Ad Hoc Committee

City of Portland Board of Assessment Review - June 23, 2026 Board Chair Eric Larsson Board Members Lee Lowry, Samuel Rains Tuesday, June 23, 2026 at 12:00 PM Room 24, Portland City Hall, 389 Congress St., Portland, Maine To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email ajames@portlandmaine.gov. Submissions must be received by 12:00 pm the day before the Board of Assessment Review meeting to guarantee their inclusion in the agenda packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To help ensure your comment is submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item (see below). The Board of Assessment Review will conduct this meeting in-person in Room 24 at Portland City Hall. If you are not able to attend in person, a recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting. 1. Approve minutes of the March 17, 2026 Board of Assessment Review Hearing a. Draft March 17, 2026 Board of Assessment Review meeting minutes attached. Determination of Jurisdiction RE: Appeal of Assessment of 28 Meadow Avenue, 083A 2. A005001, Owners Kathleen Barron and Peter Dedych a. 28 Meadow Avenue Application for Appeal to Board of Assessment Review Attached b. Assessor's Response re 28 Meadow Avenue Attached 3. New Bussiness (if necessary) 4. Adjournment 1 Page 1  Board of Assessment Review Tuesday, March 17, 2026, 1:00 PM Meeting Minutes Eric Larsson, Chair Dale Knapp Lee Lowry The meeting convened at 3:05 p.m. on March 17, 2026 in Room 24 at Portland City Hall, 389 Congress Street, Portland Maine. Attendees: Board members Eric Larsson, Chair, Dale Knapp, and Lee Lowry, Attorney Jonathan Hunter representing the board, City Assessor Elisa Marr, Attorney for the city Michael Goldman, appellant, and board assistant Annie James. Also in attendance were Assessor’s staff Joe Montefusco. Gynt Grube, and Carl Marshall witnesses for the Assessor, attended remotely via Zoom. No members of the public attended. Board attendance was taken by roll call. Approve the Minutes of the March 11, 2026 Board of Assessment Review Meeting Board Chair Larsson moved to approve the minutes of the March 11, 2026 Board of Assessment Review Meeting. Board member Lowry seconded the motion, which was approved by a roll call vote of (3-0). Appeal from Patricia Bleech, 24 Willis Street Board Chair Larsson moved to find the Board had jurisdiction and Board member Knapp seconded, which was approved by a roll call vote of (3-0). The following individuals spoke: Eric Larsson, Lee Lowry, Patricia Bleech, Attorney Goldman, Elisa Marr, Attorney Hunter, Annie James. Board Chair Larsson introduced all parties and reviewed the meeting’s agenda. Board Chair Larsson opened the hearing of Patricia Bleech’s appeal. Ms. Bleech presented her argument and distributed paper copies of materials. When Ms. Bleech was finished presenting her argument, Board Chair Larsson invited the Assessors to ask questions. The following individuals asked questions: Attorney Goldman. Page 2 When the Assessors were finished asking questions, the Board was given an opportunity to ask the appellant questions. The following Board members asked questions: Lee Lowry, Eric Larsson, Dale Knapp. Board Chair Larsson invited the Assessors to present their response. The following individuals spoke: Attorney Goldman, Elisa Marr. When the Assessor was finished presenting her response, the Applicant was given an opportunity to ask the Assessor questions. The following individuals asked questions: Patricia Bleech. The following materials were displayed on the screen for the Board to review: Portland’s GIS website, which is a publicly available resource. When both parties were finished asking the Assessor questions, the Board was given an opportunity to ask questions. The Board did not have any questions for the Assessor. The Assessors brought forth witnesses Gynt Grube and Carl Marshall on behalf of the Assessor. The following individuals spoke: Gynt Grube, Attorney Goldman, Carl Marshall. The following materials were displayed on the screen for the Board to review: Assessor’s Exhibit 9 (a PowerPoint later admitted into evidence by the Board), as well as Portland’s GIS website, which is a publicly available resource. When the Assessor’s witnesses were finished speaking, the Board asked the witnesses questions. The following individuals spoke: Eric Larsson, Gynt Grube, Elisa Marr, Carl Marshall, Attorney Goldman, Attorney Hunter, Dale Knapp. When the Board was finished asking questions, the applicant was given an opportunity to ask the witnesses questions. The following individuals spoke: Patricia Bleech, Gynt Grube, Lee Lowry, Eric Larsson, Elisa Marr, Attorney Hunter, Carl Marshall, Dale Knapp. Board Chair Larsson invited the appellant to close their argument, which she does. The following individuals spoke: Patricia Bleech, Lee Lowry. Board Chair Larsson invited the Assessors to close their argument, which they do. The following individuals spoke: Attorney Goldman. Board Chair Larsson invited the appellant to rebut, which she does. The following individuals spoke: Patricia Bleech, Attorney Goldman, Attorney Hunter, Lee Lowry, Eric Larsson, Elisa Marr, Dale Knapp. 5 minute break was called at 3:41 p.m. The meeting resumed at 3:46 p.m. The appellant continued her rebuttal. The applicant introduced two additional materials, which were accepted into evidence by the Board titled: “Notice of Assessment Revaluation Response, and Tyler Notice of Assessment Revaluation.” Board Chair Larsson also officially admits Page 3 Assessor’s Exhibit 9 (PowerPoint) into evidence. The following individuals spoke: Eric Larsson, Patricia Bleech, Attorney Goldman, Attorney Hunter, Lee Lowry, Carl Marshall. Board Chair Larsson opened the hearing to public comment. No members of the public were present. The Board closed the public portion of the meeting and began their deliberations. Attorney Hunter provided a summary of the Board’s role as the decision-making body. The following individuals spoke: Attorney Hunter, Eric Larsson, Patricia Bleech, Lee Lowry, Dale Knapp. Carl Marshall and Gynt Grube departed the meeting at 4:33 p.m. Patricia Bleech departed the meeting at 4:33 p.m. Attorney Goldman and Elisa Marr departed the meeting at 4:34 p.m. The Board continued discussing the factual findings of the appeal. The following individuals spoke: Eric Larsson, Attorney Hunter, Dale Knapp, Lee Lowry. Attorney Hunter suggested a motion to deny the appeal based on the finding that the taxpayer did not demonstrate the assessment of the property was manifestly wrong, and because she presented no affirmative evidence of just value other than personal opinion which was not credited as affirmative evidence of just value, and listed the factual findings of the deliberation, which was moved by Board char Larsson. Board member Lowry seconded the motion, which was approved by a roll call vote of (3-0). Board Chair Larsson motioned to authorize the Board’s Attorney to prepare a written decision to be reviewed and signed within 10 days. Board member Lowry seconded the motion, which passed by a roll call vote of (3-0). Adjournment Board Chair Larsson moved and Board member Knapp seconded the motion to adjourn, which passed by a roll call vote of (3-0). The meeting concluded at 4:56 p.m. Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29  Office of Corporation Counsel Michael Goldman, Corporation Counsel Amy R. McNally, Associate Corporation Counsel Nicole M. Albert, Associate Corporation Counsel Rachel L. Millette, Associate Corporation Counsel Avery A. Dandreta, Associate Corporation Counsel Mary C. Christie, Associate Corporation Counsel MEMORANDUM To: Portland Board of Assessment Review, Eric Larsson, Chair From: Michael Goldman, Corporation Counsel on behalf of Elisa Marr, Assessor Date: June 16, 2026 Subject: Appeal to Board of Assessment Review; 28 Meadow Ave. 083A A005001 (“Property”) Kathleen Barron and Peter Dedych (Appellant) Assessor’s Submission re BOAR Jurisdiction ______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction The above-referenced appeal is scheduled for a hearing on June 23, 2026 for the limited purpose of determining whether the appeal should be dismissed for failure to file a timely application to the Board of Assessment Review. As set forth in more detail below, the City Assessor requests that the Board dismiss the Appeal on the ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and because the Appeal Application was not timely filed. Timeline The following is a timeline of events surrounding the filing of the Abatement and Appeal Applications in this matter. 12/16/2025 Appellant filed Abatement Application with City Assessor. (Assessor Exs. 1, 2). 12/31/2025 City Assessor’s Office received Abatement Application dated December 16, 2025. (Assessor Ex. 1). 389 Congress Street, Room 211 Portland, Maine 04101 | t: 207-874-8480 Page 30 1/20/2026 The City Assessor issued a 706-A request for additional information (Assessor Ex. 3). 2/3/2026 Appellant’s 706-A response filed; received on 2/11/2026 (Assessor Ex. 6). 2/14/2026 60th day after 12/16/2025 (Saturday). 2/16/2026 President’s Day/Holiday. 2/17/2026 Deemed denial date. 3/13/2026 Notice to Appellant that the Abatement Application was denied. (Assessor Ex. 4). 4/14/2026 Notice to Appellant that the Abatement Application was purportedly deemed denied on 3/1/26. (Assessor Ex. 5). 4/18/2026 60th day after 2/17/2026 (a Saturday). 4/20/2026 Deadline for filing appeal to Board of Assessment Review. 4/30/2026 Date of Appellant’s Application for Appeal (Assessor Ex. 2) 5/6/2026 Board of Assessment Review receives Appellant’s Application for Appeal (Assessor Ex. 2). List of Assessor’s Exhibits: • Assessor Exhibit 1 – Application For Abatement Of Property Taxes dated 12/16/25 (“Abatement Application”). • Assessor Exhibit 2 – Application For Appeal of Assessor’s Decision dated 4/30/26 (“Appeal Application”). • Assessor Exhibit 3 – 706-A Letter to Appellant dated 1/20//26 • Assessor Exhibit 4 – Notice of Action Letter to Appellant dated 3/13/26 • Assessor Exhibit 5 – Notice of Action Letter to Appellant dated 4/14/26 Argument Title 36 M.R.S. §842 provides in pertinent part as follows: 2 Page 31  The assessors or municipal officers shall give to any person applying to them for an abatement of taxes notice in writing of their decision upon the application within 10 days after they take final action thereon. The notice of decision must include the reason or reasons supporting the decision to approve or deny the abatement request and state that the applicant has 60 days from the date the notice is received to appeal the decision. It must also identify the board or agency designated by law to hear the appeal. If the assessors or municipal officers, before whom an application in writing for the abatement of a tax is pending, fail to give written notice of their decision within 60 days from the date of filing of the application, the application is deemed to have been denied, and the applicant may appeal as provided in sections 843 and 844, unless the applicant has in writing consented to further delay. Denial in this manner is final action for the purposes of notification under this section but failure to send notice of decision does not affect the applicant's right of appeal. (Emphasis added). Title 36 M.R.S. § 843 provides, “If a municipality has adopted a board of assessment review and the assessors or the municipal officers refuse to make the abatement asked for, the applicant may apply in writing to the board of assessment review within 60 days after notice of the decision from which the appeal is being taken or after the application is deemed to have been denied.” Title 36 M.R.S. § 153 ties the filing of abatement and appeal applications to the time of mailing, not the time of receipt, as follows: 1. Mail. If any document or payment required or permitted by this Title to be filed or paid is transmitted by the United States Postal Service to the person with whom or to whom the filing or payment is to be made, the date of the United States Postal Service postmark stamped on the envelope is deemed to be the date of filing or payment if that document or payment was deposited in the mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed to the person with whom or to whom the filing or payment is to be made. If the document or payment is not received by that person or if the postmark date is illegible, omitted or claimed to be erroneous, the document or payment is deemed to have been filed or paid on the mailing date if the sender establishes by competent evidence that the document or payment was deposited with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid and properly addressed, and, in the case of nonreceipt, files a duplicate document or makes payment, as the case may be, within 15 days after receipt of written notification by the addressee of the addressee's nonreceipt of the document or payment. A record authenticated by the United States Postal Service of mailing by registered mail, certified mail or certificate of mailing constitutes competent evidence of such mailing. Any reference in this section to the United States Postal Service is deemed to include a reference to any delivery service designated by the United States Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 7502(f)(2) of the Code, and any reference in this section to a postmark of the United States Postal Service is deemed to include a reference to any date 3 Page 32  recorded or marked as described in section 7502(f)(2)(C) of the Code by any such designated delivery service. 2. Weekends and holidays. When the last day, including any extension of time, prescribed under this Title for the performance of an act falls on Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday in this State, the performance of that act is timely if it occurs on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday in this State. (Emphasis added). As the Maine State Board Of Property Tax Review has explained, municipal assessors have no responsibility to notify a taxpayer when an application is deemed denied, and the taxpayer has the responsibility to keep track of deadlines. As the State Board pointed out in one case, "If a municipality does not act on an application, as it is entitled to do, that is the end of the matter at the assessor level. Assessors have no obligation then to notify a taxpayer of their non-decision. It is the responsibility of the taxpayer to know when its application for an abatement will be deemed denied if a municipality does not act on it." Dirigo Dowels & Pins, Inc. v. Town of New Portland, No. 2000-007, at 5 n.2 (BPTR Apr. 11, 2002); see also Peckham & Trott v. Town of Lake View Plantation, No. 2014-003 at 5 (BPTR Oct. 24, 2014) ("It is the obligation of a taxpayer to know when a statutory period for an appeal begins to run and when it ends. It is not the assessors' job to notify taxpayers of a deemed denial; taxpayers have the responsibility to keep track of appeal period deadlines.) As the State Board further explained in Peckham, a taxpayer’s failure to timely appeal deprives the board of jurisdiction, and the board’s jurisdiction cannot be established by concession or waiver by a municipality. Peckham at 6. In this case, the Appellant filed their Abatement Application for abatement on December 16, 2025. The City Assessor never requested additional time to issue a decision on that Application, and the Appellant never consented in writing to a delay beyond the 60-day period allowed under section 842. Accordingly, the Abatement Application was deemed to have been denied on February 17, 2026, which was the first day that was not weekend day or holiday after the 60th day after December 16, 2025. The Appellant then had until April 20, 2026, which was the first day that was not weekend day or holiday after the 60th day after February 17, 2026, to appeal to this Board. Because the Applicant signed that Appeal Application under oath and dated the Appeal Application as April 30, 2026, the Appellant’s Appeal Application could not have been filed on or before the April 20 deadline. See Assessor Ex. 2. The date stamp of May 6, 2026 located on the Appeal Application supports this conclusion. It is important to note that due to clerical errors, the City Assessor’s Office did send letters to the Appellant dated March 13, 2026 and April 14, 2026 that erroneously stated that the deemed denial date was March 1, 2026 and included a 60-day appeal notice, but as explained above, appeal deadlines are jurisdictional. Although the City Assessor’s statements might have caused some confusion, those errors do not relieve the Appellant from being responsible for knowing the appeal deadlines and those errors do not extend the statutory appeal deadlines or reestablish the Board’s jurisdiction to hear this appeal. 4 Page 33 For the reasons set forth above, the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the Appellant’s Appeal Application was not timely filed. Accordingly, the City Assessor respectfully requests that the Board dismiss this appeal. 5 Page 34  ASSESSOR EXHIBIT 1 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41  ASSESSOR EXHIBIT 2 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51  ASSESSOR EXHIBIT 3 Page 52  ASSESSOR EXHIBIT 4 Page 53  ASSESSOR EXHIBIT 5 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59