A Citizen’s Guide for Fair & Transparent Property Tax Valuations

DEADLINES AND PUBLIC PROCESS

Get my comprehensive parcel analysis
Look up your parcel, then press the red button on its review for a printable packet of the public record for that parcel.

This page lists dates and public processes as published by Maine Revenue Services (MRS) and Maine statute. It does not say whether any owner should file anything or what any filing should contain.

1. Dates

The Town’s FY 2026–2027 real estate commitment, the first on the 2026 revaluation values, is dated 5 August 2026 (the signed Certificate of Assessment and the cards print 08/05/2026) at 9.60 mills. Under 36 M.R.S. §841 an abatement application must be filed with the assessors within 185 days of commitment, which from 5 August 2026 is 6 February 2027. The FY 2025–2026 commitment, the last on the old values, was dated 20 August 2025 at 19.55 mills. Tax due dates printed on the cards: 15 October 2026 and 15 April 2027.

2. The abatement timeline, as the State and the statutes describe it

3. Who decides

Otisfield’s commitment papers are signed by more than one person on the “Municipal Assessor(s)” lines, consistent with a board of assessors. The property record cards and the revaluation were produced by John E. O’Donnell & Associates as the Town’s assessing agent. The revaluation contract has not been produced to this site (see the contract page), so what it says about hearings and the defense of values is not known here.

4. Other deadlines on the public record

• Homestead exemption, Tree Growth, Farmland and Open Space applications: 1 April (see the Relief programs page).
• Select Board and assessors’ meeting dates are posted by the Town; this site does not track them.

ABOUT THE REVALUATION

The Town of Otisfield’s 2026 town-wide revaluation was carried out by John E. O’Donnell & Associates, Inc., the Town’s assessing agent, with values as of 1 April 2026. The firm published a “Proposed Values” list in June 2026 at an estimated rate of 9.65 mills; the Town committed the roll on 5 August 2026 at 9.60 mills. The year before, the Town had certified its assessments to the State at 63% of market value (Maine Revenue Services, 2025 Municipal Valuation Return), down from 100% through 2021, 95% in 2022, 75% in 2023 and 65% in 2024.

The revaluation more than doubled the town’s taxable real estate, from $320,260,210 to $721,658,382 (land plus buildings, commitment books), and the mill rate fell from 19.55 to 9.60. The tax committed rose from $6,060,318 to $6,706,052 (+10.7%). Because every parcel was revalued at once, what happened to any one bill depends on whether that parcel’s value rose more or less than the town as a whole: the median parcel rose 2.26× and the median tax bill rose 12.4%, but 482 bills fell and 1,286 rose. The Winners & losers and Waterfront burden pages set that out by class and by lake.

How to use it. Look up a parcel; read its review; open the comprehensive analysis if you want a printable packet of the public record for that parcel, with the charts that place its grade and condition against the rest of the town and the State’s PT103 guideline. The standards pages set the State assessor-training manual (PT103) and the IAAO’s published standards beside how Otisfield’s cards record condition, obsolescence and grade, so each reader can draw his or her own conclusions.

This is a private website. It is not associated with the Town of Otisfield or with John E. O’Donnell & Associates. Not legal advice; not an appraisal.

After the notices: what changed before commitment

The firm published a “Proposed Values” list for the 2026 revaluation in June 2026, at an estimated tax rate of .00965, and the notices sent to owners carried those figures. The Town committed the roll on 5 August 2026 at .00960. Setting the two side by side, account by account:

The record does not say why a value changed. The ordinary reason is an informal hearing with the firm between the notice and commitment; an owner whose value fell at a hearing was not told by any public document, and neither were the neighbors whose share of the levy rose by the same amount. The proposed list could not be read for 78 of its 1,843 printed rows, mostly rows whose map-lot wrapped onto a second line in the PDF.

Every account that changed

Sources: “Otisfield, Maine Proposed Values, 2026 Revaluation, Estimated Tax Rate .00965” (the firm’s PDF, also posted on its website); the Town’s FY 2026–27 real estate commitment book.

Winners & losers

A revaluation does not change how much the Town raises; it changes who pays what share. The levy rose 10.7% between the two commitments, so a parcel whose value rose by exactly the town-wide multiple (2.25×) pays about 10.7% more. A parcel that rose less pays a smaller share than before; one that rose more pays a larger share. Of the 1,774 parcels with a tax in both years:

By sub-class, the median bill for a house not on the water rose +4.9%, for a waterfront house or camp +15.3%, for vacant land +23.6%, for vacant waterfront land +41.3%, for a mobile or manufactured home +21.8%, and for a parcel with outbuildings only +51.6%. The pattern is the same one the pricing schedules would predict: the revaluation raised land more than buildings (150% against 101%), so parcels whose value is mostly land moved most.

The 25 largest increases in the bill

The 25 largest decreases in the bill

Tax figures are as printed in the two commitment books, after exemptions. A bill can change because an exemption was added or removed, a building was added or removed, or land was split, as well as because of the revaluation; the card’s visit history and the deed line show which. This page lists public figures; it does not say whether any value is right.

Waterfront burden

442 of the 1,920 parcels in both commitment books carry a frontage line on a named water body. Before the revaluation those parcels paid $2,744,959 of the real estate tax (46.0%); after it they pay $3,189,374 (48.3%). The other 1,478 parcels went from $3,220,557 to $3,411,586 (+5.9%).

The waterfront pricing schedule (see pricing) prices the first 50 feet of frontage at $3,000 a foot on Thompson Lake and Pleasant Lake, $2,000 on Saturday Pond and $1,300 on Moose Pond, falling in steps for longer frontage. The firm’s sales studies contain 8 sales it classed as “Waterfront” across both years, which is the sample behind those prices (see the sales ratio studies).

Frontage and water-body names are read from each card’s land lines. A parcel across the road from a lake without a frontage line is counted as inland here. The record does not show why Saturday Pond moved more than Pleasant Lake; the schedule and the sales behind it are the place to look.

Exempt properties and exemptions

The FY 2026–27 commitment book carries $25,642,027 of exemptions against $721,658,382 of land and buildings. 491 parcels claim the homestead exemption ($12,275,000 in total; $25,000 each for 2026–27, up from $20,000 the year before). Other exemptions on the cards: Veteran (Maine) (61), Municipal/County Gov (29), Benevolent/Charitable/Hospital (7), House of Worship (2), Literary/Scientific (1), Veteran (Double) (1).

Accounts with no taxable value

39 accounts in the commitment book carry land or buildings but a net assessment of $0, $12,889,027 in all: the Town’s own property, the school district, churches, and other owners exempt by statute. They are listed as printed.

Source: the FY 2026–27 real estate commitment book and the 2026–27 property record cards. The homestead exemption is reimbursed by the State at 76% of the exempt value (the signed tax-rate calculation form prints $9,411,784 of reimbursement value on $12,383,926 exempt). An exempt owner’s share of the levy is carried by everyone else.

The sales ratio studies, by sub-class

What the studies are

The Town produced two one-page Sales Ratio Analysis, OtisfieldReval reports (Oxford County). The first covers 2024: 21 sales, filtered to “BuildingValue > 0 AND Sale Date between 1/1/2024 and 12/31/2024”; header as printed, Weighted Average 104%, Average Ratio 101%, Average Deviation 4 (92 / 21), Quality Rating 4. The second covers 2025–26: 24 sales, “BuildingValue > 0 AND Sale Date between 1/1/2025 and 12/31/2026” (the latest sale printed is 2 March 2026); header as printed, Weighted Average 99%, Average Ratio 100%, Average Deviation 4 (93 / 24), Quality Rating 4. The printed Average Deviation is the same kind of measure as the coefficient of dispersion (COD), shown as a whole number. The ratios test the 2026 revaluation values against the sale prices. This site calculates the figures below, to two decimals, from the 45 printed ratios. The full analysis is in the COD document (PDF).

Statistics calculated from the printed ratios

Median is the middle ratio. Weighted mean is total assessed value divided by total selling price. COD is the average absolute distance of the ratios from the median, as a percent of the median. PRD (price-related differential) is the mean ratio divided by the weighted mean. Classes with fewer than eight sales give unstable dispersion figures; the Water Access class (4 sales) and the Waterfront class (8 sales) are both below that line even with the two years combined.

The published guidelines

Sub-classes compared: the firm’s studies, the roll, and the State’s RETTD types

Each Otisfield parcel is placed in one sub-class from its card (a frontage line on a named lake or pond means waterfront; the main building type sets the rest). “Roll” is parcels on the 2026–27 roll. “Study” is sales the firm printed in that class across both studies. “RETTD” counts the transfer-tax declarations for Otisfield with a price above $0, dated 1 January 2025 to 31 March 2026 and not marked unusable, by the property type the parties reported. The firm prints a class on every sale, including a “Water Access” class that cannot be identified from a property record card.

How the studies compare with the transfers on record

• The RETTD files produced by the Town hold 255 declarations dated July 2024 to June 2026; 135 carry a price above $0. 44 of those are dated 1 January 2025 to 31 March 2026 and not marked unusable by the assessors.
• Of the firm’s 45 sales, 40 can be found in the RETTD file by book and page. 5 cannot.
• 21 improved-property transfers in the RETTD file dated 1 January 2025 to 31 March 2026 at $25,000 or more are not in the 2025–26 study; the assessors marked 9 of them unusable and 12 usable. The study does not say why a usable sale was left out.
• The studies list sales only; they list no appraisals of the kind Rule 201 §3(D) counts toward the minimum.
• Mobile and manufactured homes are 169 roll parcels with 6 sales, printed inside the “Rural Residential” class rather than as a class of their own. Vacant land (547 parcels) is outside both studies by their filter (building value above $0), although the revaluation raised land more than buildings.
• The COD calculated here is 4.20 for both studies together (4.29 and 3.96 separately), below the IAAO’s 5.0 floor; the printed Average Deviation is 4. The median ratio is 1.00; the weighted mean is 1.014; PRD 0.994.

Sources: Town of Otisfield, Sales Ratio Analysis, OtisfieldReval (J.E. O’Donnell & Associates), two reports, produced under a Freedom of Access Act request; Otisfield Real Estate Transfer Analysis workbooks (RETTD data), produced by the Town; Maine Revenue Services Rule Chapter 201. RETTD property type is reported by the parties and does not show whether a transfer was arm’s-length.

All 45 sales in the two studies

The revaluation contract

Not produced. The Freedom of Access Act production received from the Town of Otisfield contains the commitment books, the signed commitment papers, the two sales ratio studies, the pricing schedules and the transfer-tax workbooks. It does not contain the contract between the Town and John E. O’Donnell & Associates for the 2026 revaluation, any bid or proposal, or any disclosure of interest. This page will be written when the contract is produced.

What a contract of this kind ordinarily sets, from the firm’s signed contracts with neighboring towns that have been produced (Norway, 19 February 2026; Bridgton, 14 January 2025): the price and payment schedule; the valuation date; whether every building is to be measured and photographed or only those that sold; the sales period and the target assessment ratio; who makes final valuation decisions; notice and hearing procedure; the qualifications of the staff; that the records become the Town’s property; and that the firm will defend the values at appeal. Which of those terms Otisfield’s contract contains is unknown here.

Anyone may request the contract from the Town Clerk under 1 M.R.S. §408-A. If you obtain it, the feedback page is the way to let this site know.

The pricing schedules

The Town produced the firm’s 2026 “Revaluation” pricing schedules for Otisfield: building prices per square foot with grade and area factors, base-acre and additional-acre land tables, waterfront price per foot by water body, and site-improvement grades. They are reproduced below from the PDFs on the documents page; the land tables are on the Land tables page. The schedules are the firm’s; the State’s assessor-training manual (PT103) is a separate standard.

Waterfront price per foot of frontage, by water body

Thompson Lake and Pleasant Lake carry the same schedule ($3,000 a foot for the first 50 feet, $150,000 for 50 feet). Saturday Pond is $2,000 and Moose Pond $1,300 for the first 50 feet. The price per foot falls with each band, so a 200-foot lot is not priced at four times a 50-foot lot.

Site improvements

Building price per square foot (selected styles)

Grade factors

The schedule multiplies a style’s base price by a factor for the grade shown on the card. Grade is on a 1–10 scale; the factor steps printed for the first style in the schedule are:

The grade factors printed in the schedule are factors, not definitions. The firm has published no written definition of what a grade of 1 to 10 is, and no crosswalk to the five grade levels in PT103, so what any firm grade equals on the State’s scale is UNKNOWN. Styles also carry an area factor that falls as size rises; the full table is in the Building Pricing PDF (37 pages).

Land tables, frontage & site improvements

Every land value on an Otisfield card is built from three schedules: a base acre table (ten tables, 1 to 10, each pricing the first acre and fractions of it), an additional acre table (a falling price per acre for land beyond the first), and for lake and pond lots a waterfront table priced per foot of frontage. A site improvement charge, graded 1 to 10 at a flat dollar amount, is added for well, septic, driveway and power. The firm has published the tables but no written rule for which table a parcel is assigned to.

Which base table the parcels were put in

The first acre is worth $17,600 on Table 1 and $616,000 on Table 10, a 35-fold range. The table a parcel is assigned to is the single largest land decision on the card, and the record contains no written criterion for it.

Base acre pricing (first acre and fractions), as published

Additional acreage: price per acre by band, as published

Bands: 0–1, 1–3, 3–10, 10–25, 25–50, 50–100, 100–200, 200–300 acres.

Site improvement grades on the roll

Grade 3 ($35,000) is on 956 of the 1,320 parcels carrying a site-improvement line. No definition of the grades has been published; the charge is the same whether the well is drilled or dug, and whether the driveway is paved or gravel, unless the grade changes.

See also the pricing schedules page for the waterfront and building tables, and the Waterfront burden page.

WHAT ARE CONDITION & OBSOLESCENCE?

Every building on the 2026 roll starts as a brand-new replacement cost — what it would cost to build that exact structure today — and then gets marked down by three separate judgment calls. Condition asks how worn out it is. Functional obsolescence asks whether something about its own design makes it worth less, no matter how well it is kept up. Economic obsolescence asks whether something outside the property line — something the owner cannot fix — is dragging its value down. None of the three change what the building physically is. All three change what a real buyer would actually pay for it.

Otisfield’s 2026 revaluation, like the firm’s other revaluations, was an exterior assessment: the fieldwork was observation and measurement of each building’s outside footprint, backed by photographs, not a walk-through of the inside. That matters here specifically, because two of these three judgment calls — condition and functional obsolescence — are largely about what a house is like inside: a worn kitchen, a failing furnace, an awkward floor plan, a bathroom that was never finished. None of that was seen firsthand on this pass. It was inferred from the outside and applied anyway.

1. Condition — how worn out it is

Condition is physical wear: an old roof, worn floors, a furnace due for replacement — the stuff that comes with age and use on any building, however well it was built. It is written as a percentage of “like new.”

An exterior visit can genuinely see quite a lot, if it looks: a foundation that has visibly cracked, shifted or settled; original single-pane wood windows, especially where the glazing has failed or a pane is cracked; a porch, deck or set of steps with rotted, sagging or missing boards; a roof with curling, missing or moss-covered shingles, or a visible sag in the roofline; siding that is missing, rotted, or has gone years without paint. Each of these can be seen from the street, which is what an exterior-only review looks at.

2. Functional obsolescence — a flaw built in

Functional obsolescence is a markdown for something about the building’s own design that the market discounts regardless of maintenance: an outbuilding too large for what the lot can use, a layout nobody would build today, one bathroom for a house with four bedrooms.

3. Economic (external) obsolescence — a problem next door

Economic obsolescence is a markdown for something outside the property line that the owner cannot fix: a derelict building next door, a busy highway, a block that has gone visibly blighted. It is supposed to apply evenly to every property exposed to the same condition — not to some of them and not others.

How Otisfield’s cards apply the three

1,285 of 7,099 building rows on the 2026–27 roll carry a functional markdown and 15 an economic one; the most common condition on a main house is 85%. Two cards with a functional markdown, as printed: R01-006 (1-Story House, condition 85%, functional 90%, economic 100%). R01-006-D (1-Story House, condition 40%, functional 40%, economic 100%). The card does not say what the markdown is for. See the Condition & obsolescence guide for the full breakdown and the standards behind each factor, and Condition ratings, by percentage for what each rating describes.

Condition (“percent good”): the standard and the 2026 cards

“PT103” is Valuation of Real Estate, Maine Revenue Services assessor-training course (Chapter 4, The Cost Approach). “IAAO” is the International Association of Assessing Officers. Page numbers are the manual’s printed page numbers. Otisfield figures are counts of building rows on the 2026–27 property record cards the firm publishes for the committed roll. This page describes; it does not say what any owner should do, and it is not legal advice or an appraisal.

What PT103 says

• Definition (p. 80). “Condition is equal to the value of property after depreciation, divided by the property value before depreciation.” Depreciation is the difference between replacement cost new and market value.
• What it includes (pp. 64–65). Condition is the value of a structure “after wear and tear and obsolescence have been recognized.” Physical deterioration plus functional and external obsolescence together are depreciation. A building with 25% depreciation is in 75% condition. Condition applies whatever the grade: “Grade is associated with construction, while condition is associated with destruction.”
• How it is set (p. 81). By the direct (“breakdown”) method, inspecting the structure’s components, correlated with the marketplace. “Depreciation must be determined by observation, informed judgment, and study in each instance.” The actual physical condition and the structure’s relationship to comparable structures must be taken into account.
• Benchmarks (p. 81). Excellent 90% condition (10% depreciation); Good 80%; Average 70%; Fair 60%; Poor 50%; Unserviceable below 50%, “according to degree of deterioration.”
• Age example (pp. 64–65). A 45-year-old ranch house: recent sales showed about one-half percent depreciation per year, 45 × 0.5% = 22.5%, so 77.5% condition.
• Date (pp. 81–82). Condition is as of April 1. Only past events count; a demolition scheduled for April 2 does not affect April 1.

What the IAAO says

• Glossary. Depreciation is the loss in value relative to replacement cost new from any cause; it is sometimes divided into physical deterioration, functional obsolescence and external obsolescence (quoted in PT103 p. 80).
• Standard on Mass Appraisal of Real Property. Depreciation estimates should rest on non-cost (sales) data and schedules should be extracted from sales; subjective codes such as grade and condition should be coded correctly at least 90% of the time and objective characteristics 95%; on-site review of property characteristics at least every 4 to 6 years.

Other published scale (not a Maine standard)

The lending industry’s Uniform Appraisal Dataset rates condition C1 to C6. The assessment-manual “CDU” ladders descend from Marshall & Swift. They are listed here because several of them describe each step in words; PT103 gives the percentages above.

Note that the two scales do not match step for step: PT103 puts Poor at 50% and Unserviceable below it; the CDU ladder puts Poor at 40–55%.

What Otisfield’s 2026–27 cards record

Building rows by condition rating, set against PT103’s benchmarks. Otisfield has only the one set of cards (the committed 2026–27 roll).

165 building rows are at exactly 60% (PT103’s “Fair” benchmark) and 107 are below it. For the main building of the 1,100 houses and camps, the most common condition is 85% (282 houses), and the median is 85%. The firm has published no written scale for condition percentages in Otisfield. Only 152 of those houses carry a year built on the card, so the condition-against-age chart in each comprehensive analysis is drawn from that minority and from the year the owner enters.

See Every structure: condition on the 2026–27 roll (PDF) and Condition against age, with the PT103 line (PDF).

Condition ratings, by percentage

Every building row on an Otisfield card carries a condition percentage. This page sets each rating that appears on the main houses and camps of the 2026–27 roll against the State’s own scale and the age it would describe at the manual’s example rate. The Maine Assessment Manual benchmarks, as reproduced in Maine Revenue Services’ assessor-training manual PT103 (rev. Feb. 2026), p. 81: Excellent 90% · Good 80% · Average 70% · Fair 60% · Poor 50% · Unserviceable below 50%, “according to degree of deterioration.” The manual’s worked example (pp. 64–65) depreciates a house at “approximately one-half percent per year.”

Taken at the manual’s example rate, the cards describe a town whose typical house is 30 years old. Otisfield’s houses are mostly older than that: of the 152 main houses with a year on the card, the median year built is 2007, and that sample leans toward recent construction (the firm records a year on the card chiefly for buildings it has permitted or repriced). The condition-against-age chart in each comprehensive analysis lets an owner place a house of known age against this scale.

Sources: PT103 pp. 64–65 and 81; the firm’s 2026–27 property record cards (7,099 building rows on 1,932 accounts), tallied by this site. Example parcels are the first three on the roll in map-lot order at each rating, chosen by position, not by any judgment about them.

Functional obsolescence: the standard and the 2026 cards

“PT103” is Valuation of Real Estate, Maine Revenue Services assessor-training course (Chapter 4, The Cost Approach). “IAAO” is the International Association of Assessing Officers. Page numbers are the manual’s printed page numbers. Otisfield figures are counts of building rows on the 2026–27 property record cards the firm publishes for the committed roll. This page describes; it does not say what any owner should do, and it is not legal advice or an appraisal.

What PT103 says

• Definition (p. 65). “A decrease in value due to a change in demand, usually because of a shift in consumer tastes or of market standards.” It is calculated the same way as depreciation, on replacement cost new less depreciation.
• IAAO definition quoted (p. 82). A “[l]oss in value of a property resulting from changes in tastes, preferences, technical innovations, or market standards.” It results from causes contained within the structure itself.
• The test (p. 82). Ask whether a similar structure built today would keep all the general characteristics of the subject property in design, size, materials and facilities.
• Curable or incurable (p. 82). Curable: a lack that is easily corrected, such as the need for a second bathroom. Incurable: not economically feasible to cure, such as poor room layout.
• Categories (pp. 82–83). Super-adequacy (a quality higher than current standards); inadequacy (falls short of market expectations: too small, too few rooms, limited facilities, lack of storage); lack of desirability; eccentric design; atypical layouts (poor use of floor area, access to the rest of the home through a bedroom); outmoded equipment (plumbing, electrical outlets and GFI, heating such as a fireplace as the only heat or no central heat).
• No double counting (p. 65). A grade reduction and functional obsolescence should not be applied to the same feature. Manual example: lesser-quality vinyl siding is a grade matter; a single bathroom in a house where new houses have two is functional obsolescence.
• Worked example (pp. 65, 85–86). A basement with six feet of headroom: municipal studies show 10% functional obsolescence, so $116,250 × 0.90 = $104,625. A one-bath house carries 5% in the manual’s later example.

What the IAAO says

The IAAO Glossary defines functional obsolescence as loss in value from lack of utility or desirability inherent to the improvement. The Standard on Mass Appraisal calls for depreciation schedules extracted from sales data.

What Otisfield’s 2026–27 cards record

Functional markdowns on the cards range from 10% to 95%. Most frequent building types carrying a functional markdown: Shed (215), 1-Story (146), 1-Story House (128), Open Porch (OP) (128), Deck (93), Enclosed Porch (EP) (88), Barn (66), Bunkhouse (52). By class of parcel: Frame house, 1 storey: 140; Mobile / manufactured home: 61; Frame house, 1½ storey: 58; Frame house, 2 storey or more: 45; Frame house, 1¾ storey: 35; Outbuilding only: 18; Commercial / institutional / other: 1.

1,285 of 7,099 building rows (18.1%) carry a functional factor below 100%. Across the firm’s 33 other towns the share was 19.4% of building rows (this site’s firm-wide tally, Norway Parcel Review); in Norway at commitment it was 6.9%.

Economic (external) obsolescence: the standard and the 2026 cards

“PT103” is Valuation of Real Estate, Maine Revenue Services assessor-training course (Chapter 4, The Cost Approach). “IAAO” is the International Association of Assessing Officers. Page numbers are the manual’s printed page numbers. Otisfield figures are counts of building rows on the 2026–27 property record cards the firm publishes for the committed roll. This page describes; it does not say what any owner should do, and it is not legal advice or an appraisal.

What PT103 says

• Definition (p. 65). “A loss of value due to external factors.” Examples given: the condition of other houses in the neighborhood and the presence of commercial property in an area that was once residential only. It is calculated after depreciation and functional obsolescence.
• Causes (pp. 83–85). Loss arising from causes external to the property, which the owner cannot control: oversupply of equally desirable properties; changes in the character of neighboring properties, such as rezoning for commercial or industrial use (the closer, the greater the loss); a neighborhood’s collective lack of attention to maintenance; loss of a major employer; availability of services; accessibility and road condition; topography.
• Where it is applied (p. 84). The manual says external obsolescence “is usually reflected in the site value, and care should be taken not to apply an external obsolescence to the site value. External obsolescence should be applied to the improvements.”
• Card headings (p. 85). Neighborhood; accessibility; utilities; services; topography; other.
• Worked example (p. 65). A 5% external obsolescence for a retail store built down the street: $104,625 × 0.95 = $99,394, rounded to $99,400. The manual’s later example, an established neighborhood of similar-aged homes, has none.
• Summary (p. 85). It cannot be controlled or fixed by the owner and “often, it has a greater impact on value than other depreciation considerations.”

What the IAAO says

The IAAO Glossary describes external obsolescence as loss from poor location or radically diminished demand. The Standard on Mass Appraisal says an external-obsolescence factor applied at neighborhood or district level should come out of market analysis and be validated by ratio-study performance within each stratum.

Another published view (not the Maine manual)

Longhofer, “Land Values and External Obsolescence,” The Appraisal Journal (2021), argues that an external condition usually lowers the land’s value first, so a building factor on top of a market-based land value can count the same loss twice, and that the structure itself carries external obsolescence only where its current use is not the site’s highest and best use. This differs from PT103 p. 84, quoted above. It is included so readers can see both treatments; PT103 is the Maine assessor-training standard.

What Otisfield’s 2026–27 cards record

Economic markdowns on the cards range from 90% to 95%. Parcels with an economic markdown, by class: Frame house, 2 storey or more: 2; Frame house, 1½ storey: 1. Most frequent building types carrying one: Shed (3), 2-Story House (2), 1-Story (2), Enclosed Porch (EP) (2), 1½-Story House (1), Open Porch (OP) (1), Deck (1), Lean-to/Roof-over (1).

Where the factor sits on the card matters under the manual (PT103 p. 84: applied to the improvements, not the site) and under the outside view quoted above (land first). Otisfield’s cards carry the factor on the building row.

Building grade classifications, grades 1–5 (all ten PT103 components)

Grade measures quality of construction. Maine’s own assessor-training curriculum breaks a building into ten components — foundation, basement, framing, roof, interior, exterior, floors, heating, plumbing and electrical — each scored on the same five-point scale and averaged to produce the building’s overall grade. The five grades are lettered A through E and carry the point values A (5), B (4), C (3), D (2) and E (1), running from architecturally designed, contractor-built construction at the top to basic, inadequate shelter at the bottom.

The tables below are the manual’s own component-by-component grading schedule: the physical construction standard an assessor is trained to look for when scoring each of the ten components at each grade level, starting with foundation.

1. Foundation

^*Printed exactly as “Wall, poured concrete 8” 7’” in the source with no separating punctuation; read in context as an 8-inch-thick wall at 7 feet in height, alongside the 7-foot concrete block wall as an alternative Grade 3 wall construction.

Read down each column: the manual lists the construction features an assessor is trained to find present at that grade level, from bare excavation and wood posts at Grade 1 to a full-height poured-concrete wall, insulation, two-sided drain tile and ample finish grading at Grade 5. These are the features associated with each grade, not a strict checklist — the manual does not state a minimum number of items a foundation must have to earn a given grade.

Alternate foundation types

The same schedule separately assigns grade-point values to specific foundation types that fall outside the excavation/footing/wall structure above — posts, sonotubes and frost walls typically used under slab or crawlspace construction:

This is state training material for assessors, not Otisfield’s own cost schedule. The O’Donnell cards used for the 2026 revaluation express grade as a single multiplier (see the Condition & obsolescence guide), and neither the firm’s own grade schedule nor its component-specific criteria have been published for Otisfield. These tables are the state’s own published standard for what a given component grade is supposed to represent physically — a benchmark for comparing what a card claims against what a building actually is.

Source: Maine Revenue Services, Property Tax Division, PT103 — Valuation of Real Estate (rev. February 2026), Chapter 3 “Measuring and Listing,” “Grading Schedules,” foundation through electrical, pp. 50–57 (five-grade descriptions, pp. 41–42). Read the full manual (PDF, maine.gov).

What Otisfield’s 2026–27 cards record

Grade on the card is a multiplier applied to the style’s base price from the firm’s grade-factor schedule (see the pricing schedules). Rounded to the nearest whole grade, the 7,099 building rows are: grade 1: 18, grade 2: 888, grade 3: 1,936, grade 4: 3,777, grade 5: 309, grade 6: 129, grade 7: 38, grade 10: 4. For the main building of 1,100 houses and camps, the median grade is 3.75, the lowest 2.00 and the highest 7.00.

Site improvements carry their own grade (1–10) with a flat dollar value per grade (grade 3 is $35,000). On the roll: grade 1: 66, grade 2: 132, grade 3: 956, grade 4: 123, grade 5: 30, grade 6: 9, grade 8: 2, grade 9: 2 (parcels).

What any firm grade equals on the State’s five-level scale is UNKNOWN: the firm has produced no written definition and no crosswalk. See Every structure: grade on the 2026–27 roll (PDF) and Grade against age (PDF).

Condition, functional obsolescence and economic obsolescence — what they mean

Every building value on the Otisfield roll is one multiplication: base cost (the firm’s price per square foot for the style, times area and an area factor) × grade factor × condition × functional obsolescence × economic obsolescence. The State’s manual (PT103) treats condition as the combined result of physical wear and the two obsolescences; an Otisfield card shows them as three separate percentages. The pages below set PT103 and the IAAO standards beside how Otisfield’s cards record each one.

Open: What are condition & obsolescence? (plain English) · Condition · Condition ratings, by percentage · Functional obsolescence · Economic obsolescence · Grade.

Building rows tallied on this site are the 7,099 rows on the 1,385 parcels carrying a building on the 2026–27 roll. The firm has published no written scale for grade, condition or obsolescence in Otisfield.

WHAT IS MILL RATE?

A mill rate is the Town’s price per $1,000 of assessed value. One mill is $1 of tax for every $1,000. Otisfield’s 2026–27 rate is 9.60 mills, down from 19.55 in 2025–26, because the revaluation more than doubled the value the rate is applied to.

Town Meeting sets the amount to be raised (the levy), and the rate is that amount divided by the town’s total net taxable value. In 2026–27 the total commitment was $6,706,052 (+10.7% over the $6,060,318 committed the year before) on taxable value of $698,547,055 (+125.3%); the rate fell 50.9%. The signed tax-rate form shows the assessors chose 9.60 mills between a minimum of 9.467 and a maximum of 9.940, leaving an overlay of $94,177.

A halved rate on a doubled value is the same bill. What moved any one bill is whether that parcel’s value rose more or less than 2.25×, the town-wide multiple. The same rate applies to every parcel, so each owner’s share of the levy depends on that parcel’s share of the town’s total assessed value. How closely assessments track market value across all parcels is what the sales ratio study measures; see the firm’s sales ratio studies.

See also How the budget becomes your tax (PDF).

Exemptions, deferrals and abatements — and where to apply

These are Maine State programs available in every municipality, described from the State’s published materials. Applications go through the Otisfield assessors at the Town Office ( · ) unless noted. This site does not say whether any owner qualifies.

Sources: Maine Revenue Services property tax bulletins and application forms; Title 36. Check the current year’s amounts and deadlines with the Town Office or MRS before relying on them.

Revaluation news, notices and Maine Revenue Services guidance

Links to published reporting, official pages and State guidance about Otisfield’s revaluation and about revaluations and abatements in Maine. The summaries are this site’s own short descriptions; read the originals for what they say. Links open the publisher’s site and may sit behind a paywall or move.

Reporting, Town and firm pages

• Town of Otisfield — Tax Collector (official site)
  The Town’s tax collector page: Town Office at 403 State Route 121, Otisfield, ME 04270, (207) 539-2664; Julie Ward, Town Clerk, Tax Collector and Treasurer. The Town’s site has no separate assessing page; assessing questions go to the Town Office or to the firm.
• John E. O’Donnell & Associates — Otisfield proposed values, 2026 revaluation (PDF)
  The firm’s own list of proposed values at an estimated rate of .00965, posted June 2026. The same file is on the documents page.
• John E. O’Donnell & Associates — Otisfield online assessing
  The firm’s parcel lookup for Otisfield: tax rate 0.009600, certified ratio 1.00, commitment date 08/05/2026, due dates 10/15/2026 and 04/15/2027, and the Town Office and firm contacts.
• The Maine Monitor, 25 Sep 2026 — Norway residents question the revaluation (Judith Meyer)
  A neighboring town’s revaluation by the same firm, committed 1 October 2026: residents told the Norway Select Board the process was rushed, notices were missed and methods were not transparent. Not about Otisfield; listed because the firm, the schedules and the questions are the same.
• Bangor Daily News, 18 Aug 2025 — “Angst over Maine’s high property taxes hampers efforts to make them fairer” (Daniel O’Connor)
  Explains that a revaluation redistributes the tax burden among properties rather than raising total taxes, and covers towns doing their first revaluations since the pandemic price surge.
• Press Herald, 7 Jan 2025 — “Lakes Region towns to be revaluated in 2025” (Rory Sweeting)
  On the same firm’s 2025 revaluations in the Lakes Region, including Bridgton, and the firm’s case for regular revaluations.
• Norway Parcel Review
  This project’s site for Norway’s 2026 revaluation by the same firm, with the firm-wide comparisons this site refers to.
• Bridgton Parcel Review
  This project’s site for Bridgton’s 2025 revaluation by the same firm.

Maine Revenue Services guidance

• Bulletin No. 10, Property Tax Abatement and Appeals Procedures (Maine Revenue Services, 25 Sep 2025 revision)
  The State’s plain description of how abatement requests and appeals work: a written request to the assessors, generally within 185 days of the commitment date, with the owner carrying the burden of proof, then municipal officers and Superior Court appeals on the stated time limits. This site does not say what to file or what to write on any form.
• Municipal Valuation Return Statistical Summaries, 2009–2025 (Maine Revenue Services)
  The State’s annual tables of every town’s certified ratio, commitment, tax rate and valuation; the source of the history on the Town-wide findings page.

This site’s gaps

No newspaper article about Otisfield’s 2026 revaluation was found that could be checked when this page was written. If you know of a published item that belongs here, use the feedback form.

Articles & documents

Documents produced by this project for public review, cited to the statutes, manual pages and public records they draw on. Each opens as a standalone PDF you can read, print or pass along. Nothing here is an appraisal, a filing or legal advice. Parcel-specific reviews are shared with the owners concerned and are not posted here.

Every figure in these documents can be checked against the Town’s own card for the parcel in question and against the sources each document cites. Corrections are welcome through Leave your thoughts.

Documents produced by the Town

These are the records the Town of Otisfield produced in response to a Freedom of Access Act request made 22 September 2026, together with the proposed-values list and sample notice the firm posted on its own website. They are the Town’s and the firm’s documents, reproduced unaltered; this site did not write them. The commitment books are about 340 pages each. Not produced: the revaluation contract, any bid or proposal, and any disclosure of interest.

Anyone may request the same records from the Town under 1 M.R.S. §408-A. Nothing on this site restricts that right.

Purpose & sources

Maine property tax records are public, but they are spread across bulk-printed commitment books, a parcel-by-parcel web lookup and scanned FOAA documents. This site puts them in one searchable place, sets the State’s assessor-training manual and the IAAO’s published standards beside how Otisfield’s cards record condition, obsolescence and grade, and publishes the firm’s sales ratio studies and pricing schedules, so each reader can draw his or her own conclusions. It is information only.

Where every figure comes from

• Tax roll totals, account numbers, 2025–26 and 2026–27 values and tax: the Town of Otisfield’s real estate commitment books (committed 20 August 2025 and 5 August 2026; both printed 23 September 2026), produced under FOAA. Accounts are matched between the two years by Trio account number.
• Land lines, site improvements, building grade, condition and obsolescence, visit history, exemptions, owner and sale information: each parcel’s property record card, as published by John E. O’Donnell & Associates for the 2026–27 tax year (captured September 2026). Street addresses are from the firm’s parcel index.
• 2026 proposed values: “Otisfield, Maine Proposed Values, 2026 Revaluation, Estimated Tax Rate .00965,” the firm’s PDF. Matched to the commitment by account number where the printed row could be read.
• Sales ratio studies, pricing schedules, signed commitment papers: produced under FOAA; PDFs are on the documents page.
• Property transfers: the Town’s Real Estate Transfer Analysis workbooks (Maine RETTD data), July 2024 to June 2026.
• Recent sold listings: Zillow’s public sold-listing data for Otisfield, 41 sales, October 2024 to August 2025, as saved by this project; unverified against the registry.
• State history: Maine Revenue Services Municipal Valuation Return Statistical Summaries, 2009–2025; MRS State Valuation history 2007–2026.
• Standards: Maine Revenue Services PT103 — Valuation of Real Estate; IAAO Glossary, Standard on Mass Appraisal of Real Property and Standard on Ratio Studies; MRS Rule Chapter 201 (18-125 CMR ch. 201); MRS Property Tax Bulletin No. 10.

What this site does not do

It does not say whether any card is over- or under-assessed, what any property is worth, or whether any owner should file anything. It is not an appraisal and not legal advice. Figures were read from PDFs by software and may contain errors; verify anything material against the Town’s records. The firm’s class assignments on this site (house, waterfront, vacant and so on) are this site’s reading of the card, not the firm’s.

Donations

Any donation toward the aggregation of the data and the web hosting is appreciated. Donate through Venmo

© 2026 Fifteen King St LLC, Norway, Maine. All rights reserved. Terms of Use

Add a historical parcel card

Historical parcel cards are public records. To add yours: ask the Otisfield Town Office for a copy of the parcel’s property record card from before the 2026 revaluation, and drop the copy in my mailbox. Every card is a data point on what building quality, condition and construction in Otisfield looked like before the revaluation, and on how the old grade became the new one. Older cards for any parcel are welcome, not only your own.

Property record cards only, please. Do not include tax bills, identification, or anything that is not a parcel card.

Leave your thoughts

Corrections to a figure on this site, or your own observations about a parcel, are welcome. Please do not include anything private. This is not a way to reach the Town or the assessors.