Property owners say 2012 Prout's Neck revaluation produced "unjust discrimination"; assessor, state defend method

Property‑owners represented by attorney Bill Dale told the Scarborough Board of Assessment on Dec. 10 that land‑value increases applied to some Prout's Neck waterfront lots in the April 1, 2012 revaluation were unsupported by local sales and amounted to "unjust discrimination." The owners seek abatements for land increases they say singled them out while other waterfront lots received no change.

In an opening statement, Dale said the appellants will offer appraisers and brokers to show sales and market evidence do not justify a roughly 14.5 percent land increase applied to many interior Prout's Neck lots. "We think it is unjust discrimination that they got no increase and we got 14.5%," he told the board, framing the claim under Maine law that permits abatements when the assessment methodology produces unequal apportionment.

The town's presentation, led by counsel Rob Crawford and the assessor's office, described a different approach. Paul Lesperance, the assessor who led the 2012 adjustments, testified the office treats waterfront neighborhoods as distinct sales markets and used a set of waterfront sales from about 2005–2011 to adjust land pricing. He said he increased land pricing by 15 percent in a gated waterfront area and by 10 percent in other Prout's Neck waterfront sectors to bring those neighborhoods closer to the townwide target ratio.

Lesperance told the board he identified eight waterfront sales in the study period and that his partial revaluation moved waterfront neighborhoods from an estimated 82 percent of market toward roughly the low‑90s ratio he considered reasonable. "I increased waterfront areas all along Pineo and Pillsbury Shores, Prout's Neck and Higgins Beach," Lesperance said, explaining the separate neighborhood studies and his decision not to mix interior sales with waterfront sales.

Appellants' counsel challenged whether some sales used were suitable — pointing to sales to abutters, private or limited exposure transactions, and older sales that predate the Great Recession. Counsel argued those sales either should not have been relied on or, if markets fell for some segments, they should not have been used to justify a 2012 uplift for the appellants' lots.

The board also considered appraisal evidence submitted by the parties. Lesperance and the town criticized a taxpayer‑provided appraisal for using inconsistent ratios and for failing to adjust for differences such as lot size; appellants’ counsel said their appraisals were within 5 percent of the 2012 assessments in key examples.

Separately, the Department of Revenue's property tax director, David Leo, confirmed the department issued a one‑page review letter after a limited review of Scarborough waterfront data and concluded "further investigation by the state tax assessor's office is not warranted." Leo emphasized his office's review was not a comprehensive audit of every parcel and said the review used segregated waterfront sales analysis to assess whether the 2012 adjustments improved overall equity.

At the hearing the board also sustained a procedural objection and removed one state report (marked T19) from the record because the report's author was not present for cross‑examination; the board agreed by consensus to strike that exhibit and related testimony. The panel scheduled continuation dates in January to finish testimony and deliberations.

The hearing will resume on the dates set by the board for additional testimony and further consideration of competing appraisals and sales evidence before the board issues its determinations on the abatement requests.