Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel denies Swan’s Island homeowner’s challenge to $250,000 assessment
Summary
A Hancock County hearing panel denied Igor Patel’s appeal of a $250,000 2025 assessment on a Swan’s Island waterfront lot after the town’s assessor agent said a sales study and neighborhood front‑foot methodology supported the valuation; commissioners found no credible evidence the valuation was manifestly wrong.
A Hancock County hearing panel voted to deny an appeal filed by Igor Patel challenging the town of Swan’s Island’s $250,000 assessment on a vacant waterfront parcel (Map 3, Lot 23).
Patel told the panel he and his wife purchased the parcel in December 2023 for $182,000 and argued the assessment “substantially exceeds the actual market value of this specific parcel,” citing lack of well or septic, limited access and a need for costly driveway work. He said the parcel had been listed for $205,000 for 12 months with no offers before the off‑market purchase.
The town’s assessor agent, Rebecca Adams, presented a sales study of vacant waterfront parcels from 2022 through April 1, 2025, and said the dataset’s standard deviation (37) was too large to justify an across‑the‑board market adjustment. Adams described Swan’s Island’s method as a per‑front‑foot base‑lot rate with a 15% vacant‑lot discount and neighborhood cost schedules that apply consistently across the 241 parcels in the neighborhood.
Adams told the panel that, using a uniform adjustment based on the study’s average, the appellant’s land value would have risen — not fallen — and that treating that single sale as the sole basis for a reassessment could make values less equitable. “When we’re looking at making a market adjustment…you really want it to be a standard deviation of 15 and under,” Adams said.
Commissioners debated whether a targeted, individual adjustment was appropriate. One commissioner noted the assessor’s consistent application of the methodology and that the appellant had not shown the valuation was “manifestly wrong” by demonstrating substantial overvaluation, unjust discrimination, or fraud. For those reasons the panel approved a motion to deny the appeal.
The hearing record shows the panel considered both the appellant’s recent purchase price and the town’s statistical review before concluding the assessor’s protocols and neighborhood pricing supported the current assessed value. The panel did not direct any immediate reassessment; commissioners closed the hearing and moved to the next items on the agenda.
The panel’s written decision will reflect the finding that the taxpayer failed to present credible, affirmative evidence sufficient to overturn the assessor’s valuation.
