Committee reviews updated draft to create statewide property reappraisal system

The Ways & Means Committee on March 13 reviewed a revised draft committee bill that would create a statewide property reappraisal system, establish 12 regional assessment districts and direct the Department of Taxes—s Property Valuation and Review (PVR) to assign district advisers and set standards for reappraisals.

The draft, walked through by Kirby Heaton, legislative counsel, updates language in response to written and oral feedback and adds a findings section that cites a final report on statewide reappraisals published Dec. 16, 2024 pursuant to Act 68. The draft sets a six-year reappraisal cycle, moves the grand list date to Jan. 1, and directs PVR to establish uniform contracting, data and technology standards for regional districts.

Why it matters: The bill would shift many reappraisal responsibilities from individual municipalities to a coordinated regional structure, change how appeals are processed and alter funding flows for towns. Committee members and PVR officials said the changes aim to address a shortage of firms and local capacity while trying to ensure consistent, defensible valuations statewide.

Key provisions and discussion

Kirby Heaton said the draft adds a findings section summarizing the department—s report, including a lack of available firms for reappraisal work and other capacity issues. The draft notes that "as of 12/16/2024, 35 municipalities were actively under an order to reappraise their grand lists," that "60 municipalities have their last reappraisal more than 15 years ago," and that the statewide average year of last reappraisal is 2016. Heaton said municipalities are booking reappraisals for 2026 through 2029 and that roughly 19 municipalities on average completed reappraisals annually over the past decade.

The bill would establish 12 regional assessment districts (county-based, with Franklin and Grand Isle combined and Essex and Orleans combined) and direct PVR to "assign 1 employee to be a district adviser to each regional assessment district" who "shall facilitate the execution of full reappraisals of the district and ensure municipal grand lists are maintained accurately," language Heaton said was revised to allow PVR discretion about contracting and execution.

PVR—s role and staffing concerns

Jill Remick, director of Property Valuation and Review at the Tax Department, told the committee the department supports the stakeholder group included in the draft and called the regional approach promising but cautioned that current PVR staffing is limited. "We don't have that many people right now. The workload is pretty significant," Remick said, and she warned that district advisers will need support and that some oversight or coordination structures will be necessary.

Remick said the department wants to preserve the annual equalization study and supported keeping a parcel-based payment for towns; she also confirmed that the per-parcel payments now come from the general fund. She described existing programs in which the state helps municipalities defend valuations in litigation and said PVR is standing up a required lister and assessor certification program beginning in 2026.

Appeals and procedure changes

The draft moves appeals work to a regional Board of Civil Authority (regional BCA) and adds that a regional BCA "shall have the administrative assistance of a district adviser employed by [PVR]." Heaton and Remick said the bill would require regional BCAs to follow Vermont's Administrative Procedure Act and would generally funnel appeals first to PVR hearing officers rather than directly to court; PVR would retain authority to move cases to court in some circumstances. Heaton said the draft lengthens the scheduling window for regional BCAs from 14 to 30 days after the last date for filing an appeal and preserves provisions allowing inspections; during a state-declared emergency, inspections may be conducted by electronic means.

Funding and timeline

The draft increases the current per-parcel payment to municipalities by $1 (from $8.50 to $9.50 per grand-list parcel) and includes a separate $1 per-parcel payment intended to support the equalization study. The bill includes a new minimum payment provision to ensure municipalities with few parcels receive a baseline amount.

On implementation timing, committee members and staff discussed a phased transition and whether existing reappraisal orders should continue. Heaton said the draft keeps existing orders but contemplates that PVR would stop issuing new municipal reappraisal orders as the regional system is phased in; a specific transition date (previously shown as Jan. 1, 2027 in an earlier draft) may be revised. Remick suggested an illustrative implementation date of July 1, 2027 for setting up the regional system.

Outstanding issues and next steps

Committee members and PVR raised recurring practical questions: whether one district adviser per region is adequate for populous counties, how to allocate staff across regions, legal liability if a district adviser oversees a contractor, how to define "full reappraisal" (including when physical inspection is required), and how to ensure statistical checks for equity and interrater reliability across districts.

Remick and Heaton emphasized the need for a stakeholder group to work through logistics, contract execution (who signs contracts and how municipalities participate), staffing and training, and how to preserve local municipal responsibilities for grand-list maintenance while providing state support. Remick said PVR is developing a certification program for listers and assessors and recommended using established professional standards and tools (including IAAO guidance and statistical tools) to measure equity and outcomes.

No formal votes were recorded at the hearing. Committee staff said further drafting will address conforming changes and that the bill's provisions may be coordinated with other property-tax reforms in the broader education bill.

Ending

Committee members instructed staff to continue refining the draft, to convene a stakeholder group as proposed in the bill language, and to follow up with PVR and fiscal staff on funding and staffing implications. PVR and committee staff agreed to supply additional details on contractor availability, fiscal impacts and implementation timing at a later session.