At a Senate Finance Committee meeting, Jill Remnick, director of Property Valuation and Review (PVR) at the Vermont Department of Taxes, outlined a plan to move Vermont toward a regular six-year property reappraisal cycle, regional assessment districts, and expanded use of statistical (desk-based) reappraisals.

Remnick told the committee that the proposal aims to make reappraisals more regular and transparent, reduce disparities that grow when towns go many years between reappraisals, and help taxpayers better understand how assessed value relates to property tax bills. "We want values to be updated regularly," she said, adding that more frequent updates can reduce the regressive effects that occur when lower-value properties’ assessments lag behind market changes.

Remnick provided data showing 35 municipalities are completing reappraisals in 2025 (about 38,000 parcels, roughly one-sixth of the state) and 37 are scheduled for 2026. She said town contracts for reappraisals statewide total about $3.2 million this year and that the state's annual reappraisal-related per-parcel payments are "just under $3,000,000." She estimated many town contracts average roughly $100 per parcel.

Key elements Remnick described include:

- A six-year statewide reappraisal cycle, with director discretion to give towns a transition buy‑in if they recently contracted for work; Remnick noted a statutory or phased transition will be needed and discussed language that would prohibit new contracts after 2027 for certain transition schedules.

- Greater use of statistical reappraisals and remote tools (aerial imagery, LIDAR, oblique photography) to reduce the need for interior inspections and to target in-person work to anomalies or changes that require inspection.

- Creation of regional assessment districts to pool municipal demand and make it easier for assessment firms to serve Vermont towns; Remnick said regional districts need not force a single contractor and could allow multiple firms within a district.

- Retention of local grievance and appeal processes, and attention to the PVR hearing officer capacity; Remnick said hearing officers are effectively unpaid and the department had requested increased compensation to attract and retain them.

Remnick also referenced Act 68 and an IAAO study prepared after that legislation as context for current practices, and noted that Vermont's process applies equalization (the Common Level of Appraisal, or CLA) to the tax rate rather than directly to values as many other states do.

Committee members raised concerns about logistics: who would convene towns for district formation, how costs would be apportioned (per-parcel or per-capita), small-town capacity, and the potential for larger districts to exclude small or Vermont-based firms. Remnick and other staff said many of those details should be worked out in stakeholder groups and regional discussions, and that the department wants to convene stakeholders before finalizing bill language.

No formal committee votes were recorded in the provided transcript excerpt. Committee members asked staff to proceed with stakeholder engagement and to prepare technical transition dates and details for legislative language.