AUGUSTA – The State Board of Property Tax Review on Thursday denied East Millinocket’s request to reconsider its decision granting Great Northern Paper Inc. a tax refund of $557,329.

Michelle Robert, an assistant attorney general representing the board, said the board heard brief arguments by counsel, considered the motion for reconsideration and then denied it. “They determined their original deliberations supported their original decision,” she said. The state board’s vote was unanimous.

Brian Stetson, GNP’s manager of environmental and governmental affairs, said the company was pleased with the decision. The company had opposed the town’s motion for reconsideration.

Mary Morris, East Millinocket’s administrative assistant, said she was disappointed the board did not entertain the motion and actually look at the issues that were raised.

Town officials are waiting for the state board’s written decision, which was expected to be available late in September. Once the town receives it, officials will decide whether to appeal the case to Superior Court.

Last month, the town filed an appeal of the state board’s decision in Kennebec County Superior Court and also asked the court to take no action on it until the written decision was obtained. Bragg said the appeal was filed only to preserve the town’s right of appeal. He said the law was not clear on whether the appeal must be filed 30 days from the date of an oral decision or the written decision.

On July 8, the state board granted Great Northern a tax abatement of $33.37 million, setting the 1999 value of the company at $170.75 million. The town had assessed the company at $204.12 million.

The $33.37 million tax abatement translates into a refund of $557,329 plus interest of 8 percent per year. GNP will fund a substantial portion of the tax refund, about 75 percent of it or $417,996, according to officials representing the town.

The town’s request for reconsideration came before the state board issued a written decision. Last month’s decision was verbal.

Lee Bragg, an Augusta attorney representing the town, said officials left the July hearing feeling that the state board had made a mistake.

On several occasions during deliberations, board members expressed concern that GNP’s appraiser used an appraisal methodology for the machinery and equipment that assumed and reflected significant and severe depreciation for mill assets, yet the board failed to readdress these concerns in its decision, according to the motion filed by Bragg.

The town’s motion for reconsideration pointed to several areas where the figures of the company’s appraiser were significantly lower than in several other appraisals and indicates that the company’s appraiser excessively adjusted obsolescence on machinery and equipment to the point where it was depreciated twice.

“We believe that the appraiser did double dip and took excessive depreciation, but we could not convince the board that was an issue they needed to reconsider,” said William Van Tuinen, the town’s appraiser.

“We felt there was overwhelming evidence in favor of the original cost numbers we had used and the depreciation methodology we had used,” said Bragg.