[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6088812,"mediaKeyId","2878649-7a26027e42a24bc4557d2ea79eec498f","parentId",2878649,"title","Committee approves draft creating four property-tax classes; landlord certificates and mixed‑use rules central to administration","audioSeconds",2867,"startMs",2378000,"endMs",5245000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2878649-7a26027e42a24bc4557d2ea79eec498f&start=2378&end=5245","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2878649-7a26027e42a24bc4557d2ea79eec498f/thumbnail_2378000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6088812/Vermont/Committee-approves-draft-creating-four-property-tax-classes-landlord-certificates-and-mixeduse-rules-central-to-administration","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6088812-6ae61ae44c449139a2fdf60fc2cd60bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1775399180&Signature=LtuxxeS8eLwg34dCUhN5WrpS12s4n1h3Dq7wUtnvCQQXy5ksc-3T7ISA60le~cpZadf5c7fyPI~m6z~NHFYOcWM8-HdTz1Z~zFPhk7uxN4eGGiTmbGyTuJYFioLyzVu3TmKX2ZvkV8d4ISXmH98cnkUTp4Tp~Jb0HK5NsroSKvDFpw8No1VKDR0npSO1asUDWyIVhZCJ4gus~dt4Pr-v0BzKxnfVGqKasullSQIUYgLmMVsZ7qiQJYUsk~v7UtbzemB1swPwQCt0Mhap4ZC1MKa5J1sbLnQQbIifPRU-g3YjWlzXJLOWmHYdYMR2mPTi0bY3EVraSzXZDIAPA0bmOQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-04T20:40:06.4Z","article","Legislative counsel Kirby Keaton presented standalone draft classification language (posted 04/03/2025) that would expand the state’s two existing classes (homestead and non‑homestead) to four classes and require that classifications be assigned prospectively based on current‑year use.

Under the draft, each parcel (or portion of a parcel) must be assigned one or more classifications and listers and assessors must update the grand list to include a tax classification no later than June 1 each year. Keaton explained the four categories:

- Homestead: parcels declared as homestead under existing homestead‑declaration procedures (declarations filed by April 15 and accepted through Oct. 15 under current law).
- Non‑homestead apartment: parcels for which a landlord certificate has been filed and that the landlord attests will be leased to a long‑term tenant for a minimum of six months in the current year. Keaton said landlord certificates are filed on Jan. 15 and report tenants from the previous year; the draft would add an attestation about plans for the current year.
- Non‑homestead residential: parcels with one or more dwelling units that are not homesteads and not covered by the landlord‑certificate/long‑term rental attestation (this category targets second homes and short‑term rentals).
- Non‑homestead nonresidential: what remains of the current non‑homestead base after the other categories are removed.

The draft applies classifications prospectively and would handle mixed use proportionally by floor‑space percentages. Keaton said the bill would preserve the homestead rule that if 25% or less of floor space is used for business, the parcel remains a homestead. For portions used for multiple purposes, the ‘‘use in which the floor space is most often used shall be considered the primary use’’ and taxed accordingly.

Committee members focused on administration and compliance. Representative Higley and others raised concerns about the department’s capacity to verify landlord certificates and potential incentives for misreporting (for example, where a landlord could use a 30‑day tenant rule to avoid a non‑homestead residential classification). Keaton said the draft explicitly allows the Department of Taxes to publish and amend forms to capture the attestations needed for classification. Director, Joint Fiscal Office (asked by members for projected revenues) said revenue impacts cannot be projected until factors for each class are set and applied.

Several members framed the classification language as a necessary precursor to any future debate about differential rates. Representative Wolcomb and Representative Maslin said it is prudent to create identification and administrative systems first, then debate rate differentials later. Representative Wazowski and others argued the classification provisions are germane to the broader foundation bill because how money is distributed to schools depends on an accurate and equitable tax base.

The committee voted to approve the draft language to be incorporated into the foundation package. The transcript shows a roll-call result first reported as 6 in favor, 4 opposed, 0 abstentions; members agreed the draft would be posted and incorporated into the H.454 committee amendment for further consideration.

Why it matters: Creating classifications changes which parcels can be targeted by future rate choices and affects landlord and homeowner obligations for forms and attestations. The proposal relies on existing tools—homestead declarations and landlord certificates—but would require new attestations for current‑year intended use and would likely increase administrative work for the Department of Taxes.

What’s next: The draft classification language will be incorporated into the H.454 committee amendment; the department and counsel will refine forms and instructions for landlords and property owners before implementation (effective date in draft provisions referenced Jan. 1, 2027 for rate application alignment).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Ways and Means 2025-04-04 2:40PM","oneSentenceSummary","Ways & Means approved draft language to create four property‑tax classifications—homestead, non‑homestead apartment, non‑homestead residential, and non‑homestead nonresidential—applied prospectively and tied to homestead declarations and landlord attestations.","taxTitle","Ways & Means, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",35157,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6088817,"Committee advances plan to create 12 regional assessment districts; municipalities to jointly hire reappraisal firms",1937,104000,2041000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2878649-7a26027e42a24bc4557d2ea79eec498f&start=104&end=2041","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2878649-7a26027e42a24bc4557d2ea79eec498f/thumbnail_104000.jpg","/articles/6088817/Vermont/Committee-advances-plan-to-create-12-regional-assessment-districts-municipalities-to-jointly-hire-reappraisal-firms","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6088817-636688668ff3c98f4f876ab037c631af/orig.mp4?Expires=1775399180&Signature=J4ix~VE-nDzbiiaV8yuFUMo9BY-dU2zn76gMOdRuuItBbkEM5Khl09DLV00UxUQyDOEplCJLHaBVb2tbAz7SzJrm~Pj-rDe8-5-xxbe3wSXmJoQ-I4FrcMka3j1l3VfTC3ESFCeORAKFVsjdlrVLsusdC5qobk~xnSBhHBaIH4s4Ep6OHFobWDYmUaLqm0d8iiLB1CQaR-9Ipt5JfK530r5yRtj-2qzR9nTRLN00cBE1rHlvFlHJyJ80v2l6Cyfbk2HOUjIUXgkGVnon4bswG3~7qJ5IMDFgeXLEnpaL319sAggTXV50dXpKhgZXejn9jKMfqE27XiWWKVi5Hf6RiA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kirby Keaton, legislative counsel for the committee, presented draft 2.1 on regionalized reappraisals and said the bill would create 12 regional assessment districts, based on counties, and require member municipalities to jointly contract with third‑party firms to conduct full mass reappraisals every six years.

The language preserves a legislative-intent section and directs the Department of Taxes and Property Valuation and Review (PVR) to issue guidance, while moving the central responsibility for organizing reappraisals away from the state and onto member municipalities. Keaton said the bill would leave appeals unchanged: ‘‘There’s no difference in the appeal structure in this. . . . Current law for appeals stays the same here,’’ referring to local grievance and Board of Civil Authority (BCA) processes followed by appeals to PVR or to court.

Committee members immediately debated how much discretion the director of PVR should have and whether PVR should convene or municipalities should self-organize. Representative Wazowski asked whether PVR would be the convening authority; Keaton replied the draft gives PVR discretion to establish and alter schedules for each regional assessment district and to shift timing as needed, but the model places the procurement responsibility with the member municipalities working together. Representative Maslin said he had preferred state-managed assessments but acknowledged the workload and practical reasons municipalities may run the districts. Representative Higley raised funding concerns, noting testimony that reappraisal costs could run ‘‘about $115 a parcel’’ including inspection, reappraisal and defending appeals, and questioned whether the expected per‑parcel funding in current law would be sufficient for a six‑year reappraisal cycle.

The draft includes a transition section and reporting requirements. Keaton described an annual reporting requirement: ‘‘On or before every January 15, taxes are going to come back and report relating to the progress made in preparing to the switch over to the regional assessment districts.’’ The Department of Taxes must also convene a working group and, by January 15, 2026, submit recommendations to the tax committees on implementation details and on ‘‘the advantages and disadvantages of having the state take full responsibility for regionalized appraisals.’’ The draft also directs the working group to suggest legislative language addressing which authorities would contract for reappraisals and which would hear valuation appeals.

Committee members asked about operational details: whether one contractor must perform all work for a district, whether districts could be split or staged, and how per‑parcel fees would be allocated. Representative Feltos requested wording changes to clarify that member municipalities ‘‘shall contract jointly with third parties’’ but that the statute should not be read to require a single contractor for an entire region; Keaton said he would amend the language to emphasize the use of third‑party contractors and to allow practical flexibility.

Keaton said the effective date for the six‑year mass reappraisal cycle would place the first full regional reappraisal on or about January 1, 2030, unless the committee adopts a different schedule. The bill also keeps the grand‑list date change from April 1 to January 1 in place and includes conforming changes for that shift.

The committee took a straw poll on whether to move draft 2.1 into the larger education/foundation bill (H.454) and incorporate suggested clarifications. The chair called the roll; the transcript shows the result reported as 10 in favor, 1 opposed, 0 abstentions on the motion to find draft 2.1 favorable with a minor clarification. Keaton said the language will be moved into the committee amendment ahead of Tuesday’s deadline and that he would post final edits for review.

Why it matters: The draft shifts organizational responsibility for mass reappraisals from a centralized state role toward regional cooperation among municipalities. That change affects who manages vendors, how costs are shared across municipalities, and how frequently parcels are revalued. The working group and reporting deadlines aim to produce additional detail before full statutory implementation.

What’s next: Keaton will incorporate the committee’s clarifications into the committee amendment; the bill language is expected to be included in committee paperwork for a Tuesday filing, with formal votes to follow.

","Kirby Keaton, legislative counsel, presented draft 2.1 to the Ways & Means Committee: the bill would establish 12 regional assessment districts and require member municipalities to jointly contract third‑party firms to conduct full mass reappraisals every six years.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6088807,"Committee approves miscellaneous property tax fixes including tax‑sale minimum and fee cleanups",248,5302000,5550000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2878649-7a26027e42a24bc4557d2ea79eec498f&start=5302&end=5550","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2878649-7a26027e42a24bc4557d2ea79eec498f/thumbnail_5302000.jpg","/articles/6088807/Vermont/Committee-approves-miscellaneous-property-tax-fixes-including-taxsale-minimum-and-fee-cleanups","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6088807-c293237ef42e8b1017773fc93db73dce/orig.mp4?Expires=1775399180&Signature=R5tRQWMIlid-9xCUPSz7cUMX3IfcqB0xeBhemeM49b3DDNVWlBj9lyn7RbiLcoUk6vs2KpfaJlxRmV9PzGUCyVgluqvgC5ntfQiUNT6vxUueMIpv-FNqGhmKB2pWCPn4nKmsm~fN6KklG2UfowRzSjR8HyVmZL4rVth23M~u6evh19OSvFOsQ1Nw5mL1zrOg6zsfR73as15xl5P6nYzuBvN6blV1XQPq5B-uakN1XOk8uVtquOHCkI-NFP8IdRe5vR0KIPMRRVedPqlTfc2TmYEKYEGmwUPx~lDm9CURMSMdVgzJZln7InGycHWUy0rMWFx7gF5BTlwhonQtj5o7kA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Legislative counsel Kirby Keaton presented a package of miscellaneous property‑tax provisions described as housekeeping and technical fixes. Key elements the committee reviewed and approved included:

- A $1,500 minimum threshold before a tax sale may be initiated (the threshold stems from a prior study group recommendation and was proposed as a limit to small-dollar tax‑sale actions).
- An administrative request to increase pay for part‑time hearing officers who adjudicate PVR matters; Keaton said the administration requested the bump but did not present a dollar amount in committee discussion.
- Removal of a remaining $15 late fee for late property tax‑credit claims (the fee had been deleted in prior sessions in two places; Keaton said a third instance was found and is being removed for consistency).
- A technical correction to restore a provision that had been removed from the statutory database but not intentionally omitted by the Legislature; Keaton described this as housekeeping with no substantive negative consequence.

Representative Kimball moved the miscellaneous language favorable. The committee agreed to advance the provisions into committee materials; the transcript records the motion and verbal agreement that the miscellaneous section was favorable but does not include a clear recorded roll‑call tally in the excerpt.

Why it matters: These items are procedural and administrative, but they affect homeowners and municipal collectors (tax‑sale practice), hearing‑officer compensation (administration of valuation appeals), and the consistency of property‑tax credit administration.

What’s next: Counsel will include these provisions in the committee amendment and post the final language ahead of the committee’s Tuesday filing.","The committee approved a set of miscellaneous tax provisions drafted by legislative counsel: a $1,500 minimum before initiating tax‑sale proceedings, an increase in pay for PVR part‑time hearing officers at the administration’s request, and removal of a remaining $15 late fee for late property tax credit claims. Committee counsel said these are","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee approves draft creating four property-tax classes; landlord certificates and mixed‑use rules central to administration

Committee advances plan to create 12 regional assessment districts; municipalities to jointly hire reappraisal firms

Committee approves miscellaneous property tax fixes including tax‑sale minimum and fee cleanups