Commissioners take multiple tax-abatement appeals under advisement after lengthy hearings on island and shoreland valuations

Penobscot County commissioners on March 18 heard extended tax-abatement testimony from property owners challenging 2025 revaluations and then took the matters under advisement pending further review.

The meeting opened with a Kaufman abatement for a 6.25‑acre island parcel whose assessed land value rose sharply for 2025. County staff and state revenue service representatives described how a sales-ratio study and a 20% credit for lack of access were applied; commissioners debated whether the state’s waterfront valuation metric was appropriate for a partial‑island parcel and whether the applicant had supplied sufficient comparable sales. Commissioners withdrew a motion to act immediately and scheduled a working session to review documents before reaching a decision.

Later, Gary (Mr. Ke) appealed a camp valuation in Greenville Township, describing a 24x24 seasonal camp on one acre with no power or running water that he said was overvalued relative to nearby sales. Justin McMahon and Colby Higgins of Main Revenue Service explained the 2022–2024 sales window used in the county revaluation, the grading (A–E) applied to buildings, and the formulaic approach: a 1‑acre base‑lot value ($15,000 in Greenfield), adders for a drilled well and septic ($7,500 and $15,000 respectively), a square‑root curve to value fractional acreage, and a multiplier applied to reflect water influence. Revenue staff said they had implemented the county’s direction to reduce certain land values (the county had requested a 20% reduction) and that, for operational consistency, the revaluation used standardized multipliers (staff rounded the county request to a 1.5 multiplier in practice and acknowledged a handful of mapping/data items that need correction).

During the Dash/Duro hearing (Indian Purchase 3, Milan), Edward and Brenda Dash told commissioners they were still being charged for ‘‘water influence’’ despite an earlier county finding that their property did not have water influence; they said an apparent $10,300 deduction from the camp value was effectively shifted to land value, producing no net reduction. The Dashes and other residents presented maps, property cards and photos and pressed staff on why many comparables cited by the state were from different shorelines or had materially different amenities (running water, septic, foundation) than the contested parcels.

State staff repeatedly described mass‑appraisal constraints (limited in‑home inspections, reliance on exterior grading, the need to apply uniform schedules across large UT acreage) while acknowledging a few accounts where the mapping or base‑lot application appeared to be in error. Revenue analysts and commissioners agreed that several accounts would be rechecked for data errors; the commission said it would convene a working session to review the exhibits and deliberate before issuing written decisions.

Commissioners did not vote on any abatement appeals at the March 18 session; they instructed staff to provide enlarged maps, asset‑card photos and corrected data as needed and to prepare materials for a workshop where the board will render determinations.