Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO LOCAL BOARD OF APPEALS AND EQUALIZATION MEETING <br />Wednesday, April 21, 2004 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />• Murphy summarized the assessors arrived at a percentage based on their analysis and that percentage <br />was applied citywide by category. He understands Mr. Nettles question to be if the assessors <br />compared his property to other like properties in this category, and that the assessors have not done <br />this yet. <br />Davy concurred that no individual comparison had been done at this stage for Mr. Nettle's property. <br />Mr. Nettles indicated that is an unsatisfactory process, and that he wants to be engaged in a process <br />that has some anchor points for discussion. He is looking for some sort of documentation and needs <br />some comparisons in order to resolve his questions. <br />Kunik pointed out a property sale down the street from Mr. Nettles' property. The assessors <br />extracted the house/buildings, and then that increase was applied to Mr. Nettles' property value, as <br />the front feet lakeshore values were comparable. Kunik referenced a conversation he had with Mr. <br />Nettles where they had agreement on the consistent value for the front foot lakeshore. <br />Mr. Nettles stated he had not agreed but understood Kunik's explanation. He disagreed that his <br />property should be compared as a `like' property to those on Heritage Lane as his property has the lift <br />station, the old stage house, and the marina which he believed is a different setting. <br />Davy stated he would meet with Mr. Nettles, who restated he wants to understand the rationale for <br />the property's great increase in value. <br />• Jensen interjected the perception appears to be that the assessors are defending the values, however, <br />in the mass appraisal system, sales data are used to value properties but it is not a perfect system. <br />The goal is to be at 95 — 100% of market sales values on an open market. Technically, she advised, <br />the burden of proof is actually on the taxpayer to demonstrate when the values should be less than its <br />assessment value. Jensen invited Mr. Nettles to provide information to the assessors on why he <br />believes the assessed value should be lower. <br />Mr. Nettles replied he provided some of that information already to the assessors, such as an <br />appraisal done in 2003 for $585,000 for refinancing purposes, which is a lot less than the assessed <br />$810,000 value. <br />Mayor Peterson observed that properties are being sold for such high values currently and that does <br />have an impact upon all property values. <br />Mayor Peterson confirmed that Davy would contact Mr. Nettles to set up a time to meet. <br />Moorse asked the Board to set a date and time, within the next twenty (20) days, for the reconvened <br />hearing when the assessors return with the appeals recommendations, prior to any property owner <br />leaving this meeting. Upon a calculation of days, the reconvened hearing was set for May 10, 2004, <br />2) Don Kielley, 1670 Shadywood Rd, PID #17- 117 -23 210015, valued at $622,000 <br />is Mr. Kielley indicated that he, too, misunderstood the he either had the option to call or to come in <br />person and sit down with the assessors on this date. He acknowledged that he brought no comparable <br />property information with him. <br />Page 3 of 11 <br />