Attorney says recent appraisals and purchase price contradict town's $7.7M valuation on 4.5‑acre Saskco Hill estate

Attorney Don Bradford appeared at the March 3 appeals session on behalf of clients who own a 4.5‑acre property on Saskco Hill Road and formally asked the valuation committee to revise a town value that appears in the file near $7.7 million.

Bradford told the volunteer hearing panel his clients purchased the property in late 2024 for $4,995,000 and submitted three appraisals: two appraisals connected to the purchase (one at about $4.6 million, one at $4.995 million) and an independent appraisal dated Oct. 1, 2025 that placed market value at $5,500,000. He said the Oct. 1, 2025 appraisal used five comparable sales on Saskco Hill Road, all within roughly four‑tenths of a mile, and adjusted them to reflect site and condition differences.

"A purchase price within months of the revaluation is strong evidence of market value," Bradford said, adding that the property was exposed to the market for about five months before the sale and that the submitted October appraisal reflects market movement through the valuation date.

Bradford acknowledged the property includes multiple accessory structures (guest house, pool house, large garage and greenhouse) and that some improvements are redundant — an appraisal concern the expert described as "super redundancy" that limits incremental value of additional buildings. He asked the committee to consider the contemporaneous appraisals and the known sale price when determining a final market figure for tax calculation.

Hearing officer Laura O'Brien accepted the documents into the record and said the full valuation committee will review the submitted materials at a later meeting; no immediate ruling was issued.

What this means: If the committee accepts the appraisal evidence and adjusts market value down toward the $5.5 million appraisal, the assessed (taxable) value used for billing — commonly a statutory fraction of market value — would decrease proportionately. The committee did not announce a timetable beyond an indication that appellants should expect notice by the end of the month.