Appraisers warn regional reappraisal districts will raise costs, complicate inspections and appeals

Ed Claude Filter, a senior appraiser with the New England Municipal Resource Center, told the House Ways & Means Committee that proposed regional reappraisal districts and a move to a six-year cycle will increase costs, staffing needs and logistical complexity for towns and contractors.

Filter said his firm already staffs 35 people, including 20 appraisers and inspectors, and is contracted to reappraise about 82,000 parcels over the next three years. He warned that larger, regional projects will require moving staff across greater distances and paying lodging and travel costs. "I would prefer to do a 2 year project than a 1," Filter said, adding that compressing work into a single-year schedule creates a late, high-pressure surge of activity that increases the chance of mistakes.

Why it matters: Committee members are weighing proposals that would centralize appraisal work by grouping towns into assessment districts, increase the frequency of reappraisals and change appeal processes. Witnesses said the proposals affect municipal budgets, the availability of local contractors, and taxpayers' ability to receive timely tax bills.

Filter described concrete staffing and time needs he says are required for district-scale reappraisals: a 20,000-parcel district done in one year could require roughly eight data-collection staff plus clerks, analysts and supervisors; a 50,000-parcel year could require about 20 data collectors. He said some small firms that now handle towns of a few hundred parcels will be priced out by district work and that large out‑of‑state firms also struggle to recruit and retain staff to operate in Vermont.

He stressed inspection-time realities: "If it takes a half hour to inspect the property, it takes a half hour to be on 500 properties or if you're doing 5,000 properties. Still takes a half hour." Filter and other witnesses urged the committee to consider two‑year projects, increased allowance for travel and lodging, and more realistic grievance and appeals assumptions — including higher-than‑projected grievance rates.

On appeals and governance, Filter called attention to the proposed regional property valuation boards. He asked whether the whole board would be required to hear each appeal, and pointed to inconsistent training among past municipal appeal boards as a continuing risk. He also said the proposal's assumed 3% grievance rate is too low; based on his experience he estimates closer to 5%.

Witnesses from other groups and businesses reinforced staffing and timing concerns. Several noted that towns have different tax‑bill calendars, meaning a single district's schedule could force some towns to miss local deadlines to issue tax bills. Filter also said the change in the "CLA trigger" in recent years contributed to the backlog of reappraisals and that reforms should factor in municipal practices and tax-billing cycles.

Background and technical approaches: Filter suggested more use of aerial resources (LiDAR and oblique imagery) where appropriate, but cautioned that imagery can't substitute for permit systems and zoning that many small towns lack. He said some features — decks, small additions, or new accessory buildings — can only be reliably picked up if municipalities maintain permit records, and urged consideration of statewide permit processes if remote inspection approaches are to be expanded.

Other clarifying details recorded during testimony: Filter said per-parcel costs for a full inspection and appraisal are about $115–$120 "including inspection and the full report," and that a multi-system camera transition and data-conversion projects can be year-long, costly efforts. He described his firm's camera/software footprint as supporting roughly 90 towns and emphasized the conversion and training burdens when a town switches camera/database systems.

Looking ahead, witnesses asked the committee to include realistic staffing and conversion costs in any reform and to preserve local review and appeals rights during implementation. Filter and others said the state should phase implementation, consider longer project timelines, and include funded training for regional appeal boards and local listers.

Ending: Committee members signaled they will have more drafts to review and that implementation steps — including staffing and data‑conversion timelines — can be added in follow-up language. The committee plans additional review before finalizing any statutory changes affecting appraisal districts, inspection approaches and appeals processes.