Island property owners press tax abatement claims as assessors defend revaluation

Two tax abatement hearings before the Penobscot County Commission focused on island-property valuations and a broader revaluation of the unorganized territory.

Dave Kaufman and Alan Simons each told the commission that assessed values for waterfront island parcels rose sharply in the recent revaluation and that the states approach did not fairly account for limited access, lack of year-round utilities and seasonal use. Simons said his family camps valuation rose from about $201,000 to $356,710 and called the increase "totally unrealistic," arguing that comparable sales used by Maine Revenue Services included properties that are not truly island or boat-access parcels.

Justin McMahon of Maine Revenue Services explained the departments revaluation methodology to the board: assessors separate land and building values, use Marshall & Swift replacement-cost schedules for building components, and apply a standard 20% reduction for primary boat-access properties across the unorganized territory. McMahon acknowledged the limited pool of island sales and said the agency relies on a combination of waterfront and non-waterfront sales where direct island comparables are scarce.

McMahon apologized for an omission in materials provided to the petitioners—he said a Hunter Island sale that the agency used as a comparable had not been clearly indicated in the spreadsheet provided to the owners. He and other assessors described case-by-case adjustments (for example, reductions for trail easements or for lack of drilled wells), explained that some one-off adjustments were removed after review, and noted differences in depreciation applied to older versus newer camps.

Petitioners said they had sought independent appraisals but six appraisal firms declined because of the lack of recent comparable sales. Simons provided an alternate calculation and asked the county to consider missing pages of his submission; commissioners said the hearings would be taken under advisement and that staff would review the omitted material before the board renders decisions.

The commission did not rule at the meeting; members asked staff to accept additional evidence from petitioners and to return a written decision after review.