Montpelier property owners whose downtown commercial buildings were flooded in 2023 asked the Board of Civil Authority on Tuesday to lower tax assessments, and the board assigned inspection committees to visit the appealed properties before resuming deliberations.

The appeals centered on whether reassessments must reflect the citywide reappraisal effective April 1, 2023, or should be reduced because of flood damage and changed market conditions as of April 1, 2025. Taxpayers representing the Jacobs family urged reductions and pointed to post‑flood sales and listings that they say show values well below the city’s assessments.

“[T]he city of Montpelier underwent a citywide reassessment that became effective as of April 1, 2023,” said Liam Murphy, an attorney with MSK Attorneys in Burlington, who represented the property owners. Murphy told the board that several flood‑affected commercial buildings sold at prices far below their pre‑flood assessed values.

Murphy and witnesses gave several specific sales figures during the hearing. He said 148 State Street was assessed at about $648,000 and sold for roughly $345,000; 146 State Street had been assessed at $723,100 and sold for about $240,000; and an 11 East State Street property that had been assessed near $893,000 was later listed in the $635,000 range after flood damage. Those figures were presented by taxpayer representatives as market evidence that reassessments should be materially lower than the city’s current values.

The taxpayers asked the board to consider reducing the assessments of the flood‑affected commercial properties by about 50 percent of their 2023 assessments; Murphy called that a starting point and said owners were willing to provide income and expense records and other documentation for individual properties.

Rosie (last name not specified), speaking as the city assessor, described the methods the assessor’s office used in the reappraisal. "The income numbers for these properties are based on a survey that was done during the reappraisal," Rosie said, explaining that the contractor used aggregated survey responses and typical vacancy, expense and capitalization rates to produce values. She said the assessor’s office treats the submitted income information as confidential and that the mass‑appraisal method is designed to avoid treating individual owners’ management differences as the controlling factor.

Board members and counsel discussed two lines of dispute: (1) whether the assessor’s income and expense figures and capitalization rates should be supplanted by owners’ actual books and records, and (2) whether the market for these properties has changed because of increased flood risk and therefore should drive lower values regardless of income statements. Taxpayer representatives said both lines were relevant, and the assessor’s office said the income‑approach methodology used in the citywide reappraisal followed state guidance.

A pending, separate appeal to the state Property Valuation and Review (PVR) office over the 2023 reappraisal was discussed repeatedly. Board members and counsel noted that a PVR decision on the earlier appeal could bind the value for tax year 2023 and the two subsequent years unless a substantial change in the property or a townwide reassessment intervenes.

On the procedural questions, the board accepted the taxpayers’ written submissions as sworn testimony for the hearing and debated whether inspection visits were required or could be waived. The taxpayer representatives said they were willing to allow inspections but asked that financial statements submitted for the hearing be treated as confidential and not widely distributed outside the hearing process. The board said it would consult counsel on what must be released under public records law and notify parties within about a week.

The board appointed inspection committees to examine the appealed properties and asked the committees to report back. Tentative inspection teams were announced during the meeting, with assignments discussed on the record (for example, a team of Ron, Jack and Sal was slated to inspect several State Street properties and other teams were given clusters of Main Street and other addresses). The board set no formal vote count in the record; the assignment was made by consensus in the open hearing. The hearing was then recessed pending inspections and counsel guidance on confidentiality and PVR timing.

Why it matters: The board’s decision will determine taxable values for several downtown commercial properties that owners say have been reduced by repeated flooding and elevated insurance and operating costs. The outcome could affect tax bills, potential refunds, and the city’s near‑term revenue accounting if a large number of appeals are sustained.

The board did not make final determinations on values at the meeting. Instead, it recessed the hearing to allow inspection committees to visit the properties, to gather any additional legally admissible evidence, and to receive counsel guidance about confidentiality and the consequences of the pending PVR appeal. The board said inspection committees must report to the board in accordance with the statutory timetable for appeal hearings and that members will reconvene to consider inspection reports and any further evidence.