South Portland Board Denies Fairlawn Avenue Tax Appeal

[0:30] Paul Cloutier: Well, it being 6.38, it appears, I call this meeting to order of the South Portland Board of Assessment Review. Tonight, this is a public proceeding, and unless the board specifically votes to go into an executive session, the public has the right to hear everything that is being said and to look at all the exhibits that are offered. It and please notify the chair if you need to be heard or unable to hear or see what we have. This public meeting is for the purpose of the board deliberating the testimony and all information presented at the public hearing that took place on September 14th. The public hearing portion of the meeting is essentially closed and no new testimony unless authorized by the board. The matter at hand is that of the taxpayer, Mr. Michael O'Flynn versus the city of South Portland regarding the assessed value for tax year 2025, April 1, 2025 valuation for property located at 44 Fairlawn Avenue,, Map 10 lot 59. First, I would like to start with an attendance, starting from [2:05] Jennifer Scriba: my left, please, of the board. Kristen Post. Timothy Hubbard. Elizabeth Banwell. Adrian Kendall, council. Paul Cloutier, chair. Andy Snyder. Nancy Field. Jennifer Scriba. And [2:20] Paul Cloutier: also from the taxpayer and the city. Michael O'Flynn, taxpayer. Stephen Wagner, council [2:27] Brent Martin: for the assessor Brent Martin City Assessor thank you welcome so [2:36] Paul Cloutier: it appears we have a quorum so I guess we can proceed we don't have any minutes at this point [2:49] Kristen Post: there were minutes on the agenda and it said that you have to approve them because we weren't able to get them done in time for when the agenda was originally posted last thursday so they were just uploaded yesterday so jessica said that we have to approve for those minutes to be accepted at this meeting at this meeting at this meeting yes we haven't seen them they are posted on the agenda online [3:18] Stephen Wagner: if the board hasn't had a chance to review they won't be able to vote at this point i think we would move on from there, right? Okay. [3:33] Paul Cloutier: At this time, I think it would be helpful if to the board and all here, we give each party about three minutes if they would like to, summarize briefly what the position is, if they want to bring anything up. So, Mr. O'Flynn, if you would like to make some comments. Sure. [4:02] Michael O'Flynn: I wasn't too prepared for any additional comments, but I think I would like to hammer home the point of similarly situated. I know we had some questions about it last time, and I explained that it's about methodology and the class of property. property. After hearing, I looked at it a little bit further and I also have the legal [4:30] Brent Martin: Mr. Chair, this is my concern about, if I can just raise a procedural concern here, this is my concern about effectively kind of reopening the argument here. Now it seems we're going to be going into additional research that the appellant has done. So my suggestion WOULD BE IF YOU WANT TO HEAR A SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS, IT WOULD BE STRICTLY CONTAINED TO A SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED AND NOT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT MAY HAVE BEEN RESEARCHED OR OBTAINED. [5:02] Stephen Wagner: MR. CHAIR, I WOULD AGREE THAT AT THIS POINT THE PUBLIC PORTION HAS BEEN, THE PRESENTATION PORTION HAS BEEN CLOSED FOR SIMPLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECAP AND RESTATE THE POSITIONS ALREADY presented to refresh the board's minds and recollections and so on. So if you wanted to restate a position to provide a brief summary, Mr. O'Flynn, you're welcome to do that, but with the public hearing portion being closed, it's not an opportunity to present any additional, for example, research that you were about to mention to go into that because there hasn't been an opportunity for the opposition to, with the assessor, to review and prepare any presentation in rebuttal to that. As a matter of fairness, that's what this is about. And if you want to forego the opportunity to recap as well, I think that's also your prerogative as well. That's also, yeah. [5:53] Michael O'Flynn: Yeah. Okay. I guess I'll just kind of sum up where I left off a couple of weeks ago, which is the concept of uniformity in taxation and in Article IX, Section 8 of the Maine Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. It states that all taxes upon real and personal estate assessed by authority of the state shall be apportioned and assessed equally according to their just value, according to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the law court, and just value means market value. So whether a home is sold for $2 million and the market has shown that is an arm's length transaction, there's other supporting sales to show that value, that home needs to be assessed at that value. And if it's an inexpensive home, same thing, it needs to be assessed at that value, and they need to be assessed in relation to one another. So if one is assessed at 50% of its actual value, then the other home should be assessed at 50% as well, and that's the, I guess that's the gist of the concept that I've put forth. Thank [7:08] Brent Martin: You're welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. I'll briefly recap our argument. So first, our argument is that, so we agree we're dealing here squarely with a claim of unjust discrimination, which is one of the three ways a appellant can show that an assessment was manifestly wrong, which is their burden to do, and it's our position based on the assessor's testimony and the evidence in the record that the taxpayer has failed to meet that substantial burden, and the reasons are as follows. First, it's our position that the properties the taxpayer has identified are not similarly situated to the subject property. The second and reason being is that they have dissimilar characteristics to the subject property. The only joining feature seems to be that they are all are located in the same neighborhood, but it's not even all the properties of that neighborhood, and you don't see the same alleged undervaluation when you include the entirety of that neighborhood, as the assessor's data has done. Secondly, we don't believe the taxpayer has shown evidence of undervaluation of that set of similarly situated properties. The evidence shows the taxpayer has shown evaluations by comparing sales ratio, but the case law requires to show that the similarly situated properties were undervalued as compared to the assessment, so you both need to have clear evidence of value of the class of similar situated and the subject property. The taxpayer, I mean rather the assessor, gave you testimony as to the flaws with the assumed valuation of the subject property. The assessor also testified to flaws with the reliability of the sales that were selected to be included with the taxpayers ratio study, and the Assessor testified That while there are some outliers identified, that does not demonstrate that an entire class was undervalued. It simply shows that mass appraisal on occasion may have errors that have been adjusted through subsequent application of the approved assessment standards, which are gradually being corrected. Third, the taxpayer was required to but did not demonstrate some arbitrary scheme of undervaluation or evidence that shows some sort of intentional or systemic undervaluation. The case law makes clear that undervaluation needs to be by some affirmative effort, like a discount applied to certain properties or intentionally ignoring an entire set of data for some arbitrary reason. We had discussed last time some of the cases talking where unjust discrimination was found or an assessor conceded to applying an explicit discount based on a gut feeling as opposed to data. We also reviewed some case law that shows how merely reviewing there are some outliers or some mistakes is not sufficient to reach that high threshold of a intentional or systemic undervaluation. Fourth, we believe that even if you conclude there's the assessment was manifestly wrong, there's still an independent obligation to have evidence in the record to support the reduction in value, and here we do not have an independent appraisal. And the fifth argument we relied on was a procedural one that I think your attorney will likely advise you actually want to take it in the reverse order and address that first, which is that the taxpayer failed to comply with 706A, which is a bar to this board's jurisdiction to consider the merits. It's because there were a series of follow-up questions and inquiries made that were not responded to or were evaded. So for those reasons, we respectfully request that the board deny the appeal. [11:56] Paul Cloutier: No 6A criteria. The [12:06] Stephen Wagner: statute doesn't list specific criteria as such. [12:10] Paul Cloutier: There was some language there. That's right. [12:22] Stephen Wagner: That's right, what the statute does is the 706 MRS 706-A section 1 of the statute says that before making an assessment, the assessor may give timely notice in writing to all persons liable to taxation or qualifying for an exemption subject to full or partial reimbursement by the state to furnish the assessor true and perfect lists of all the property possessed as of first day of April the same year and may at the same time at the time of notice thereafter or thereafter require the taxpayer to answer in writing all proper inquiries as to the nature situation and value of the taxpayers property liable to be to be taxed in the state then and the taxpayer has 30 days from request of receipt of a request for a true and perfect list or of proper inquiries to respond to the request or inquiries. The statute then goes on to state the notice is given by mail or fails to be given by mail. My understanding is they were all given by email. They're all given by email. So in that instance we go to turn to the provision of the statute that addresses that particular scenario. And it says, if the assessor 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. Taxpayers refuse or neglect to answer the inquiries, bars, and appeal, but the lists and answers are not conclusive upon the assessor. Those are the pertinent provisions of the statute and so I think the question for this board with respect to the jurisdictional bar would be whether the provision of the statute saying that allowing the assessor to make requests for a list and proper inquiries as to nature, situation, and value extends to a bar for failure to allow entrance, entry to the property where the statute appears to contemplate an exchange of a list of questions and then responses to those questions and a provision of information as opposed to it doesn't speak expressly as to granting entry to the property in that context. And there are potentially larger issues in play there as well, given the forfeiture of rights to appeal versus rights to entry into a private property without warrant and so on. So I'm not gonna address that. That's not what's before us and has been raised by the taxpayer either. But I think from your perspective, of it is the scope of the request to enter the type of request that is contemplated for additional information and lists and so on that is contemplated under 706A. [15:43] Paul Cloutier: Okay. Well, I'd like to take up that matter first, since it would set the bar as to whether we're here anymore or not. So I did address that and some comments, my comments are kind of simple. I went through the request. My understanding is that the property owner can refuse entry into the property. I've read the language through interpretations through the Ram's head decision. Decision, another commentary that privacy trumps the assessor's right to entry. I read the emails, back and forth questions, reasons and explanations of 706A, and I did not see anything that would rise to a situation where the assessor requested in writing or email even information of a nature that seems to be sought in the 706. There was discussion of, well, what's the status of certain permits, and why did this show up? There were various questions, but none that, to my reading, pointed to a violation of the 706 requirement. My feeling is that this hearing can continue, that the taxpayer was not negligent and that the conditions weren't created to foster a 706 violation. The [18:31] Timothy Hubbard: Request to enter was after the April 1st, 2005 assessment, correct? [18:39] Paul Cloutier: Yes, it was. Yeah. There was one entry. I guess [19:00] Timothy Hubbard: I would say that I tend to agree with you that 's a separate, there wasn't going to be anything that was going to be learned about how the assessment was arrived at six months prior. [19:16] Paul Cloutier: Yeah. The assessor is charged if he doesn't see it, he's charged to make judgments about it and to go from there. [19:28] Timothy Hubbard: But that's also for the next assessment. Yeah. I [19:40] Nancy Field: Was reading through the emails where it requested for June 17th and 18th, but I don't see where past that or any other emails saying access was granted. It looks like the assessor tried to set something up, but as we all know, it wasn't, he didn't enter after April 25th, right? What? The assessor didn't enter the dwelling after April 25th. April 1st. [20:18] Michael O'Flynn: There's a timeline can I answer questions there yes yeah after the April 1st deadline the assessor never entered the premises okay thank you correct those are requests to [20:36] Nancy Field: You don't see them on the 17th 18th of June but I don't think that request was granted [20:52] Paul Cloutier: The assessor did provide a timeline of events, and where it is on the next one, I saw it. Page 3. [21:16] Brent Martin: Actually, it's October, right after the 211 of 22 to present was multiple permits were discussed, but it was October of 24 was the last after the status. [21:29] Paul Cloutier: Yes, October 24th, prior to April 1, 2025. And [22:01] Nancy Field: Again, on the email of June 23rd, this looks like the assessor had said he has a right to deny an inspection, and the email previously said, failing to adequately respond may result in a bar from appeal because of the 706 request. Request, I'm just looking at like the request was given to the taxpayer for entry. Again, it wasn't entered on, I mean, I don't know, I don't think about the wording of the 706a I [22:58] Stephen Wagner: think the threshold question is whether a request for entry, and this is what the chair was going for, Mr. Chair, actually constitutes a request under 706a for or under the true and perfect list of powers of request that the assessor has, whether that scope includes not just a list of requests for information, but rather includes a right to access and inspect for themselves on a person's subject property. And I think, Mr. Chair, if I may, you were saying that you thought that did not include... [23:37] Paul Cloutier: Does not include a request for an inspection. I think it's, it's two different things. Okay, that's my position, that's my reaction I [23:50] Nancy Field: think I agree with you now, I think I agree. Okay. [24:03] Paul Cloutier: If you want to obtain a motion more [24:10] Stephen Wagner: time, take time, it's easier if I present the motion for you to adopt, one of the members to adopt, I think just to kind of move things along, if that's acceptable? Mm-hmm. Yeah. A motion to be made by a member of the Board that the request by the assessor to enter and inspect the premises was not a request of 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 with a list of answers as contemplated under section 706a of title 36 of the main revised [24:51] Jennifer Scriba: statutes. So moved. So I, without repeating what you just said, yes, I would make that motion. Thank you. [25:02] Stephen Wagner: Mr. Snyder, do we have a second? I'll say thank you. All in favor? Sure. The [25:29] Paul Cloutier: taxpayer has been cased based on a claim of unjust discrimination and provided lots of information for our review, and so that's the next item on the agenda. I'd like to ask if anybody on the board wants to make any kind of statement regarding position statement, or I have a rather lengthy bunch of information that I've looked at. This information, which I can basically went through Ram's head decision and made comments and considered the parts of that decision and part nine of the legal standard for proving unjust discrimination, which is part of that decision. The town's assessment is presumed to be valid. That's the one underlying legal taxpayer must show that the assessment is manifestly wrong by proving that the property is substantially overvalued or there was unjust discrimination or that the assessment was fraudulent. In part 10 I guess, taxpayers can prove discrimination only if they show that the assessor's system necessarily results in unequal apportionment. My feeling, not proven by the taxpayer. Federal constitutional rule forbids intentional systematic undervaluation by state officials or other taxable property in the same class. I don't think that was proven by the taxpayer. Equal protection law holds the fairness of one's allocable share of the total property tax burden can only be meaningfully evaluated by comparison with the share of other similarly situated relative to their property holdings. In other words, it must be similarly situated, which has been a topic of this hearing. The lowest ratio properties on the exhibit are located in the Willow Beach and Lovett's Field waterfront neighborhoods, which benefit from proximity to the beach and water views. Also note that they also have sale ratios at the upper end of the range as well, this referencing the ratio study that was exhibit two presented by the taxpayer. So we find them on both levels. Many sided sales are physically remote from the subject's Meeting Hill area. They are also separated from the taxpayer's location by heavily drafted cottage road, a physical neighborhood boundary. Many of the sales are not competitive with the taxpayer property in the real estate market because of location, neighborhood characteristics and amenities, but also economically in the a sense of affordability by market participants. I spent time going through, can [30:10] Stephen Wagner: I get this, I don't know. Care what the board, describe what it is that you've prepared there, Mr. Fisher. [30:17] Paul Cloutier: What I, 'm gonna hand out my notes and observations on the original, copy of the original materials provided by the taxpayer. Fair? [30:46] Jennifer Scriba: If I [31:01] Stephen Wagner: may, Mr. Chair, to the extent that we're now engaging in the unfair discrimination analysis, we are now considering, because the board is required to make detailed findings, that's also clear from the roundtable decision, to support its analysis and its ultimate decision. And so that's the process we're engaging in now, is to consider the facts and make those detailed findings and so to the extent that you're engaging in that we're now considering whether the taxpayer has adequately proven that any of the properties he has presented and his own property the 44 fairlawn avenue property are similarly situated and the what you've passed around just against the record is clear what you've pass around is actually, this is a submission by the taxpayer of the properties that he presented as being similarly situated to 44 Fairlawn. And other parties disagrees with what I'm characterizing as, please state the state if you have a concern about that. And where the taxpayer presented some very detailed, helpful presentations, but they were. So, for instance, the PowerPoint presentation included properties that were a subset of this list. So we received different submissions from the taxpayer, including with different sets of photographs and so on, so not all of the properties on this list was presented in as great a detail as the list here, right? Right. So we'll put it in other ways. Some of the properties here were presented in detail with photographs that allowed you to review similar situated and so on. Bear in mind, the burden of proof for establishing credible evidence is on the taxpayer. You're not obligated to make your own independent inquiries outside of the scope of the hearing to determine whether that's true or whether the burden of proof has been met. Taxpayer's obligation to meet that burden. So based on the strength of what he's presented, but it's quite voluminous, has the taxpayer presented adequate evidence in each instance that what he's presented as a similarly situated property is in fact similarly situated so that then you can proceed with the remainder of the analysis under the Ram said decision. So I'm trying to help you winnow out, winnow down, and keep a focus because we have an awful lot of properties on here potentially. It could be a lengthy analysis, so it really depends on what the taxpayers presented as, is it similarly situated to 44 Fairlawn or is it not? That's the threshold, and then you move on to if so, was it undervalued? [34:09] Paul Cloutier: I have a question about that information there. [34:24] Stephen Wagner: Is this information that is in the record, Mr. Chair, or is this information that you independently determined? Mr. If it's determined from what's already been submitted, then it's appropriate to address. If it's not in the record, it should not be considered. [34:39] Paul Cloutier: Should I handle it or can I handle it? [34:41] Stephen Wagner: Mr. It'll probably be easier, I suspect the board will be easier for them to follow if you have it. Follow it? Mr. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay. [35:01] Paul Cloutier: Here's a copy for you. I'm [35:18] Elizabeth Banwell: missing one. We can share. That's fine. Yeah. We can share. That's fine. [35:23] Paul Cloutier: I'm going to be starting about on the bottom half of the page. At any rate, what you see here is the original Exhibit 2, and the second page is some of my notes from the original what this represents is that I went through all of the properties and located them relative to what neighborhood they are in as defined by the city as a map that provided that shows Lovett's field will Willoughby Beach, Meeting House Hill. All that are in blue, I discovered were, based on those maps, all in blue are in the Meeting House Hill neighborhood. Those in orange are in the Lovett's Field neighborhood. And those in yellow are in the Willoughby Beach neighborhood. The whole point of this was for myself to discover the nature of all of this data, how it all fit together, what it could or does represent, and how it all interacts with each other. What I found was that, and to go to the discussion, parsing the taxpayer ratio data is the topic. Out of this list, Meeting House Hill had 9 out of 48 sales or 18.75%, less than 20% of the sample, and had a price range of 490,000 to 825,000 with ratios of 77 to 88%. Willard Beach had 33 out of 48 with a 68.75% sample of the total sample in a range of $575,000 to $2,500,000 as the range of sales. The ratios there were 54% to 88%. Lovett's Field had the fewest with 6 out of 48 sales, 12.5% of the sample, and a price range of $875,000 to $7,250,000. And the ratios there were 56% to 85%. Only 23% of the 48 or 47.9% are within the sale price range of the Meeting House area sale price range. In other words, only 23% of them, only 23 of them are below $825,000. My discussion above talks about amenities and affordable economic affordability that we just completed, that, so most of the data appears to me, appears not to be similarly situated and does not prove unjust discrimination. I think that the, what appears to me is that the Willard Beach and Lovett's Field areas have amenities as well as, in some cases, more grandiose building structures. They appeal to different market participants with respect to affordability. And so they are not really similarly situated. [40:37] Stephen Wagner: If I may, just for the clarity, because I thought everybody has what you've presented in front of them, and also for the record and the video record that's being established here. This is a reference to the exhibit two that the taxpayer submitted. And of those, include, and I wrote up, I had 47 properties in total were referenced on that. Forty-eight. Forty-eight? Yep. Pardon me. And I have nine that you marked in blue as being meeting House Hill, I believe. And the remainder, as you noted, you noted orange is Willard Beach neighborhood. [41:22] Paul Cloutier: Orange is Lovett's Field. [41:24] Stephen Wagner: Orange is Lovett's Field. And yellow is Willard Beach. Yes. And if I understand how you're presenting this for the board's consideration that and for their discussion is that the orange and yellows or the Willard Beach and Lovett's Field neighborhoods as color coded are not similarly situated due to the different characteristics of those neighborhoods in terms of proximity to the ocean, amenities, types and style of housing. Houses and other factors that may emerge during the discussion is that a fair, yes, just representation, the, and I'll just read out maybe the properties that are you listing as being in Meetinghouse Hill neighborhood, so that's certainly, I also want to discuss, I [42:19] Paul Cloutier: Find that, you know, the high and the low ranges, however, [42:25] Stephen Wagner: That's up to you what you want to just [42:27] Paul Cloutier: However you want to present it, on the right hand side, adults will like to point out that you will see color coded, let's say start with Lovett's Field, Lovett's Field being an orange, the low ratio on the right-hand side would be the second item, seven Cloister, and the upper ratio will be further down the page, and that is that 85, and when then considering Willard Beach, it goes from 54 to 88, and Meeting House Hill, 77 to 88, they overlap somewhat, but they all have a wide range, so [43:32] Stephen Wagner: I think in terms of the analysis, if we could to winnow out which properties the board feels are similarly situated to 44 Fairmont, the taxpayers' property, and why you feel they are not, and the chair has presented a position that based on those neighborhoods and based on the maps, and so if you agree that these properties are in those neighborhoods based on general knowledge of the community in which you reside here, And you agree that those neighborhoods are so different in terms of their characteristics that properties within those neighborhoods are not similarly situated to properties within the Meeting House Hill neighborhood and the subject property in particular, then those would be eliminated from your analysis. And you would then focus, in accordance with the Ramsey decision, on those and are they undervalued and then we would proceed to the basis if they are undervalued, then has the taxpayer met his burden of proof with respect to the elements, we'll get to those elements within the Ramsey decision on intentional or arbitrary and so on. So, but the first threshold analysis here is which of these properties are similarly situated. You may find none of them are based on different characteristics, but it sounds like the Chair is presenting a position that of those nine, of the 49 are similarly situated and the others are not. And if you agree based on your own findings of fact the Board will find, then you've we know down the analysis to those to those nine and then you proceed okay i agree with [45:29] Timothy Hubbard: i agree with this assessment of the taxpayers list of 48 properties and i guess i mean i kind of i did a similar analysis but i also the assessor presented his Exhibit 10, which is the assessment ratios for Meeting House Hill. And I don't think there's a, I don't have an overall number there, but the assessment ratios in meetinghouse Hill start at sixty eight point five percent and go up to a hundred and fifty three percent that's what exhibit ten was and so this gets to one of and I'm agreeing with the with the chair here I really look at this as being cherry picked. I want to prove that my house is undervalued, and I go and look at everything in the city, and I pick the ones that are under, you know, even more, or that my house is overvalued, so I go and look for properties that are undervalued. I don't see any other methodology behind this list of 48 properties other than I'm, I'm looking at undervalued properties. And I'm trying to prove that my property is overvalued. This Exhibit 10 is a list from the, you go into the database and say, give me all the houses in Winning House Hill. And then you look at what the assessment ratios are. So your only criteria on Exhibit 10 is, isn't in the same neighborhood? That's not the case with the, with the taxpayers and, so I don't see this as being supportive of an argument. It's not an objective statement that his house is being singled out. In that regard, I agree. [47:56] Stephen Wagner: I just want to make clear, though, that you're not saying that the taxpayer has to choose, demonstrate that with respect to all of the properties in the community. As the Ram said, decision makes clear that 's not required. That's not part of his burden of proof. So when you say the cherry picking, you're not saying he should be comparing it to all properties? [48:18] Timothy Hubbard: What I'm saying is that what I read Ram said is that there was very clearly, and the assessor said, he was deliberately undervaluing certain properties, and I can't see from either list that there's a demonstration that there was a deliberate attempt to undervalue. I mean, all property, we all are related to real estate. We all know that the founding principle of real estate is all properties are unique. So there are probably legitimate reasons why some properties are undervalued and some properties are overvalued. Part of it has to do with sales cycle, part of it has to do with how much information we have on those properties, part of it has to do with the neighborhood. Lovett's Fields is a very high-value neighborhood, and Willard Beach for that matter. But at the same time, they're affected by sea level rise and recent storms and that kind of stuff. So that impacts the insurance rates. That impacts the market of people, not just what they can afford, but the people who have that tolerance for the risk. whereas being in the middle of Meeting House Hill on the top of the hill, you're not worried about floods. You're convenient to transportation, all that kind of stuff. So I think that 's important. That's why it's important to compare houses that are in the same situation, that are situated in the same neighborhood. it. And then beyond that, I would also agree with that when you're assessing things, you're trying to get into the same price range. So trying to compare and do an assessment on multi-million dollar properties relative to properties that are $300,000 or less is very problematic. And yes, in an ideal world everybody gets the same thing, but that's this is not. And reading Rainshead, I don't think the state is saying, oh no, everybody has to, it has to be perfect. There has to be an attempt to get as close as we can. And it goes back to another point, which is that the assessed value is not being assailed as being not representative of its true value. It's being assailed that it is overvalued relative to some other properties. But I don't see any evidence that is done in a systematic way. It just happens to be where it sits in the cycle of the assessment you know in another five or ten years it may be reversed so i am i 'm correct in assuming that we have to show we have to feel that the taxpayer has shown that there is a deliberate attempt to under to undervalue some properties and therefore made it up by overvaluing his property [51:45] Stephen Wagner: Right, the first step in the analysis is which of the properties that the taxpayers presented are actually similarly situated, because if you find that with that, with respect to those properties that you find are not similarly situated, they don't fall into the analysis of whether they are undervalued or not. So the first step in the process is which of the properties are similarly situated on the list, and you actually in state very eloquently as some other differentiating factors the chair touched. On some proximity to sea level, but you also touched on some that, you know, that how that can detract, but it's still a differentiating factor. Yes, so it's even though you could say, well, it's supposed to be equalizing because that reduces the value potentially. The point is, with respect to the neighborhood, what are the differentiating factors of all the properties presented versus 44 Fairlawn and what makes it similarly situated or not. And so you've touched on flooding, sea level rise, storms, and access to transportation. Those could also be considered by the board. This is a board decision, by the way, and I'm not trying to try to add a little focus perhaps or guidance based on the controlling legal elements. There are a lot of factors that [53:15] Paul Cloutier: And they have also include buyers that would be looking at the property safe thinking that they can take their child and walk the Willard Beach and, you know, are you going to cross Cottage Road and walk your five-year-old down to Willow Beach? No, you're not going to do that. [53:40] Jennifer Scriba: Excuse me, Ms. Field. [53:41] Andy Snyder: One point that kind of sticks out in my mind is the property was listed. It never was appraised. You know, being in real estate, some real estate brokers, someone could have underpriced the house and not had it be in conjunction with the other houses in that neighborhood at the time, even though there were multiple offers and I know the taxpayer paid over asking. But I don't know, was it listed similarly to other properties or, you know, was it undervalued in some way to begin with? And I would imagine as an assessor, you're looking at the whole neighborhood. You're not looking just at one sale to kind of have things even out over that. Over that, so I, you know, that was just had it been appraised, but it appraised for a lot more. Did this person get an exceptional deal, you know? And I agree during the testimony when I looked at this list, I did not think that these properties were similarly located, knowing where Fairlawn is. It's a, it's kind of a pass-through to when you're trying to get off Cottage and go down Sawyer and, you know, it's, it's not Willard Beach, it's not Lovett's Field, I mean, certainly, and I think you were generous in Some of the properties where, you know, you put it in the same location, I just went by the map. Yeah, so anyway, but that was just my thought and to back up [55:41] Paul Cloutier: But just to follow along on that earlier what you just said, a listing, a listing at whatever it was, very low, that is a tactic used in most recently quite a bit to generate interest in a property. Yeah, correct, and then you find buyers that are willing to go and try to figure it all out, but they get, they get interested at least, at least the seller is not holding it out at a high price, which can be a discouragement to buyers. [56:21] Stephen Wagner: So the map which you referenced is it's an official record of the city. It is not submitted as in evidence as an exhibit, and so I wonder, I don't believe there was one map I saw submitted by the assessor, but it was rather limited in scope, and it addressed some of it, but it didn't address all the properties on the exhibit two. [56:49] Paul Cloutier: It was the map that is listed on the city website as neighborhood maps of South Portland. [56:57] Stephen Wagner: So we can take, the board can take notice of that, but I'm wondering, the taxpayer, if we could just go through, if we identify the nine, and if you want to agree or not that they are in the Meeting House Hill neighborhood, and then if you contend that any of the others also are, then I want to have clarity of definition as to which properties will or will not be determined to be similarly situated where we don't have the map to refer to in the record. Is that okay with your permission? [57:33] Michael O'Flynn: Yeah, that's fine. Did you understand what I'm saying there, Mr.? Yes, but I don't know, I, it's, I don't know, I. [57:47] Brent Martin: i guess i would raise a little bit of concern with that process because i 'm concerned it's opening up a door to rehabilitating evidence and the board is sort of doing the job of the burden work for the applicant in that so i have that concern i think the board should just make its decision based on the presentation the evidence that being said i have no procedural concerns with the board taking judicial notice of a available zoning maps there's case law that says that's that's part of the law So I think it's certainly fine for the board to consult the maps that are available on the website. Do you have it? [58:35] Stephen Wagner: Please, Mr. Chair. [58:37] Paul Cloutier: This is an image from the Taken off sizes of select copy. [58:45] Stephen Wagner: So this is the map to which the chair. [58:48] Paul Cloutier: Portion of the map of the city's neighborhood map, and just so for everybody's. [58:55] Stephen Wagner: Awareness, and this is, this is a city record on the city website, so that would be the. [59:02] Timothy Hubbard: Well if we look at the data between the assessor's Exhibit 10 and the taxpayer's, the same property isn't there, but there are two. 93 Davis Street is the first property that he's looking at that was sold for $750 and assessed at $579. In the Exhibit 10, there is 89 Davis Street that was sold for $525, is assessed at $539.3, for 102% or 103%. So that's on that same street. If you accept that Davis is part of the neighborhood, and this one is 77%, but then you've got another house which is closer in value to 44 Lawn, and it's assessed just about what the sale price was, a little bit more than the sale price. So [Brent Martin: all] I'm trying to make the point there is not to change the data or to do anything else. I'm taking the two facts that we were presented with, and I'm saying I feel that these properties were picked because they supported a case, not because they were in this, they had any other attributes to them that showed [1:00:55] Nancy Field: that they were similar to the property but undervalued. I would concur with Board Member Snyder. The 9 here I would consider being an appraiser for 20 years in South Walnut. The 9 picked out here would be in being house holding me and it's not so much floodplain access on that, it's how a market participant would view the neighborhood as well, going back to the assessor's evidence of zip 10, going through that list there's a few on here that could be the borderline to the Willie Beach as well, and that's a big list, but most of these going through them are in Meetinghouse Hill, I would say maybe Lowell Street in Elsmere, they're running the fine line there, yeah, you know, I don't say you guys understand so i'm going back through them and they all look to be in meetinghouse so we have a set of evidence here on the side of the evidence here and but we are we accepting the nine on the sheet that the taxpayer provided and that was given by the chair we as a board do we accept the nine that are on here marked as in being in meeting house hill to the best of my ability those are [1:02:38] Paul Cloutier: located on Meeting House Hills neighborhood, sure, but does the board have to agree that [1:02:45] Stephen Wagner: Does anybody object? Maybe that's the easier way of saying it. Does anybody not think that all of those properties are in Meeting House Hill? [1:02:53] Paul Cloutier: I would like to just point out that when one looks at that map, that Cottage Road is a dividing line between the two neighborhoods. [1:03:05] Nancy Field: Yeah, I mean, and I'm looking at the taxpayers' evidence. And it's like 6 Chase Street, you know, it's awful close, you know, it's right up there, but, you know, given some of the sales that have occurred on that street compared to right across, yeah, it's how the participant really looks at those boundaries. So, yeah, true, I would say. [1:03:35] Stephen Wagner: If I could ask the question in a slightly different manner with respect to this, does anybody on the board feel that any of the properties not marked in blue should be in the Meeting House Hill neighborhood when [1:04:04] Nancy Field: I looked at it I didn't think so yeah I again I mean there's property on each piece of that it's that a gray area I mean it's yeah but I'm sorry which property you're saying is in a gray area oh the two on the assessors provided instead of 10 and the, [1:04:25] Stephen Wagner: We're dealing with, so this is the taxpayer's burden, so we're talking about the Exhibit 2. Yes. Yeah. [1:04:31] Nancy Field: The only one I would see would be Chase Street, which is very close. It's the next street over from Cottage. 6 Chase? Yeah. But, I mean, again, that's a very, that's a very fine line. Could [1:04:51] Michael O'Flynn: I be able to interrupt and make a point of clarification? It's up to the chair. Okay. Sure. Sure. I'm just not sure what map that is. And then you said Cottage is the dividing line between Union House and Hill? [1:05:09] Paul Cloutier: Yeah, this is a map that you find on the website. [Michael O'Flynn: Yeah,.] And these are the city's delineation of neighborhoods. [1:05:16] Michael O'Flynn: Okay. I don't think that's the same map that the assessor is working off of because just looking at some of his Exhibit 10 here,, he has Ellesmere, he has Brookside, he has Lowell. Those are all on the Willard Beach side of Cottage. Yes. And that's part of his Meeting House Hill list. [1:05:37] Paul Cloutier: Yes, but we're dealing with your set of, just, we're not, okay, from my view, we're not evaluating whether all of the assessor's properties are located in what he calls the Meeting House Hill. We're focusing on your list because you have the burden of proof to show that the ratios, you purported that the ratios are improper and they are entitled to an abatement, right? I understand. So we're dealing, and you have the burden of proof, so that's why I'm dealing, focusing on your evidence. [1:06:17] Michael O'Flynn: Your evidence yeah, I guess I'm just the point of clarification is that I don't know what that map is That it's not It's just it's different than the assessing map apparently I [1:06:34] Paul Cloutier: Wouldn't know if it's the same as the assessing. All I know is that this is what the city purport told it. This is just the East inside of the city up to. So, this deals directly with Lovett's Field, Willey Beach, Breakwater, Meeting House Hill, Fairy Village. They have them marked out in blue. Okay. So, that would be one of the decisions we make as to whether the information presented [1:07:47] Stephen Wagner: It's up to the board to make a finding whether the how's it what's similarly situated or not. And it's not necessarily constrained by the neighborhood is what is being adopted and how that's defined. It's up to the board then to decide based on the evidence before what it feels is in or not inside the neighborhood. Taxpayers making him a point that the assessors exhibit 10, which is a city record, also defines land neighborhoods and there are some of the properties. So for instance, 61 Ellesmere does Appear on the assessors record as being within the Meeting House Hill neighborhood. Apparently it does not appear on the neighborhood I delivered papers. Yeah. [1:08:35] Michael O'Flynn: I think I have to, is this appropriate time to make an objection? I guess I just have to object to this map. And if anything, it just proves the arbitrary nature of neighborhood lines. The map isn't part, wasn't part of anyone's exhibits, and it's just additional information taken from outside. [1:09:02] Brent Martin: I'll, I'll restate my position that I understand the map was pulled from the city's website in the zoning section, and there's main case law that says maps are part of ordinances, and there's case law that says of course a board can take judicial additional notice of an ordinance. Therefore the board, this board in my view, can take notice of this map, and by take notice I mean it doesn't have to be in the evidence for the board to be [1:09:31] Stephen Wagner: Able to consider. Right. So the board can utilize it, can address when you put your further positions, and I think that accounts for the assessor is correct in that, in that sense. Certainly the Board is free to accord whatever weight it wishes to the evidence that is before it in terms of the neighborhood. At the end of the day, the question remains, which of the properties that the taxpayers presented does the Board feel are similarly situated to 44 Fairlawn, and we need to get past that first before we can then determine of those properties which have been undervalued, and if they have been under that, if they have been at all, and if they have been, do they present but support the proposition of unjust discrimination as required under Rams head and state and federal constitutional law. I would like [1:10:28] Paul Cloutier: to add my observation, regardless of what this mapping show, my understanding of the area for knowing that area from childhood and also being in South Portland and observing neighborhoods as in my profession, that Cottage Road is definitely in my view a dividing line for neighborhood between the Meeting House Hill neighborhood and Willard Beach, and I also know that the area of Angel Avenue, Elsmere, Coolidge, Brookside, and Much, and certainly much of Pillsbury and the streets that go off that, they are within walking distance of the beach, and if one reads MLS listings one sees Will, Willard Beach area, close to Willard Beach. You don't see that in Meeting House Hill. And that line of Cottage Road, especially with the traffic that goes through that area now, is definitely a neighborhood dividing line. That's my opinion on it. So, for whatever that's worth. [1:12:11] Stephen Wagner: And I think the board is already determined based on the line of question we had before that the board is in agreement that all of the properties marked in blue are in the neighborhood and that those not marked in blue do not fall within the neighborhood. That was a finding made by the board in this process. We can make a move if we can, we can do it that formally, we don't need to, but we can if you, if you, if you'd like. Okay, but your deliberations have established that, and so for the record, the Meetinghouse Hill neighborhood properties are 93 Davis Street, 5 Florence Street, 133 Walnut Street, 50 Pitt Street, 587 Sawyer, 20 Goody Street, 586 Sawyer Street, 25 Edgewood Street, and 10 North Richland Street. Those are the, those are the properties now that we're finding are within the neighbor, within the Meetinghouse Hill neighborhood, similar location. And well, I think that it's up now to the board whether they're similar to, whether it is for you to make findings as to similarly situated and to properties that fall outside of that are listed that are not within, or look at it the other way, although I think you do have to exclude the properties that are not in blue by virtue of the fact that they are in those other neighborhoods named and are not similarly situated because of the differences with respect to those neighborhoods. And I would ask that with respect to each neighborhood, you make a finding as to why it is actually different and not similarly situated, that it's so different from Eating house hill, put it another way, that it should not be a property within that neighborhood could not, should not be considered similarly situated to a property in meeting house hill. And if you would, whichever neighborhood you want to take up first and identify the differences would be helpful for, I think, the decision-making process. Okay, from [1:14:48] Paul Cloutier: my point of, from my point of view, both Willow Beach and Lovett's Field are not similarly situated because. [1:15:01] Stephen Wagner: To Meeting House Hill. [1:15:03] Paul Cloutier: To Meeting House Hill. And the reasons being, it was cited earlier, neighborhood characteristics and amenities, including proximity to the beach, water views for some properties, characteristics, physical characteristics of the neighborhood with respect to building size and generally and other physical characteristics, as well as the economical, economic-related factors of affordability, which impacts the actions of market participants. I would submit that those are not similarly situated to Meeting House Hill. I [1:16:22] Timothy Hubbard: would agree. Andy? I would agree. I mean, if you have a fixer-upper and it's on Meeting House Hill versus a fixer-upper and it's in Willard Beach, or even Lovett's Field, though I don't know if there's such a thing as a fixer-upper there, but your potential payoff is much higher. You have more amenities in Willard Beach, you know, even being just a few houses down from Cottage Road, because you're in that neighborhood. Whereas if you were on the other side, and you were on Hillside or something like that, down, halfway down Hillside, you're only going to get so much. The top end is only so high. [1:17:23] Stephen Wagner: Previously, Mr. Snyder, you also mentioned sea level rise and other factors. Do you consider those as being good? [1:17:31] Timothy Hubbard: Yeah, I mean, that's having more and more of an impact, but especially as you get closer to the water and Willard Beach, that is a much bigger concern. You start looking at the various maps that are available online in terms of expected sea level rise and what's going to flood at three feet above normal high tide and six feet above normal high tide, that kind of stuff. That's a problem. And then going over to Lovett's Field, which is higher, but especially if you're looking out at Portland Headlight or, you know, Cushing Island or something like that, you're fairly exposed to the east, which is where the storms come in. And I do have friends that live in that neighborhood and have had problems with their houses, their siding, all that kind of stuff because of the storms. [1:18:33] Stephen Wagner: More so than Meeting House Hill. You're drawing a distinction from Meeting House Hill as a reason why it might not be similarly situated in the police neighborhood. [1:18:42] Nancy Field: I think another point of being similarly situated would be access to the elementary school. school. I believe Minghouse Hill goes to Brown, where I have a child in third grade. And Willard and Levinfield goes to Small. So that's one of the better schools in the city. And that's another defining thing maybe for potential buyers or market participants of looking at properties between yeah so i'm going to throw that out there are [1:19:30] Stephen Wagner: there any other differentiating factors the board would want to bring to attention of the rest of the board in the decision making process as to deciding whether these neighborhoods of meeting house hill and Lowe's Field and Willard Beach are dissimilar, not similarly situated. [1:19:51] Timothy Hubbard: I think that's a pretty good basis of what we've got. I think so. [1:19:57] Stephen Wagner: So you've heard all that. Next, the question will be, do you find that based on those differences that have been enumerated now, Those are adequate to state that the properties in the neighborhood of Feedinghouse Hill are not similarly situated to the remainder of the properties. Yes. The voice poll, all are in agreement that distinction exists and that those are sufficiently different that they are not similarly situated. Yes. yeah so based on that finding then we're left with the nine that are presumably similarly situated and those are the ones that i read into the record and those are the ones that are marked in blue now the question is with respect to the similarly situated properties presented by the taxpayer were any of those undervalued by the assessor well [1:21:23] Timothy Hubbard: According to this, they all are. They [1:21:28] Stephen Wagner: all are. Okay. And so if you... [1:21:31] Paul Cloutier: They're in a range of... [1:21:33] Timothy Hubbard: Every property on this list. [1:21:36] Paul Cloutier: Yes. They're in a range of 77 to 88%. [1:21:43] Stephen Wagner: That's what the contention presented by... So you're accepting the submission of the taxpayer on Exhibit 2 as to those ratios as to it being... [1:21:54] Timothy Hubbard: We're accepting that he gave us nine properties that are similar situated that were undervalued. That's not an acceptance that 's a valid argument that he is overvalued. [1:22:08] Stephen Wagner: And I guess I should then ask, with respect to the nine, are there any of those that you would also say are not? Are you accepting that those are all similarly situated? Are there any characteristics of those nine within the neighborhood that do not, whether that's lot size or any other factor that may be in the record or you're aware of with respect to those nine, that would also not make them similarly situated to 44 Fairlawn? Or are you accepting that they are all similar? [1:22:39] Paul Cloutier: Well, we didn't value each of the nine. What I'm saying is that the level that I think that's asking a question that's outside of what we're doing. What we're doing here is looking at the evidence. And although that is a good follow-up question, but I think it's more detailed than what we've been presented by the taxpayer. Fair and it may and likely is beyond the scope of what we can accomplish. Okay so you're the board [1:23:16] Stephen Wagner: is accepting them that they are similarly situated for the sake for the purpose of the for the sake [1:23:20] Paul Cloutier: of argument and for the sake of the appeal. Okay very good. Okay is that acceptable? Yes so [1:23:37] Stephen Wagner: with respect to if you are stating it's been stated that they are all undervalued and I believe there was general agreement amongst the board that they but that's that's the case based on the data that's going on. I didn't do the math on each one of these on each of the nine on any of these I [1:23:58] Paul Cloutier: didn't do the math doing the right I didn't do the ratio calculation for each one of them [1:24:06] Stephen Wagner: the taxpayers provided ratios he's provided this information and I'm ready but [1:24:24] Andy Snyder: we don't necessarily know the condition of those properties we just know the geographic that comes with the [1:24:30] Nancy Field: characteristics we also but generally the sales date in regards to the April 1st 2025 too I mean right is that another thing we're looking at the sales data these are like three years prior to April 1st and 2025. So I guess that's that was his argument to start with anyway yeah that's what I'm saying that three years prior to actually assessed values yeah [1:25:10] Stephen Wagner: it was on [1:25:12] Paul Cloutier: 210 2022 it is indicated at the bottom of the page, exhibit two, that's [1:25:30] Jennifer Scriba: the subject, yeah, for feel [1:25:35] Paul Cloutier: on 210 2022, sale price 365. That would be, that wasn't the sale price, it was 350. [1:27:55] Stephen Wagner: You're making it, the chair is making a correction to the handout they present the board that at certain points the sale price was misrepresented, or just stated an error, is 350, and it should have been stated at 365, which is what appears at the base of exhibit two of the taxpayers right submitted materials. So if you are accepting for the sake of the appeal, as the chair said, and I think the board's in agreement, that at least that the properties in blue are similarly situated, and you could you could also say you don't feel there's enough evidence to determine they are, that's up to you, but assuming that you are willing to accept that for the sake of the appeal, then the question is, are they undervalued, and if they were undervalued, is the board persuaded by the explanations presented by the city assessor for the disparities in the assessment. [1:28:55] Paul Cloutier: We have no information about whether those are undervalued or not, or the nature of the sales, or whether they're above, at, or below market value. [1:29:12] Nancy Field: We have to get independent appraisals in each one of those nine sales to understand if they're at market [1:29:19] Stephen Wagner: value or not. So if you're saying that the taxpayers failed to meet his burden of proof that those properties are under undervalued, if that's where you are, then the appeal would fail based on the lack of that evidence. If you found though that they were undervalued, and then the question would be whether you were persuaded by the explanations provided by the city assessor for the disparities in the assessment, and then also if you are not persuaded by them, then you would need to make a determination whether the undervaluation was intentional and systematic, or did it result from mere errors of judgment by the assessor. But if you're saying that you're unable to determine that they were undervalued, then your analysis would stop at this point. [1:30:19] Nancy Field: Individual sale and understanding the terms of the sale on each one of those. It's hard to determine what their market value is. I would say that also [1:30:35] Andy Snyder: these were sales back from 2021 and 22 and the assessed [1:30:40] Nancy Field: Value we're looking at, it was 2025. Why not, why not have sales that occurred late in 24 in Meeting? How sales compared those to what the assessed values were? Would that not be more pertinent to what sales ratio and that stuff would be, instead of going back three years prior? Do you know? Right. And I look, I don't know if this is what Board Member Post was going to talk about, but okay. But like, it's, it's we, I see sales in the Meeting House Hill area from three years prior to the assessed value, right? And we all know in those three years, if you worked in real estate, how far that went up, right? And not just, you know, again, characteristics of neighborhoods tend to go a little bit higher, Leavitt's Field and higher. Meeting El Sal certainly saw an increase. I think everybody saw an increase. [1:31:41] Andy Snyder: And every assessment in South Portland was considerably lower before, I mean, COVID changed the whole complex. [1:31:52] Nancy Field: Every taxpayer found that out at some point. Yeah. [1:31:56] Andy Snyder: I think [1:32:02] Timothy Hubbard: also, just going over, if you look and apply the same map that you were, as I read closer, the assessor's Exhibit 10 is sales between January 22 to April 25 in a generalized neighborhood. But if I look specifically at properties that are on Meeting House Hill, North Richland, Hillside, Brookside, Booth Bay, North Richland, Neal, Walnut Street, North Richland, and Providence, those are all, in Exhibit 10, on the last part of Exhibit 10, those are all over 100% of the sale price, which ranges from $23, one of them is $22, mostly $22 and $23. $35 Providence was a sale price in $24. It was still high. Right. My point being that something that was purchased in 2022 is going to have a lower sale price than something in 23, 24, and 25. So if you're comparing a ratio of a sale price in 23, that's going to be lower because that 23 sale price was probably higher. The [1:34:04] Elizabeth Banwell: concern for me is that now that we've excluded all but nine properties, I'm not a mathematician by any means, but it's such a small data set now that it really skews in terms of what the percentages are. It doesn't feel like he can, or the taxpayer can prove that there is discrimination because of a wide range of, you know, we don't have enough of what he has presented us in data for excluding everything but the known properties. That's just how I would agree with you that there's not enough there to actually dig in and say, you know, this is a widespread problem instead of, you know, something that the Assessor's been working through and trying to correct. Small properties here and there that are not small properties, but are inconsistencies and in the assessment. [1:35:10] Stephen Wagner: That's an astute comment, and that would relate to and to example finding. So even if you were to find that there was undervaluation, that relates to whether that such an undervaluation was an intentional and systematic. Where the court cases are clear, it says that some specific differences here and there or sporadic differences are not enough, and it sounds like you may be leaning towards that. However, there is also case law that states a pattern of arbitrary reductions below market value can be enough, even if there is no evidence of an explicitly discriminatory methodology. [1:35:56] Elizabeth Banwell: My concern is we don't have enough data now to be able to determine that second point, that there is a systematic pattern. I believe the assessor from RAMS, that would be paragraph [1:36:45] Stephen Wagner: 13. The RAMS had a decision. Yeah. [1:36:51] Paul Cloutier: It deals with a number of things, though. The last one was the one that I have, maybe not 13. That's of concern to me. I don't know if that means... [1:39:19] Stephen Wagner: Well, certainly, that was part of the testimony from the assessor relating to sail chasing. Those by the testimony by the assessor during the open portion of the proceedings, and if you find, and if you found the assessor's explanations as to why but perhaps an apparent undervaluation, his explanations as to how that, how that occurred, are those who arrived at some of the explained in the materials, if you found those convincing and compelling, and that you further found that it was not, there was no intentional systematic approach that targeted certain properties for undervaluation, that could also be part of your analysis. I think we, on the one hand, there was an initial consensus that there was an undervaluation had taken place based on materials supplied by the taxpayer, and then I think the board is going in the direction of saying, well, you can't tell, we don't know enough to determine whether an undervaluation had occurred. So you need to make it past that threshold decision. If you do find that undervaluation, at least facially on the data submitted, occurred, you can then move to The steps of accepting the assessor's explanations as to why, and then the second aspect is the determination of the lack of an intent or systematic as another Rams head standard. And then, and then you can make a determination as to the outcome based on, based on that. So but if you find that there was no undervaluation, then as I said, you would stop there. But it needs your decisions need to be, we have to have findings of fact to support that. 's also very clear from the Rams head decision that we need to be explicitly clear as to how you arrive at that point. So all [1:41:27] Timothy Hubbard: we have is a sales price and a assessed value, and i don't think we have enough information to say that means that they are automatically undervalued. I think that's what we've been saying, we don't have the individual property cards and looking at them and making that determination. I [1:41:55] Paul Cloutier: also have an issue with the use of the prior sale price as a basis for the ratio that the taxpayer says exists. And it goes to a couple of factors. One is that as to whether the sale, we don't have, we have reason to not consider the price of 365, $365,000 as evidence of its market value. Part of that comes from, it is definitely a price. And that's defined as the amount of a particular purchaser agrees to pay and a particular seller agrees to accept under circumstances surrounding the transaction. That's from Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Third Edition Appraisal Institute. Also from the Uniform Standards of Professional practice there's a similar definition that the price is the amount passed offered or paid for a profit, but in both comments state that it is a fact [Michael O'Flynn: Furthermore,] Uniform Standards talks about market value as stated as an opinion that presumes that the transfer of a property that is a right of ownership or a bundle of such rights as of a certain date under specific conditions set forth in the value definition that is identified by the appraiser. The reason being that appraisals can be done for different reasons and different types of values can be sought, and so the definition used is specific to the type of valuation that is being done. But again, it emphasizes that it's an opinion and developed by appraiser or valuer and that it's objective to the extent possible. The assessor submitted evidence referencing IAAO assessment standards, which speaks to conditions that may indicate that a particular sale may not be a good sale. In other words, it may be affected by conditions of sale, duress, undue motivation. There are lots of factors. Many of those factors may play a part in the list of sales that were presented. We have no way of knowing. Some of the warning signs were present at the time of sale of the taxpayer purchase meeting, namely the property was for sale by an estate under the IAAO, I recall that's That's one of the warning signs that an assessor should look at and indeed an appraiser should look at when trying to decide whether that sale is valid for use in estimating market value. So in this case, it was a sale by an estate under conditions of sale similar to an auction another sign with short exposure period to the market to a specific quick close of offers date and with property description comments suggesting the owners to be highly motivated the taxpayer The taxpayer holds that the $365,000 sale prices are equivalent to its market value. I think that's unsupported. It is certainly what the price was paid for it, but there are certain conditions here that give us cause to confirm it. as definite evidence of its market value. What that does is, if that's the case, if the sale is believed to not necessarily represent its market value, it's not equivalent to its just value either, as they are meant to be synonymous. and under the in the environment of assessment and so the conclusions that would be indications that it were drawn from the analysis would not be reliable is that is the can the sale price actual sale price be used no and in case, in the Ramsdell, Ramshead decision, and paragraph 13, they talk about a situation, most property tax discrimination cases, and these quote, involve a defined methodology that results in unequal treatment. EG, Allegheny, Pittsburgh Coal Company. The findings there that although the state constitution and statutes require uniform assessments, the assessor fixed assessments in that case based on the last sale price, resulting in newly purchased property being assessed 8 to 35 times higher than the comparable neighborhood properties. In this case, it's not quite the same. But it is. In this case, the properties appears, to my eye, to have sold for less than its market value, or possibly could, because of the conditions of sale. And so there's the comparison. But the methodology that is cited in the Allegheny-Pittsburgh property is what's commonly called sale chasing. And that was found to be improper and arbitrary, and applied to this case using the 365 to derive the taxpayer-calculated discrimination at a ratio of 125%. And this is used to argue discrimination as compared to the ratios of the other sales located outside of the similar location, as we've decided, similar situated, that the use of the prior sale price is tantamount to sale chasing and is improper. Proper, so the sale hasn't been qualified in any way. One might do that by appraisal. It is not necessarily to necessary to do it by appraisal, as I understand. But we have no information as to whether, inadequate information as to whether the sale was appropriate or represents market value or just value. So my take on all of this is that the, that's another part of the argument. The argument being that, well, I bought the thing for 365 thousand dollars and my assessment is this, and so I'm being over assessed. But we don't know if the 365 is an appropriate benchmark for value for the property that we're examining. So it's not supported, there's not enough information. And it hasn't been proven that it is. So in my view, we're missing information on both ends of the that makes the comparison analysis unreliable, and that we cannot, we cannot rely on it. We can't find that it's proven. That's, welcome any of the thoughts related to, I [1:52:21] Timothy Hubbard: think those are all valid points, and it does come down to it's, it's tempting in this case to try to bring in more data and look at ways of proving it one way or another, but that's not what we're asked to do. We're just going with the data that we have from both the assessor and from the taxpayer. I agree with what you're saying. I also just, I find that the cases of looking at properties that are undervalued is not representative. You know, at one point it was said that it doesn't matter if it's in South Portland, it's in South Portland, and that's true. Then we go back to we were told that our average ratio is about 90% [1:53:18] Michael O'Flynn: percent right now? Right now 95, but yeah, 91 percent, 92 percent. So you know, some of those [1:53:29] Timothy Hubbard: are going to be higher and some of them are obviously going to be lower, but we're working towards a mean, and that's working towards a mean isn't unjust discrimination, it isn't signalling properties out, it's dealing with them as they come up and as more information comes around, and there's only so much one department can do in terms of gathering all that. So I don't, I agree with you, I don't feel that there's evidence here that shows any kind of deliberate, systematic, or even arbitrary methodology that just says it is what it is and I'm throwing darts. There's an attempt to do things making sense. And I think that contention is supported by the fact that the assessed value is not contested. It is. It's the assessed value in relation to other assessed values, and there's just too much variability in where you draw the line of saying that this is a valid comparison. We don't have that data. We haven't been given that. [1:54:51] Paul Cloutier: And to Kristen's point, that not only do we not have that information, but also when we finally pare down which of the properties are similarly located, we have a statistically unreliable population of information. [1:55:18] Stephen Wagner: If I can summarize where I think we are, that there is a movement amongst all of you, at least that you are unable to determine whether an undervaluation actually occurred in this instance because of inadequate data. However, accepting as true for the sake of argument that the taxpayer has established an undervaluation, you are accepting of the explanations that were provided by the assessor on the one hand, and that in addition to that, or following on that, there was no... You also found that some of you are convinced that the extent that there was any undervaluation it was not intentional or systematic and was because of the lack of specific differences here and there whether they constitute sporadic differences because of the limited data set. Correct. That's That's where I hear it's up for you all to discuss, and I think I would encourage you then to the extent that you are persuaded by explanations presented by the City Assessor that you need to explicitly adopt those and find those compelling as presented there in its materials, but that would then take you to a position, if you followed through to all that to find that there was no unjust discrimination in the valuation and that the taxpayers failed to meet his burden that's where that 's where that would take you well it's just so you know where what the result would be if you went if the board were to make those findings I think go down that path it's a general agreement that 's where we are and that's I think that's [1:57:31] Timothy Hubbard: We've been discussing this for two hours, and I think we've established that there isn't anything that jumps out that says, ha, this is unjust, nor does this necessarily seem to be something that is a deliberate attempt or even an arbitrary attempt. The evidence that I see shows that the assessor is working on valuing each property as best he can. There's a lot of properties, so there's going to be a bell curve in terms of where that is. But hopefully we can narrow that bell curve over time. But I don't see that just because something lies on one side or the other of the bell curve means that 's being unjustly discriminated against. [1:58:39] Stephen Wagner: So if you would look to the assessor's submission that summarizes their position and the evidence that was presented, do you accept that as presented? Are there any aspects of that with which you would take issue or that you would not adopt or present? No, that was the memorandum from September 4th, 2026, at the first, it's the first document in the four hours that was, that the material was presented. Right. And that's. And [1:59:23] Timothy Hubbard: that's followed by the more. 14 pages. Right. And I don't feel that I've, I've gotten anything that contradicts the assessor's position. [1:59:45] Stephen Wagner: So if we can just go through, follow the linear, if I may, and I don't want to, it has been two hours, but my job is not to stop you from discussing this in any amount of detail that you want to, obviously. But so with respect to the finding, with respect to properties that were undervalued, the board is finding that they were not undervalued because the taxpayers failed to meet the burden of proof to provide adequate information. There's inadequate information on the record to determine that they were undervalued. Given that, however, for the sake of argument, for the sake of considering the arguments presented by the taxpayer, assuming that they were, the Board is satisfied and persuaded by the explanations presented by the City Assessor for the disparities in the assessment in the record and as presented in the memorandum, the written submissions, right? Is that correct? Does anybody disagree with that? No. With respect to undervaluation, is there any sense that the evaluation that did occur was it intentional and systematic, or is it with respect to elements that were because of the data set? Once you defined the similarly situated properties, that they turned out to be more in line with sporadic differences and specific differences here and there based on the more limited data set and in conformity with the Rams head. And my [2:01:32] Paul Cloutier: reading was, it struck me a couple times, the it was just the direction from which the case was cited. Maybe I'm misunderstanding that. The situation [2:02:06] Stephen Wagner: is with respect to undervaluations that occur with respect to the other properties that the To which he is presenting, the undervaluations, that the sporadic differences or specific differences here and there relates to whether an intentional or systematic approach has been taken to undervalue the properties that are presented as being similarly situated and yet undervalued in comparison to his property. And what has been what I've heard at least one board member say is that a data set once the is that asset is so small, once the non similarly situated properties were excluded, that it no longer represents a pattern of arbitrary reductions below market value, and that there is actually no evidence of a discriminatory methodology because they are such a small data set based on what the taxpayers presented that you found to be similarly situated. [Paul Cloutier: Gotcha, I agree.] Does anybody disagree with that finding, which is what I'm simply summarizing what I'm hearing you say, but applying the structure of the legal construct to what I've heard you find and discuss? So if you make specific findings with respect to that, then as well, then in this case you would then make a decision to deny the appeal of the taxpayer in this instance. And that should be a motion based on the findings here made on the record this evening. to either accept or deny, in this case, it sounds like it's what you will do, the appeal of the taxpayer and owner of 44 Fairlawn in the assessment. [2:04:16] Paul Cloutier: I have a motion. What [2:04:20] Andy Snyder: He said, I make a motion that we adopt that verbiage, that we deny the petitioners on the facts that it did not appear that we had enough [2:04:37] Stephen Wagner: information, and based on the findings of fact that were made in the hearing this evening? [2:04:42] Andy Snyder: Yes, and based on the facts. [2:04:45] Stephen Wagner: And that you deny the taxpayers' appeal? Yes. Yes. Yes, just so we're clear for what the motion is, second. [2:04:58] Paul Cloutier: Second. All in favor of the denial? [2:05:04] Stephen Wagner: Unanimous. I didn't see the agendas. Like, is there any business to [2:05:30] Paul Cloutier: come before the board? We have no other business. Mr. O'Flynn, I'd like to say, I'd like to say that I recognize that you spent a lot of time and effort and argued well, as did the city regarding this issue, and I'd like to commend you on that. Thank you. I would too. You've heard the decision of the board. So can we adjourn? On the motion to adjourn. [2:06:13] Andy Snyder: Make a motion to adjourn. [2:06:15] Timothy Hubbard: All in favor? [2:06:18] Paul Cloutier: I guess we're all in favor. We have a majority.