Portland board adopts procedural order, sets tentative July 10 hearing and confidentiality process for assessment appeals

PORTLAND — The Portland Board of Assessment Review on May 22 adopted a procedural order that sets a tentative in-person hearing for July 10, identifies 37 Casco Street as the first “test” appeal among a group of consolidated appeals, and establishes a process for handling confidential materials that parties may resubmit to the board.

The action, adopted by a 3-0 roll-call vote, formalizes earlier informal agreement among appellants and the assessor’s office to pause strict submission deadlines while the parties attempt to reach a resolution. Board Chair Eric Larson said during the meeting, "this is my first not only my first meeting of the board of assessment review, but my first meeting as chair," as he led members through procedural planning.

Board counsel Steven Wagner summarized the meeting’s purpose: "Everything you said is accurate. The point of today's proceedings is to set out a course of procedure for all the appeals," and urged the board to set a schedule that the parties could use if settlement talks do not resolve the consolidated appeals.

Why it matters: The board’s action creates a schedule and processes that structure how a large group of property tax appeals — described in the meeting as roughly 34 separate filings consolidated for procedural planning — would proceed if the parties cannot resolve them. The board also agreed to a confidentiality pathway for proprietary financial or other sensitive documents that appellants want to keep from public posting.

What the board decided and the schedule it endorsed - The board adopted a procedural order as modified at the meeting. The order was approved by all three members present (Eric Larson, Dale Knapp and Lee Lowry). The secretary conducted the roll call and recorded the vote as 3–0 in favor. - The board designated 37 Casco Street as the representative test case to be heard first among the consolidated appeals. Appellants’ counsel and representatives (identified in the record as counsel Steven Langsdorf and representatives David Bergeron and Tom Watson of Reveler Development / Reveler LLC and related entities) confirmed 37 Casco Street would be the first substantive appeal if hearings go forward. - Parties proposed and the board tentatively set a hearing date of July 10 for the test matter. To support that date the group agreed on target submission dates if a formal hearing becomes necessary: applicant materials to be filed by June 11, assessor response by June 18, and any reply by June 20 (the parties discussed and adjusted these dates during the meeting). The board recorded an extended deadline to issue a written decision as July 20 to allow additional time if needed.

Confidentiality and public posting Board counsel and the assessor’s counsel discussed a procedure for handling documents that appellants consider confidential. The parties agreed that appellants should resubmit any materials they want treated as confidential and mark them as such under the board’s applicable procedural rule cited in the meeting (referred to repeatedly as “706a” in the record). The board’s staff confirmed that materials previously posted to the public website had been removed pending the submission of designated confidential versions.

On public comment and participation Members and counsel discussed whether a formal public-comment period should be part of these proceedings. Several participants — including counsel for the applicant and members of the board — said these appeals are quasi‑judicial in nature and not analogous to typical land‑use hearings that often include public comment. The board left the decision about whether to permit public comment at a future substantive hearing to the chair’s discretion.

Remote participation and witnesses The order instructs that hearings will be held in person unless the chair determines otherwise under the board’s remote‑participation policy and state law (the transcript cites 1 M.R.S. § 403‑B). The group agreed the preference is for in‑person proceedings and that remote participation would be allowed for parties or witnesses only if the chair authorizes it after consultation with counsel. Counsel for the assessor noted a couple of potential out‑of‑state expert witnesses and asked the board to consider whether the city or parties would bear travel expense if in‑person attendance were required; the board said it would confirm logistics and expectations after the parties’ June 4 meet-and-confer.

Other procedural notes - The board reaffirmed that, by consensus, prior filing deadlines under “Rule 6” were being temporarily waived under “Rule 2” (as discussed at the meeting) so the parties could meet and attempt settlement without losing their opportunity to be heard. - Counsel discussed the possibility that the board could make a determination on a common legal question using the test case; if the board’s legal ruling resolved the common issue, that ruling could be applied across the consolidated appeals. If factual issues remain that differ by property — e.g., different calculations or comparables — the board acknowledged it might need to hear evidence in each individual appeal.

Votes at a glance - Approval of minutes from the May 5 meeting: approved (voice/roll call recorded as yes by Eric Larson, Dale Knapp, Lee Lowry). - Adoption of the May 22 procedural order as modified (includes tentative July 10 hearing, confidentiality process, submission timeline): adopted, roll-call vote 3–0 (Eric Larson, Dale Knapp, Lee Lowry). - Motion to adjourn: adopted, roll-call vote 3–0.

Who spoke (selected) - Eric Larson, Chair, Portland Board of Assessment Review (board member). Present and presided over the meeting. - Dale Knapp, Board member, Portland Board of Assessment Review. - Lee Lowry, Alternate member, Portland Board of Assessment Review (sat on panel for this meeting). - Steven Wagner, Board counsel, Rudman Winchell (attorney for the board). - Leah Raichin, (identified as representing the assessor; counsel listed as Drummond Woodson in the record). - Lisa Maher, City Assessor. - Steven Langsdorf, Attorney for the appellants. - David Bergeron, Chief Strategy Officer, Reveler Development (management company for appellants). - Tom Watson, President, Reveler (property owner / appellant representative).

What happens next The parties told the board they will meet on June 4 to continue settlement discussions. If those talks do not resolve the matters, the board will treat the June deadlines and the July 10 hearing date as operative; the parties indicated they will submit a written waiver that extends the board’s internal 60‑day decision window if necessary. The board recorded that, if hearings proceed, it may extend the deadline for written findings and decisions to accommodate the work required across multiple appeals.

Ending note The board completed the procedural order and scheduling items and adjourned following a recorded roll‑call vote. The board staff indicated it will finalize the order, gather signatures and handle public‑posting updates following the parties’ resubmissions of any documents designated confidential.