House Ways & Means hears mixed testimony on statewide property assessment overhaul

The House Ways & Means Committee took testimony Feb. 27 on a draft bill to create a statewide property-assessment system that would standardize reappraisals, expand district advisers and centralize some appeals and data functions.

Supporters and municipal officials told the committee the state needs more consistent valuation practices and stronger technical systems, but many witnesses warned the proposal as written could shift costs and legal burdens to towns and increase appeals in the near term.

The draft would create regional assessment districts, rely on Division of Property Valuation and Review (PVR) standards, expand district-advisor staffing and roll some data functions into a common system. Proponents said those changes would improve statistical validity and allow appraisal models to perform better with larger data sets. "The better the better your data is, the more you have, the better the model's gonna work," Burlington City Assessor Joe Turner said.

But multiple local officials urged caution on timing, funding and appeals. Eileen Tullock, an assessor in Brattleboro and chair of Putney's select board, described a recent townwide reappraisal that produced more than 100 grievances and about 23 appeals to the Board of Civil Authority (BCA). She told the committee she "support[s] wholeheartedly taking that system out of the hands of the local BCA," and warned the draft's option allowing taxpayers or municipalities to go to either PVR or Superior Court after a BCA decision is problematic because "Superior Court is not the right place for these appeals, in general." Tullock said court appeals impose higher legal and appraisal costs on towns.

Todd LeBlanc, a longtime municipal assessor and past VALLA president, called the draft an unfinished effort and questioned whether the state should prescribe data-collection methods for third-party reappraisal firms. He criticized the per-parcel reimbursement level now paid to towns, saying "$8.50 per parcel is not going to cut it" and arguing district-advisor staffing should be increased to pre‑pandemic levels. LeBlanc said the six-year reappraisal cycle in the draft may be too aggressive given current backlogs and suggested a longer effective interval.

Several witnesses, including Natalia Bojkov, a lister in Plymouth, and Samantha Sheehan of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT), supported regional districts in principle and urged stronger training, clearer standards and a staged rollout of new software. Bojkov said she "truly support[s] the establishment of regional assessment district and the professionalization of lister's office," and described PVR training as valuable. VLCT's Samantha Sheehan warned the committee that "with the transition and modernization of the reappraisal system, you should assume a low rate of confidence and a high rate of grievance and appeal," and noted other states have seen elevated appeal rates during transitions.

Speakers repeatedly raised technical and process concerns: PVR's new VTPi system has had implementation problems in some towns, municipal parcel records include many inactive or unmapped parcels, and countywide or regionalized BCAs could face high volumes of hearings that local volunteer boards currently absorb. Former VALLA president Lisa Wright told lawmakers the grand list is the municipal official's legal responsibility and cautioned against perceived state overreach: "We are very concerned over state overreach into controlling not only the education grand list, but also our municipal grand list." She also flagged conversion costs when moving municipal data between systems.

Cost and funding questions appeared repeatedly. Witnesses said the current state per-parcel payment (noted in testimony as $8.50) does not cover reappraisal or ongoing grand list maintenance; several suggested higher per-parcel support or alternative budgeting approaches for assessment districts. LeBlanc and others also questioned reliance on outside reappraisal contractors and urged the legislature to analyze whether in‑house district teams could be more cost‑effective over time.

Committee members and witnesses agreed on several common threads: the state needs clearer standards, more training for BCAs and listers/assessors, improved statewide mapping and parcel data (VCGI), and a realistic timetable for implementation. Several asked that municipalities able to meet state standards be allowed to remain municipal-run (a "municipal delegation" or opt‑out with oversight) to avoid forcing well‑run towns into an unwanted centralized structure.

The committee did not take formal votes on the bill during the hearing. Chair remarks and staff indicated the draft will be amended and that the committee will continue to take written and oral input; several witnesses said they will provide additional written materials.

Meeting participants asked the committee to refine appeals language so that PVR would handle most valuation appeals while limiting trips to Superior Court for legal questions, to increase district-advisor staffing, and to fund data and conversion costs rather than expecting towns to absorb the bulk of transition expenses. The committee signaled it will continue revisions and follow-ups with affected stakeholders as the draft is reworked.