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

Home Browse Search

r MINUTES OF THE ORONO I.OCAL BOARD OF APPEALS AND EQUAMZATION MEETING Wednesday, April 21,2004 7:00 o'clock p.m. Murphy asked what is the square footage of the existing house. .Ms. Blackstone confirmed the house to be 480 s.f., is livable and rented out presently. She stated the parcels arc 50’ x 330’ and it has no lakcshore access. She e.xprcsscd her expectation that both parcels would increase the same percentage, as opposed to one parcel jumping 25% more than the other. Murphy asked Davy, if the two parcels arc adjacent, what is the differential between the two to justify different vali!es. Davy responded the home is valued at S10,000. However, he explained the assessors are valuing it as an assemblage property rather than as two single parcels. Murphy questioned why the values of two adjacent properties owned by the same people but not legally combined arc considered as combined parcels. Davy replied that the value would be even higher if the parcels were considered separately. Murphy asked why the assessors make an arbitrary decision to consider parcels combined or to be left separately, and docs this create an advantage if the parcels arc combined. Davy stated it is not a huge difference between whether the parcels are combined ($155,000) or valueil separately (cst. $175,000). Muiphy asked if the assessors are ‘playing catch-up ’ on the one parcel, to which Davy agreed indicating that when the focus is on the primary parcel, the .secondary parcels may fall behind in valuation and then may result in a si/eabic adjustment. Ms. Bhickstonc intcijcctcd that she had an extensive conversation with the asses.sor last year (2003) as she believed the assessors were doing ‘catch-up ’ on the property value but there was never any indication that 2003 was only a partial ‘catch-up* and sub.sequent years would .see additional increases. Her que.stion now is whether this is another partial jump in valuation for 2004 and will she see further significant jumps in 2005 assessments. She stated she understands that property values have to increase and that is not necessarily a bad thing but iloec not see the rationale for the substantial jump in the one parcel. Davy advised the parcels arc correctly at market value now and any changes for 2005 will result only from sales activity in the market. Ms. Blackstone rc.spcnuled that is what she heard la.st year from the assessors. Mayor Peler.son a.sked if Ms. Blackstone wi.shed to have an assessor visit the property with her. Ms. Blackstone replied that she did not think that was necessary. She emphasized she wanted to know why one parcel increased significantly more than the other parcel. Mayor Peterson asked Davy to call Ms. Blackstone and spend as much time as needed to address her issues. Davy agreed to call Ms. Blackstone. Page 5 of 11