 91 Atlantic LLC
 _________________________________________________________________
 PO Box 15372 Portland, ME 04112
Address of Applicant(s) _________________________________________________________________
 207-518-7038 207-522-4345
Daytime Telephone # ___________________________________________________________________
 16-A-9
Property Identification (Chart, Block, Lot and/or Tax ID #) _____________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________
 FY26
Tax Year for which Abatement is Requested _______________________________________________
 $1,168,700
Assessed Value of Real Estate ____________________________________________________________
 $315,675
Abatement Requested in Real Estate Value _________________________________________________

Assessed Value of Personal Property (if applicable) __________________________________________

Abatement Requested in Personal Property Value (if applicable) ______________________________

Reason(s) for requesting abatement (please be specific, stating grounds for belief that property is
 Please see attached sheet
overvalued for tax purposes) ____________________________________________________________
 1) Reason for Requested Abatement
______________________________________________________________________________________
 2) Original Application for Abatement dated 11/8/25
 3) Form 706-A for 2026
______________________________________________________________________________________
 4) Denial Letter from the Assessor dated 2/12/26
______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________
Please attach a separate sheet as needed.


To the Tax Assessor, City of Portland, Maine
 In accordance with provisions of Title 36 Section 841 MRSA, I hereby make written application
for abatement of property taxes as noted above. The above statements are correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

 2/25/26
__________________________ ___________________________________________
Date Signature of Applicant

THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED.

SEPARATE APPLICATION SHOULD BE FILED FOR EACH SEPARATELY ASSESSED
PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE CLAIMED TO BE OVERVALUED.




 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
 ​Assessor’s Office​
  ​Elisa A. Marr, CMA-2​
 ​City Assessor​




​DATE:​ ​
 ​TO:​
  ​FROM:​
 ​RE:​




  ​The​​mission​​of​​the​​Assessor’s​​Office​​is​​defined​​by​​Article​​IX,​​Section​​8​​of​​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 91 Atlantic​
​LLC (the “Appellant”), regarding the six unit commercial rental property located at 91 Atlantic​
 ​Street (the “Property”), a hearing for which is scheduled for June 4, 2026.​

​As an initial matter, the City Assessor asserts (and does not waive) that the Appellant had actual​
 ​notice of one or more requests for information pursuant to section under 36 M.R.S.​​§ 706-A and​
  ​that the Appellant did not properly comply with those requests. The Appellant should be barred​
 ​from appeal as a consequence to that non-compliance.​

​In the event that this matter proceeds to the merits of the Abatement Appeal, then, 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.




 Page 42
​This submission is organized into the following sections: 1. Timeline, 2. Exhibits / List of​
 ​Attachments, 3. City Assessor’s Response, and 4. Legal References.​

​1.​​TIMELINE​

​1/2024​ ​The Assessor’s Office mailed all commercial​​businesses a 2025 Commercial Real​
 ​Estate Property​​706-A​​Declaration Form.​ ​[Exhibit​​17]​

​7/14/2025​ ​Appellant had an informal hearing with a​​representative of Tyler Technologies.​
 ​The Tyler representative noted that Appellant​​believes​​the value is too high. Owner​
 ​says that she will send an income and expense form for us to review. Recommendation:​
 ​No Change.​​[Exhibit 18]​

​8/25/2025​ ​As of the Commitment Date (August 25, 2025),​​Appellant’s property was assessed​
 ​at $1,168,700.​​[Exhibit 1]​

​1/7/2026​ ​Appellant submitted an Application for Abatement​​of Property Taxes to the​
 ​Assessor’s Office for a value reduction of $315,675 or a total value of $853,025.​
 ​[Exhibit 2]​

​1/8/2026​ ​City​​Assessor mailed to Appellant a section​​706-A request for additional​
 ​information​. [Exhibit 3]​ ​Appellant did not respond​​to the letter or send the​
 ​Assessor any responsive information.​

​2/12/2026​ ​The Assessor’s Office denied the Appellant’s​​Abatement Application by letter due​
 ​to failure to comply with section 706-A request dated 1/8/2026.​ ​[Exhibit 4]​

​2/20/2026​ ​Appellant submits annual 2026 FY27 Commercial​​Real Estate Property Declaration​
 ​via email.​​[Exhibit 5]​

​2/20/2026​ ​City Assessor notified Appellant that the​​January 8,2026 section 706-A letter and​
 ​all City mail posted on January 12, 2026 was returned by the post office and not​
 ​delivered. As a result, the City Assessor offered to reconsider Appellant’s​
 ​abatement request if the Appellant would grant the City Assessor a 30-day​
 ​extension to​​March 25, 2026​. The Appellant replied​​via email on the same day and​
 ​granted the extension. The City Assessor responded again via email requesting a​
 ​third section 706-A request for information that was outlined in the second​
 ​section 706-A request of 1/8/2026.​ ​[Exhibit 19]​

​2/24/2026​ ​The City Assessor acknowledged by email​​the 30-day extension and again​
 ​expressed the need for the third section 706-A information including a detailed​
 ​list of expenses. The Appellant was informed that “​[u]​nder Maine law, Title 36,​
 ​M.S.R.A. § 706-A the property owner is required to respond in writing to ​“all​
 ​proper inquiries as to the nature, situation and value of the taxpayer's property,”​

 ​2​​|​​Page​



 Page 43
 ​including​​by providing​​all financial information requested by the Assessor​
 ​reasonably calculated to assist in valuing the property. Refusal or neglect to​
 ​answer such inquiry and subscribe same will bar any abatement appeal under​
 ​Title 36, M.S.R.A.§ 841​. This request is being made​​pursuant to § 706A.”​
 ​[Exhibit 20]​

​2/25/2026​ ​Appellant appeals to the Board of Assessment​​Review for a value reduction of​
 ​$315,675, for a total value of $853,025.​

​2/27/2026​ ​City Assessor mailed Appellant a third request​​under section 706-A for additional​
 ​information.​​[Exhibit 6]​

​3/16/2026​ ​Appellant replied by email and refused to​​provide information requested under​
 ​section 706-A.​​[Exhibit 7]​

​4/14/2026​ ​City Assessor mailed Appellant a fourth​​request under section 706-A for additional​
 ​information.​​[Exhibit 12]​

​5/22/2026​ ​Appellant requested additional information​​-​​“​I would like access to city wide​
 ​property cards for all properties. I would like to be able to see for myself the​
 i​ncome and expenses for other properties in my neighborhood since this is a key​
 ​component to your argument. Is there a link to the Tyler technology website so​
 ​that I can access this database?”​ ​On 5/27/2026​​Assessor​​provided income and​
 ​expense data used for all 5-10 unit properties located on the East End and in the​
 ​Appellant’s neighborhood.​ ​[Exhibit 21]​

​2.​​EXHIBITS / LIST OF ATTACHMENTS​

​Appellant’s Submissions:​
 ​●​ ​Application for Abatement of Property Taxes packet, received by Corporation Counsel on​
 ​February 25, 2026 on behalf of the Board of Assessment Review.​

​City Assessor’s Exhibits:​
 ​●​ ​Current Property Record Card for CBL no. 016 A009001 [​Exhibit 1​]​
 ​●​ ​Abatement Application to the City Assessor received 1/7/2026 [​Exhibit 2​]​
 ​●​ ​First Section 706-A Request for Additional Information dated 1/8/2026​​[Exhibit 3]​
 ​●​ ​Letter denying abatement application dated 2/12/2026 [​Exhibit 4​]​
 ​●​ ​Appellant’s FY27 2026 Commercial Real Estate Property Declaration dated 2/20/2026​
 ​[Exhibit 5]​
 ​●​ ​Second Section 706-A Request for Additional Information dated 2/27/2026​​[Exhibit 6]​
 ​●​ ​Appellant’s email dated 3/16/2026 refusing to provide information requested via section​
 ​706-A.​​[Exhibit 7]​
 ​●​ ​Appellant’s Annual Maintenance Budget Breakdown for the Property​​[Exhibit 8]​
 ​●​ ​Recent Sales of Similar Properties​​[Exhibit 9]​

 ​3​​|​​Page​



 Page 44
 ​●​ ​Aerial image of the Property​​[Exhibit 10]​
 ​●​ ​Permitting Department Rent Control Information​​[Exhibit​​11]​
 ​●​ ​Fourth Section 706-A Request for Additional Information sent via Certified Mail and dated​
 ​4/14/2026​​[Exhibit 12]​
 ​●​ ​Deed and Transfer Tax Declaration for 87 Atlantic Street dated 3/26/2021 recorded in Book​
 ​37990, Page 159​​[Exhibit 13]​
 ​●​ ​Deed and Transfer Tax Declaration dated 3/26/2021 recorded in Book 37990, Page 191 for​
 ​the Property​​[Exhibit 14]​
 ​●​ ​Mortgage from 91 Atlantic, LLC to Machias Savings Bank for the Property and in the​
 ​amount of $952,500, recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds in Book​
 ​37990, Page 193.​​[Exhibit 15]​
 ​●​ ​Tax Map 16 and enlargement showing Property dimensions.​​[Exhibit 16]​
 ​●​ ​2025 Commercial Real Estate Property Declaration Form.​ ​[Exhibit 17]​
 ​●​ ​Tyler Technology Representative Hearing Note from iasWorld CAMA​ ​[Exhibit 18]​
 ​●​ ​Email communications dated 2/20/2026​ ​[Exhibit 19]​
 ​●​ ​Email communications from 2/24/2026​ ​[Exhibit 20]​
 ​●​ ​Appellant’s email requesting additional information​​with attached spreadsheet and 706-A​
 ​responses​​[Exhibit 21]​

​3.​​SUMMARY OF CITY ASSESSOR’S RESPONSE​

​The City Assessor’s response to the Abatement Appeal is twofold. First, the City Assessor asserts​
 ​(and does not waive) that the Appellant had actual notice of one or more requests for information​
  ​pursuant to section under 36 M.R.S.​​§ 706-A and that​​the Appellant did not properly comply with​
 ​those requests. The Appellant should be barred from appeal as a consequence to that​
 ​non-compliance.​

​Second, if the Board proceeds to the merits of this Appeal, the City Assessor asserts that the​
 ​Appellant has not met the burden to prove the assessment is “manifestly wrong.” The burden of​
  ​proof is upon the Appellant 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.​

​4​.​​THE BOARD LACKS JURISDICTION TO HEAR APPELLANT’S​​APPEAL​

​The Assessor’s Office annually mails a 706-A Commercial Real Estate Property Declaration Form​
 ​to all commercial properties, including the subject Property, requesting income and expense​
  ​information. A declaration has been mailed to the Appellant every year since the property was​
 ​purchased in 2021 and has had no response to those requests.​​[Exhibit 17]​. Additionally, since​
 ​January, the Assessor’s Office has sent two more requests for property information via 706-A​
 ​dated 2/27/2026​​[Exhibit 6]​​and 4/14/2026​​[Exhibit​​12].​ ​The Appellant has only provided income​
 ​and expense information for the coming tax year and has refused to provide the information​
 ​requested in all 706-A requests stating in her email dated 3/16/2026​​[Exhibit 7]:​

 ​4​​|​​Page​



 Page 45
 ​Your​​letter​​dated​​2/27/26​​requests​​16​​items,​​many​​of​​these​​items​​are​​unrelated​​to​
 ​property​ ​valuation​​and​​highly​​confidential.​​Requesting​​these​​documents​​which​
 ​are irrelevant to the assessment of value is invasive.​

 ​We​ ​have​ ​given​ ​you​ ​the​ ​"nature,​ ​situation,​ ​and​ ​value​ ​of​ ​the​ ​taxpayer's​
 ​property". ​Maine​​law,​​Title​​36,​​M.S.R.A.​​§​​706-A​​does​​not​state​​that​​all​​"financial​
 ​information"​ ​is​ ​required​ ​including​ ​but​ ​not​ ​limited​ ​to:​ ​mortgage​ ​notes,​ ​title​
 ​insurance, and property insurance (which is what you are requesting from us).​

​Section 706-A(1) provides as follows:​

 ​If notice is given by mail and the taxpayer does not furnish the list and answers to all​
 ​proper inquiries, the taxpayer may not apply to the assessor for an abatement or appeal an​
 ​application for abatement of those taxes unless the taxpayer furnishes the list and​
 ​answers with the application and satisfies the assessing authority or authority to whom​
 ​an appeal is made that the taxpayer was unable to furnish the list and answers in the time​
 ​required. The list and answers are not conclusive upon the assessor.​

​Because the Appellant failed to respond to the Assessor’s 706-A requests,​ ​this Board should​
 ​conclude that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismiss it.​

​5.​​APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSOR’S​​ASSESSMENT WAS​
 ​M ANIFESTLY WRONG​

 ​1.​ ​The Property is a six-unit apartment building consisting of five 1-bedroom and one​
 ​2-bedroom apartments. This type of property is assessed using the income approach to​
 ​value. Having not received the requested income and expense information for the​
 ​revaluation, Tyler Technologies used a standardized approach to estimating the value by​
 ​using data collected for similar properties in the neighborhood.​

 ​2.​ ​Of note, the amount of income provided for tax year 2026 differs from that reported to the​
 ​Permitting Department for Rent Control.​​[Exhibit 11]​ ​The amount reported to the​
 ​Permitting Department for 2025 is $145,980 and for 2026 is $151,680. The amount​
 ​reported on the income and expense report submitted to the Assessor’s Office for tax year​
 ​2026 is $143,390.​​[Exhibit 5]​

 ​3.​ ​In estimating the value of the Property, Tyler Technologies used an effective gross income​
 ​amount of $137,498, which is less than the amount reported by the Appellant ($145,980) to​
 ​the Permitting Department​​[Exhibit 11]​​and less than​​the amount reported by the​
 ​Appellant on the Commercial Real Estate Property Declaration provided for tax year 2026​
 ​($143,390)​​[Exhibit 5].​ ​These amounts do not differ​​greatly.​

 ​4.​ ​For the 2026 tax year, the Appellant claims to have expenses for the Property in the​
 ​amount of $75,148, which is much higher than the stabilized expense amount used by​
 ​Tyler, which was $43,999. It is certainly possible that there was a major repair expense​



 ​5​​|​​Page​



 Page 46
 ​that year for the property, which is why the City Assessor requested, but has not received,​
 ​three years of income and expenses to identify a stabilized amount.​

​5.​ ​Portland’s income models were developed by collecting and analyzing data from various​
 ​sources including, but not limited to, actual market transactions (sales),​
 ​owner/operator-submitted income & expense forms, and reliable industry sources such as​
 ​CoStar and CBRE. The models consist of rents, vacancy rates, expense ratios, and​
 ​capitalization rates considered by the appraiser to be typical and defensible and that lead​
 ​to outcomes consistent with the subject real estate market based on these data and​
 ​analyses.​

 ​The Appellant’s reported amount in their Annual Maintenance Budget Breakdown​
 ​[Exhibit 8]​​is $32,193 or 22.45% of reported income.​ ​The Appellant’s unusually high stated​
 ​maintenance expense for the Property contributes to the Appellant’s reduced opinion of​
 ​value for the Property​

​6.​ ​The Appellant purchased the property on 3/26/2021 for $1,285,000 which is four years​
 ​prior to the revaluation. The current assessed value is $1,168,700 or $116,300 below the​
 ​2021 purchase price.. The Appellant also purchased the abutting vacant lot on the same​
 ​day for $600,000.​​[Exs. 13, 14].​​The abutting lot​​provides parking for the Property.​

​7.​ ​The Appellant’s abatement application to the City Assessor indicates in Section 4 that the​
 ​purchase price of the Property is unknown because it was a portion of a larger sale. This​
 ​is not true. As shown in the deed and transfer tax forms for the Property, the Appellant​
 ​purchased the Property for $1,285,000. The Property was conveyed to the Appellant by​
 ​deed dated March 26, 2021 and recorded in Book 37990, Page 191, which describes lot CBL​
 ​no. 016 A009001 as being a 57’ x 95’ lot.​​[Exhibit​​14]​ ​Tax Map 16 indicates the dimensions​
 ​of the lots clarifying that the sale was for individual lots and not a portion of a larger sale.​

​8.​ ​A mortgage for the Property in the name of 91 Atlantic, LLC in the amount of $952,500​
 ​was recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds on March 29, 2021 in Book​
 ​37990, Page 193.​​[Exhibit 15]​ ​Typically a bank would​​require an appraisal to approve a​
 ​mortgage. The City Assessor requested this information in all three (3) of the section​
 ​706-A requests previously mentioned. To date, no appraisals have been provided by the​
 ​Appellant.​

​9.​ ​On the same day that the Appellant purchased the Property, the Appellant also purchased​
 ​the vacant lot next to the Property known as 87 Atlantic Street for $600,000. 87 Atlantic​
 ​Street was conveyed to Sunny Time Solar LLC by a deed recorded in Book 37990, Page 159.​
 ​[Exhibit 14].​ ​Sunny Time Solar conveyed​​87 Atlantic​​Street​​to 87 Atlantic LLC for​
 ​$530,000 by deed dated July 15, 2021 and recorded on deed Book 38432, Page 126. The​
 ​Appellant has also filed an appeal with the Board on 87 Atlantic Street to also be heard on​
 ​June 4, 2026. We believe that 91 Atlantic LLC, 87 Atlantic LLC, and Sunny Time Solar LLC​



 ​6​​|​​Page​



 Page 47
 ​are all owned by Live Chase and Brent Adler.​

​10.​ ​On 5/22/2026 Appellant requested additional information -​​“​I would like access to city​
 ​wide property cards for all properties. I would like to be able to see for myself the income​
 ​and expenses for other properties in my neighborhood since this is a key component to​
 ​your argument. Is there a link to the Tyler technology website so that I can access this​
 ​database?”​ ​On 5/27/2026​​Assessor provided a spreadsheet​​with income and expense​
 ​data used for all 5-10 unit properties located on the East End and in the Appellant’s​
 ​neighborhood.​ ​[Exhibit 21].​ ​Along with the spreadsheet,​​the Assessor also provided​
 ​the seven actual 706-A responses received for the subject area.​

​11.​ ​This list of sales of similar properties​​[Exhibit​​9]​​indicates an average per unit assessed​
 ​value of $219,029 (A/Unit) and an average per unit sale price of $222,619 (SP/Unit). The​
 ​Property’s per unit assessed value is $194,783.​




 ​7​​|​​Page​



 Page 48
​12.​ ​Two aerial images of the subject Property​​[Exhibit 10]:​




 ​8​​|​​Page​



 Page 49
 ​13.​ ​The IAAO recognizes three approaches to value properties, which include the Cost​
 ​Approach,​​1​ ​the Sales Approach,​​2​ ​and the Income and​​Expense Approach. In the 2025​
 ​revaluation for this type of property, the IAAO Income Approach was used.​

 ​●​ ​The​​IAAO Income Approach​​defines property value by converting its expected​
 ​future income into a present worth, treating it as an investment by analyzing​
 ​potential gross rental income (PGRI), subtracting vacancy/expenses (excluding​
 ​property taxes and capital 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​. Because the​
 ​City Assessor uses a mass appraisal approach to value, stabilized amounts for​
 ​income, vacancy ratings, and expenses are used rather than actual amounts for​
 ​every individual property.​
 ​○​ ​PGRI - vacancy loss - expenses = NOI​
 ​○​ ​NOI/Cap Rate = Value​
 ​●​ ​Income & Expense Summary for the Property:​
 ​○​ ​$141,750 (PGRI) - $4,253 (vacancy loss) - $43,999 (expenses) = $93,499 NOI​
 ​○​ ​$93,499 (NOI) ÷ 0.080 (CAP) = $1,168,738 Value​

 ​14.​ ​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.​

 ​15.​ ​For the reasons set forth in this memorandum and its attachments, the City Assessor respectfully​
 ​requests that the Board of Assessment Review either conclude that the Appellant failed to respond​
 ​to a proper section 706-A request and dismiss the Abatement Appeal or proceed to the merits of the​
 ​Abatement Appeal and:​

 ​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.​


​1​
 ​The Cost Approach is viewed by the IAAO 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​.​
  ​2​
 ​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​​|​​Page​



 Page 50
 ​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.​

​●​ ​A taxpayer's failure to respond to a proper section 706-A request from the City Assessor bars​
 ​the taxpayer from applying for an abatement or pursuing an appeal of the denial of an​
 ​assessment request. Section 706-A replaced Section 706 and both “set forth and, repeats,​
 ​principles from predecessor statutes that have "long been an integral part of the property tax​
 ​assessment scheme".” See,​​e.g.​,​​Ocean State Job Lot​​of Belfast, LLC v. City of Belfast​, No. 2011-022-A,​
 ​at 5 (interpreting section 706, not section 706-A);​​Lambard v. Kennebec County Commissioners​,​
 ​53 Me. 505 (1866) (taxpayer who refuses or neglects to answer all such inquiries forfeits the​
 ​right to appeal to the local board of assessment review for an abatement). Section 706-A (like​
 ​its predecessor) has a dual purpose: assist the City Assessor in making correct and complete​
 ​assessments and to prevent property liable to be taxed from escaping taxation.​​Id.​​Dismissing​
 ​the Abatement Appeal is the result of the taxpayer’s “own wilful refusal to comply with the​
 ​reasonable requirements of the law.” See​​Lambard,​​53 Me. at 507​.​




 ​10​​|​​Page​



 Page 51
 EHIBIT 1




Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
 EXHIBIT 2




Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
 EXHIBIT 3




Page 60
Page 61
 EXHIBIT 4




Page 62
 EXHIBIT 5




Page 63
Page 64
 EXHIBIT 6




Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
 EXHIBI




Page 69
 EXHIBIT 8




Page 70
RECENT SALES OF SIMILAR PROPERTIES EXHIBIT 9




 Page 71
 EXHIBIT 10




Page 72
 EXHIB




Page 73
 EXHIBIT 12




Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
 EXHIBIT 13




Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
 EXHIBIT 14




Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
 EXHIBIT 15




Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
 EXHIBIT 16




Page 95
Page 96
 EXHIBIT 17




Page 97
Page 98
 EXHIBIT 18




Page 99
 EXHIBIT 19




Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
 EXHIBI




Page 103
 EXHIBIT 21




Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
 BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW
 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF
 ASSESSOR'S DECISION ON
 ABATEMENT OF MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAXES
 (36 M.R.S.A. Section 843)
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. 87 Atlantic LLC
 Name:_____________________________________________________________________
 PO Box 15341 Portland, ME 04112
  2. Mailing address: _____________________________________________________________
  3. 87 Atlantic Street Portland, ME 16-A-1
 Physical address (if different than mailing address): _________________________________
  4. 207-522-4345
 Phone: _____________________________Email: livchase@yahoo.com
 __________________________________
  5. FY26
 Tax year for abatement: ............................................................................... _______________
  6. $507,700 ($253,000 abated)
 Assessed value of real estate: .....................................................................$ ______________
  7. $429,817 ($175,117 abated)
 Reduction of real estate value requested:....................................................$ ______________
  8. Assessed value of personal property: ..........................................................$ ______________
  9. Reduction of personal property value requested: ........................................$ ______________
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. Please see the
 instructions on the following page.): ______________________________________________

 We believe the property is incorrectly classified. The property is a parking lot which serves the
 adjacent 6-unit building at 91 Atlantic Street. This parking lot provides parking for the 6
 tenants that rent apartments at 91 Atlantic Street. We believe that there was an error in the
 new determination of value based on an incorrect classification. In FY25 the value of this
 property was $69,000. In FY26 the value of the property is $507,700. This is an increase in
 value of 630%. If all parking lots on the Portland peninsula received the same increase, this
 would be considered fair. If just this property received the increase with no notable
 improvements made to the land, then this would be considered discriminatory. This property
 has received an abatement and new determination of value equal to $253,000. This value is
 still 366% higher than the FY25 value and does not reflect a value similar to other parking lots
 of the same size and same location, as noted on our application for abatement. (Other similar
 parking lots are: 9 Lafayette Street, 153 Cumberland Avenue, and 267 Cumberland Avenue.)
 We are requesting an additional reduction in real estate value of $175,117 which will reduce
 our total value to a value similar to other parking lots in our neighborhood.

APPLICATION FOR ABATEMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH 36 M.R.S.A. §
843(4) Pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 843(4), the applicant hereby certifies that he or she has paid, by
the due date, either the amount of taxes not in dispute for the current tax year or an amount equal to
the amount of taxes paid in the previous tax year, whichever is greater. The statements contained in
this application are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.


 2/23/26
_____________________________________________________________ __________________
  Signature of applicant Date




 Page 128
 INSTRUCTIONS

Submit this application to the Portland Board of Assessment Review within 60 days of the date of the
Assessor's decision. Check with your municipal assessor to find out the exact date of that decision.
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, available here: https://www.maine.gov/revenue/sites/
maine.gov.revenue/files/inline-files/bull10.pdf

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 129
 ​Assessor’s Office​
  ​Elisa A. Marr, CMA-2​
 ​City Assessor​




​DATE:​ ​May 28, 2026​
 ​TO:​ ​City of Portland Board of Assessment Review​
  ​FROM:​ ​Elisa Marr, City Assessor​
 ​RE:​ ​FY26 Abatement Appeal – June 5, 2026​
 ​87 Atlantic LLC, 87 Atlantic St. (CBL no. 016 A010001)​




​The​​mission​​of​​the​​Assessor’s​​Office​​is​​defined​​by​​Article​​IX,​​Section​​8​​of​​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 87 Atlantic​
  ​LLC (the “Appellant”), regarding the property located at 87 Atlantic Street (the “Property”), a​
 ​hearing which is scheduled for June 5, 2026.​

​As an initial matter, the City Assessor asserts (and does not waive) that the Appellant had actual​
 ​notice of a request for information pursuant to section under 36 M.R.S.​​§ 706-A and that the​
  ​Appellant did not properly comply with those requests. The Appellant should be barred from​
 ​appeal as a consequence to that non-compliance.​

​In the event that this matter proceeds to the merits of the Abatement Appeal, then, 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.​




 Page 130
​This submission is organized into the following sections: 1. Timeline, 2. Exhibits / List of​
 ​Attachments, 3. City Assessor’s Response, and 4. Legal References.​

​1.​​TIMELINE​

​6/4/2025​ ​Appellant had an informal hearing with a​​representative of Tyler Technologies.​
 ​The Tyler representative noted: “​600% Increase, new​​parcel or change in use?​”​
 ​Recommendation: No Change.​​[Exhibit 11]​

​11/10/2025​ ​The Appellant submitted an Application​​for Abatement of Property Taxes to the​
 ​Assessor’s Office for a value reduction of $429,817 or a total value of $77,883.​
 ​[Exhibit 2]​

​12/23/2025​ ​The Assessor met the Appellant at the Property​​per the Appellant’s request via​
 ​email dated 12/1/2025.​

​12/23/2025​ ​The Assessor’s Office issued an abatement​​in the amount of $3,051.31 which​
 ​represents a value difference of 50.17% or $254,700.​ ​The revised assessed value is​
 ​now $$253,000.​

​2/23/2026​ ​Appellant appeals to the Board of Assessment​​Review for a value reduction of​
 ​$175,117 or a total value of $77,883.​

​4/28/2026​ ​City Assessor mailed Appellant a request​​under section 706-A for additional​
 ​information via Certified Mail with a submission deadline of May 28, 2026.​
 ​[Exhibit 10]​

​2.​​EXHIBITS / LIST OF ATTACHMENTS​

​Appellant’s Submissions:​
 ​●​ ​Application for Abatement of Property Taxes packet, received by Corporation Council on​
 ​February 25, 2026 on behalf of the Board of Assessment Review.​

​City Assessor’s Exhibits:​
 ​●​ ​Current Property Record Card for 016 A010001 [​Exhibit​​1​]​
 ​●​ ​Abatement Application to the City Assessor received 11/10/2026 [​Exhibit 2​]​
 ​●​ ​Notice of Abatement letter dated 12/26/2026 [​Exhibit​​3​]​
 ​●​ ​Deed and Transfer Tax Declaration dated 3/26/2021 recorded in Book 37990, Page 159 in​
 ​the name of Sunny Time Solar LLC in the amount of $600,000.​​[Exhibit 4]​
 ​●​ ​Deed and Transfer Tax Declaration dated 7/15/2021 recorded in Book 38432, Page 126 in​
 ​the name of 87 Atlantic LLC in the amount of $530,000​​[Exhibit 5]​
 ​●​ ​Mortgage for the Property dated August 30, 2021 in the name of 87 Atlantic, LLC., in the​
 ​amount of $300,000, and recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds in Book​
 ​38607, Page 339.​​[Exhibit 6]​
 ​●​ ​List of similar properties​​[Exhibit 7]​

 ​2​​|​​Page​



 Page 131
 ​●​ ​Recent Sales of Similar Properties​​[Exhibit 8]​
 ​●​ ​Two aerial images of the Property​​[Exhibit 9]​
 ​●​ ​706-A request for additional information sent via Certified Mail on 4/28/2026. The​
 ​30-day deadline for a response is 5/28/2026.​ ​[Exhibit​​10]​
 ​●​ ​Tyler Technology Representative Hearing Note from iasWorld CAMA​ ​[Exhibit 11]​

​3.​​SUMMARY OF CITY ASSESSOR’S RESPONSE​

​The City Assessor’s response to the Abatement Appeal is twofold. First, the City Assessor asserts​
 ​(and does not waive) that the Appellant had actual notice of a request for information pursuant to​
  ​section under 36 M.R.S.​​§ 706-A and that the Appellant​​did not properly comply with that request.​
 ​The Appellant should be barred from appeal as a consequence to that non-compliance.​

​Second, if the Board proceeds to the merits of this Appeal, the City Assessor asserts that the​
 ​Appellant has not met the burden to prove the assessment is “manifestly wrong.” The burden of​
  ​proof is upon the Appellant 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.​

​4​.​​THE BOARD LACKS JURISDICTION TO HEAR APPELLANT’S​​APPEAL​

​On April 28, 2026, the City Assessor mailed a 706-A request to the Appellant via certified mail. As​
 ​of the date of this submission, the Appellant has not responded to that request.​

​Section 706-A(1) provides as follows:​

 ​If notice is given by mail and the taxpayer does not furnish the list and answers to all​
 ​proper inquiries, the taxpayer may not apply to the assessor for an abatement or appeal an​
 ​application for abatement of those taxes unless the taxpayer furnishes the list and​
 ​answers with the application and satisfies the assessing authority or authority to whom​
 ​an appeal is made that the taxpayer was unable to furnish the list and answers in the time​
 ​required. The list and answers are not conclusive upon the assessor.​

​Because the Appellant failed to respond to the Assessor’s 706-A request,​ ​this Board should​
 ​conclude that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismiss it.​

​5.​​APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSOR’S​​ASSESSMENT WAS​
 ​M ANIFESTLY WRONG​

​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.​ ​The Property is a vacant lot that serves as a parking lot to the abutting six-unit apartment​
 ​building at 91 Atlantic Street. This type of property is assessed using the sales approach to​
 ​value. The Assessor has not received the requested appraisal information related to the​


 ​3​​|​​Page​



 Page 132
 ​2021 sale.​

 ​This is a buildable lot at 4,553 sq. ft. located in the R4 zone. R4 requires 2,000 sq. ft. to​
 ​build a single-family home; 1,500 sq. ft. to build a townhouse; and 2,000 sq. ft. for​
 ​nonresidential construction.​

​2.​ ​On April 28, 2026 the City Assessor mailed Appellant a request under section 706-A for​
 ​additional information via Certified Mail with a submission deadline of May 28, 2026.​
 ​[Exhibit 10]​ ​As of the afternoon of May 28, 2026​​no response has been received.​

​3.​ ​The assessed value as of 4/1/25 was $507,700. The Appellant submitted an Application for​
 ​Abatement of Property Taxes with the Assessor’s Office on 11/10/2025.​​[Exhibit 2]​​An​
 ​abatement was granted reducing the value to $253,000 or 50%.​

 ​After further review of the entire peninsula, I believe the original FY26 value was​
 ​appropriate and I will be adjusting the value back to the original $507,700. In prior years​
 ​the Property was considered a “tie-back lot” and assessed as the parking lot that​
 ​supported the valuation of the apartment building. Upon further review it was noted that​
 ​the lot was sold separately on a separate deed and the apartment actually has its own​
 ​parking area alongside the building.​

​4.​ ​The Appellant’ affiliate, Sunny Time Solar LLC, purchased the property on 3/26/2021 for​
 ​$600,000.​​[Exhibit 4].​ ​The Property was then conveyed​​to the Appellant for $530,000.​
 ​[Exhibit 5].​​A mortgage for the Property in the amount​​of $300,000 was recorded in the​
 ​Cumberland County Registry of Deeds on 8/31/2021 in Book 38607, Page 339.​​[Exhibit 6].​
 ​Typically a bank would require an appraisal to approve a mortgage. To date, no appraisals​
 ​have been provided by the Appellant in response to the 706-A request.​

​5.​ ​The Appellant identified three (3) properties in their application that they felt were similar​
 ​to the subject Property. None of the three (3) properties have sold recently and cannot be​
 ​used for sales comparison purposes. [Exhibit 2].​

 ​* 9 Lafayette Street is a parking lot that serves another building. This lot was assessed as​
 ​residual land for FY26 as it shares the same deed as the abutting apartment building and​
 ​has now been merged with 10 Merrill Street.​

 ​* 153 Cumberland Ave is also assessed as residual land for FY26. A review of this property​
 ​indicates that this should be assessed as a primary building lot and will be assessed at​
 ​$332,300 for FY27. The owners have been mailed a valuation increase letter.​

 ​* 267 Cumberland Avenue is assessed as a primary building lot serving the abutting​
 ​apartment buildings. This lot is located on the corner of Chestnut Street and Cumberland​
 ​Avenue and is not as desirable a location as the subject Property, which is on the East End.​

​6.​ ​The following is a list of properties similar to the Property.​​[Exhibit 7]​​As you can see, the​
 ​Property is assessed below the assessment of similar properties. This analysis will likely​
 ​result in an increase to the current assessment of the Property for FY27.​


 ​4​​|​​Page​



 Page 133
​7.​ ​The following is a list of recent sales of properties that are comparable to the Property​.​
 ​[Exhibit 8]​




 ​5​​|​​Page​



 Page 134
​8.​ ​Two aerial images of the subject Property​​[Exhibit 9]:​




 ​6​​|​​Page​



 Page 135
 ​9.​ ​There are three recognized approaches used to value properties, which include the Cost Approach,​​1​
 ​the Sales Approach, and the Income and Expense Approach.​​2​ ​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 (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​.​

 ​●​ ​The Property is assessed using the base lot method for land valuation. The base lot size in​
 ​that assessing neighborhood is 4,500 sq. ft. and is a lot size developed by Tyler as a typical​
 ​lot size for valuation purposes. In this case the remaining 53 sq. ft. is the difference​
 ​between the actual sq. ft. and the base lot sq. ft. which is then multiplied by an incremental​
 ​rate or reduced rate of $19.40 per sq. ft.​

 ​4,500 sq. ft x $56 (base rate) = $252,000​
 ​53 sq. ft. x $19.40 = $1,029​
 ​Total $253,030 (rounded)​

 ​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 its 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 either conclude that the Appellant failed to respond​
 ​to a proper section 706-A request and dismiss the Abatement Appeal or proceed to the merits of the​
 ​Abatement Appeal and:​

 ​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.​


​1​
 ​The Cost Approach is viewed by the IAAO 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​.​
  ​2​
 ​The​​IAAO 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​.​

 ​7​​|​​Page​



 Page 136
 ​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.​

​●​ ​A taxpayer's failure to respond to a proper section 706-A request from the City Assessor bars​
 ​the taxpayer from applying for an abatement or pursuing an appeal of the denial of an​
 ​assessment request. Section 706-A replaced Section 706 and both “set forth and, repeats,​
 ​principles from predecessor statutes that have "long been an integral part of the property tax​
 ​assessment scheme".” See,​​e.g.​, Ocean State Job Lot​​of Belfast, LLC v. City of Belfast, No.​
 ​2011-022-A, at 5 (interpreting section 706, not section 706-A);​​Lambard v. Kennebec County​
 ​Commissioners​, 53 Me. 505 (1866) (taxpayer who refuses​​or neglects to answer all such inquiries​
 ​forfeits the right to appeal to the local board of assessment review for an abatement). Section​
 ​706-A (like its predecessor) has a dual purpose: assist the City Assessor in making correct and​
 ​complete assessments and to prevent property liability to be taxed from escaping taxation.​​Id.​
 ​Dismissing the Abatement Appeal is the result of the taxpayer’s “own wilful refusal to comply​
 ​with the reasonable requirements of the law.” See​​Lambard, 53 Me. at 507.​




 ​8​​|​​Page​



 Page 137
 EXHIBIT 1




Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
 EXHIBIT 2




Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
 EXHIBIT 3




Page 147
 EXHIBIT 4




Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
 EXHIBIT 5




Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
 EXHIBIT 6




Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
 EXHIBIT 7
SIMILAR PROPERTIES




 Page 163
RECENT SALES OF SIMILAR PROPERTIES EXHIBIT 8




 Page 164
 EHIBIT 9




Page 165
 EXHIBIT 10




Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
 EXHIBIT 11




Page 172