Laserfiche WebLink
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 asked what is the square footage of the existing house. <br />Ms. Blackstone confirmed the house to be 480 s.f., is livable and rented out presently. She stated the <br />parcels are 50' x 330' and it has no lakeshore access. She expressed her expectation that both parcels <br />would increase the same percentage, as opposed to one parcel jumping 25% more than the other. <br />Murphy asked Davy, if the two parcels are adjacent, what is the differential between the two to justify <br />different values. <br />Davy responded the home is valued at $10,000. However, he explained the assessors are valuing it as <br />an assemblage property rather than as two single parcels. <br />Murphy questioned why the values of two adjacent properties owned by the same people but not <br />legally combined are considered as combined parcels. <br />Davy replied that the value would be even higher if the parcels were considered separately. <br />Murphy asked why the assessors make an arbitrary decision to consider parcels combined or to be <br />left separately, and does this create an advantage if the parcels are combined. <br />Davy stated it is not a huge difference between whether the parcels are combined ($155,000) or <br />valued separately (est. $175,000). <br />is Murphy asked if the assessors are `playing catch -up' on the one parcel, to which Davy agreed <br />indicating that when the focus is on the primary parcel, the secondary parcels may fall behind in <br />valuation and then may result in a sizeable adjustment. <br />Ms. Blackstone interjected that she had an extensive conversation with the assessor last year (2003) <br />as she believed the assessors were doing `catch -up' on the property value but there was never any <br />indication that 2003 was only a partial `catch -up' and subsequent years would see additional <br />increases. Her question now is whether this is another partial jump in valuation for 2004 and will she <br />see further significant jumps in 2005 assessments. She stated she understands that property values <br />have to increase and that is not necessarily a bad thing but does not see the rationale for the <br />substantial jump in the one parcel. <br />Davy advised the parcels are correctly at market value now and any changes for 2005 will result only <br />from sales activity in the market. <br />Ms. Blackstone responded that is what she heard last year from the assessors. <br />Mayor Peterson asked if Ms. Blackstone wished to have an assessor visit the property with her. <br />Ms. Blackstone replied that she did not think that was necessary. She emphasized she wanted to <br />know why one parcel increased significantly more than the other parcel. <br />• Mayor Peterson asked Davy to call Ms. Blackstone and spend as much time as needed to address her <br />issues. Davy agreed to call Ms. Blackstone. <br />Page 5 of 11 <br />