05-10-2004 Board of Appeal and Equalization Reconvened Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAI.S AND EQUALIZATION MEETING Wednesday, April 21,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. Murphy summarized the assessors arrived at a percciuage based on their analysis and tl’.at percentage was applied cilywidc by category. He understands Mr. Nettles question to be if the assessors compared his properly to other like properties in this category, and that the assessors have not done this yet. Davy concurred that no individual comparison had been done at this stage for Mr. Nettle’s property. Mr. Nettles indicated that is an unsatisfactory process, and that he wants to be engaged in a process that has .some anchor points for discussion, lie is looking for some sort of documentation and needs some comparisons in order to resolve his questions. Kunik pointed out a property sale down the street from .Mr. Nettles’ property. I he assessors extracted the house/buildings, and then that increase was applied to Mr. Nettles’ property value, as the front feet lakcshore values were comparable. Kunik referenced a conversation he had with Mr. Nettles where they had agreement on Ihe consistent value for the front foot lakcshore. Mr. Nettles slated he had not agreed but understood Kunik ’s explanation, lie disagreed that his property should be compared as a ’like ’ properly to those on Heritage Lane as his property has the liH station, the old .stage hou.se, and the marina which he believed is a different setting. Davy staled he would meet with Mr. Nettles, who restated he wants to understand the rationale for the property’s great increase in value. Jensen interjected the perception appears to be that the assessors arc defending the values. howe\ er, in the ma.ss apprai.sal system, sales data are used to value properties but it is not a perfect system. The goal is to be at ‘>5 - 100% of market sales values on an open market. Technically, she advised, the burden of proof is actually on the taxpayer to demotistrate w hen the values should be less than its assessment value. Jensen invited Mr. Nettles to provide infonnation to the assessors on why he believes the assessetl value should be lower. Mr. Nettles replied he provided some of that information alreaily to the assessors, such as an appraisal done in 2003 for $585,000 for refinancing purposes, which is a lot less than the assessed $810,000 value. Mayor I'eterson obserx ed that properties are being st»ld for such high values currenily and that docs have an impact upon all property values. Mayor Peterson conllrmed that Davy would contact Mr. Nettles to set up a time to meet. Moor.se asked the Hoard to set a tlaie anil lime, w ithin the next twenty (20) days, for the reconvened hearing when the assessors return w iih the apfieals reconimend.ilions. prior to any property ow ner leaving this meeting. Upon a calculation of days, the nvonvened hearing was set for .May 10, 2004. 2) Don Kifiley, 1670 Shadywood Rd, PID #17-117-23 21 0015, valued at $622,000 Mr. Kiciley indicated that he, too, misunderstood the he cither had the option to call or to come in person and sit down with the assessors on this date. He acknow ledgcd that he brought no comparable property infonnation with him. Page 3 of 11