Cumberland County board denies island property tax abatement requests after debate over appraisal methods

The Cumberland County Board of Assessment Review voted to deny tax-abatement appeals from island homeowners who said Harrison and its appraisal vendor undervalued the distinctive characteristics of Long Lake island lots.

The board, chaired by Ed Geddy, rejected appeals from Paul and Tony Good of 22 Sekil/Zaquila Island Road (map/lot 21010607) and from Michael McDonough (tax-abatement request no. 27, map/lot 21-0106-09), after listening to more than an hour of testimony and argument on waterfront depreciation, access limitations and which comparable sales should be used.

The appellants argued the island's shoreline and seasonal access make those lots materially different from mainland lakefront property and from several island parcels the assessor treated differently. Paul Good told the board, "We believe the entire island is a cove," and said the 25% land-value reduction Harrison applied to island parcels "is inadequate" and should be larger. Good also pointed to a nearby parcel that, he said, received a much larger reduction (described in hearing records as a depreciation or "cove" adjustment) and asked why neighboring lots were not treated the same.

Jessica Westaver, an appraiser working for the appraisal firm retained by the town, explained the vendor's mass-appraisal approach. "When we do revaluations, what we do is we don't do a factoring ... We wipe the slate clean, start from 0, and then we have to build our cost schedules from the ground up," she said. Westaver described the Long Lake land schedule the firm used, saying a base waterfront acre was set as the neighborhood benchmark and adjusted for frontage, fractional acreage and site-specific factors. She said the 25% reduction was applied to land value only to reflect access challenges.

Appellants raised several factual points: one 2.1-acre lot with roughly 315 feet of frontage sold in 2019 for $145,000 (appellants said that sale should affect valuations); appellants said one island parcel received a roughly 54% reduction that cut that owner's tax bill to about $32 on a portion of the assessed value; and Good and others described seasonal limitations (shallow waterfront, muddy shore, and months with little or no well water) that reduce usability and marketability. Michael McDonough told the board, "Our access time is less than 6 months each year," and said limited access prevents island owners from using town services or establishing year-round residency.

Westaver and the appraisal team responded that many older sales (pre-2020) are not reliable yardsticks for a 2024 revaluation because the market shifted significantly after 2020. She also said the vendor received its sales data and municipality records from the town and that one 2019 deed was listed by the town's records handler as a non-bona-fide sale and therefore not used as a market sale in the vendor's calculations.

Board members pressed both sides about methodology and evidence. Members said they understood the appellants' concerns about access and waterfront usability but repeatedly noted the legal standard for granting abatement requires evidence that the assessment is substantially incorrect or that the assessor applied value unequally. The chair said the board had "no other raw data to prove" an alternative valuation and asked whether the appellants could provide a fee appraisal; he noted that an independent, signed appraisal can sometimes prompt an adjustment.

After deliberation the board took a roll-call vote to deny the abatement requests. The chair indicated the board's denial was based on the appellants' failure to produce market evidence showing the assessed values were substantially in error or that the assessor's mass-appraisal model produced unjust discrimination. The board advised appellants they could return with additional evidence, including a fee appraisal, for future consideration.

The board also accepted the previous meeting minutes unanimously at the start of the session. The hearing record shows the town and appraisal firm will continue exchanging information; the vendor said it would bring additional data back to the town for review.

The denials leave the challengers with options available under state law (administrative rehearing or judicial appeal), but the board did not itself order any further adjustments or interim relief at the meeting.