Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montpelier denies full property-tax abatement for landlord citing ability-to-pay concerns
Summary
The Montpelier Board of Abatement denied Margaret Murray’s request to abate current-year property taxes tied to a multiunit home she said had been damaged by the 2023 floods. The board cited available assets and the applicant’s ability to pay, while leaving the option to reapply if circumstances change.
The Montpelier City Board of Abatement voted to deny Margaret Murray’s request for a full abatement of her current property taxes, concluding the applicant did not meet the board’s threshold for inability to pay despite flood-related hardship.
Margaret Murray, a longtime Montpelier property owner, told the board she had been affected by the 2023 floods, lost tenants in a three-bedroom unit and could not rent two units until repairs and electrical work are completed. Murray said she held $85,000 in flood insurance at the time of the loss and that her insurer (The Hartford) paid about $49,000. She also described a home-improvement loan and continued mortgage debt on the property.
Board members pressed Murray on finances: Murray reported monthly household expenses of $5,359 and income of $4,403, and said one previously rented unit had fetched $1,800. Staff and members reviewed current balances and documentation: the city’s records showed a property-tax bill that included installments and penalties, producing a delinquent balance the transcript referenced at roughly $6,000 with penalties; a prior total tax figure of about $10,066 was discussed for context.
Rosie (board member) moved to deny the abatement request, arguing the applicant had assets and income sources that had not been fully leveraged and that the board must weigh equity with other flood-affected property owners. The board held a roll-call vote after an initial voice indication of opposition; multiple members recorded “yes” votes to deny and a single “nay” was heard before the roll call. The chair announced the motion passed and the abatement was denied.
Members and staff urged Murray that the denial did not prevent her from returning with additional documentation. Staff noted ongoing options, including completing repairs, resolving outstanding third-party contractor or Vermont Efficiency issues that had impeded restoration, and reapplying if her ability to pay materially changes.
The board did not adopt a partial abatement or payment plan at this meeting; the decision was limited to the abatement request on the record.
