Committee reviews draft bill to create 12 regional assessment districts for statewide reappraisal

At a Ways & Means committee meeting Feb. 13, lawmakers reviewed a draft bill to create 12 regional assessment districts that would shift property appraisal and grand-list duties from municipal listers to regional staffs operating under the Department of Taxes.

The bill, drafted from recommendations in the Act 68 report, would create a new statutory subchapter establishing legislative intent, authorizing 12 regional assessment districts ("RADs"), and setting standards for data collection, contracting and reappraisal schedules. Kirby Gee, state council, described the draft as a way to standardize valuation and data across the state and to professionalize appraisal work.

The proposal would base the 12 RADs mostly on county lines (with Franklin and Grand Isle combined and Essex and Orleans combined) so each district would oversee at least about 10,000 parcels. Assessment supervisors for each RAD would be appointed by the commissioner of taxes and would be responsible for supervising implementation, assisting the director of Property Valuation and Review (PVR) on valuation and data collection, employing staff, preparing budgets and contracting for reappraisals.

Committee members were asked to focus on understanding the statutory language rather than wordsmithing during the first review. Gee said the bill starts with legislative intent to guide PVR’s future decisions and to provide flexibility for unknowns identified in the Act 68 report. "We've created a new subchapter, which, is to handle statewide property assessment," Gee said. He added the bill encourages use of professional staff and standardized data collection.

The draft sets a default reappraisal schedule of a full municipal reappraisal at least every six years, with discretion for the director to alter schedules in special circumstances. It also establishes January 1 as the grand-list date for valuation; PVR would be required to furnish RADs with public-utility valuations on or before Feb. 1 to align with that date.

The bill would replace many current municipal duties. "There will not be municipalities in charge of this work," Gee said, noting that per-parcel payments that now go to towns would be redirected to the RADs. The draft preserves existing processes where possible — including current public-utility valuation mechanics — while moving operational control to the Department of Taxes.

On appeals and grievance procedures, the bill retains an informal grievance period but replaces the current Board of Civil Authority process with RAD-staff and assessment-supervisor review as the first steps. A taxpayer dissatisfied with a RAD supervisor decision could appeal to PVR (the director/commissioner of taxes) or to superior court. The draft describes de novo review at PVR and in court: earlier factual determinations by RADs or supervisors would not bind the reviewing body. Gee explained the intent is to professionalize hearing officers by placing administrative appeals functions under the commissioner of taxes rather than relying on part‑time outside hearing officers.

The draft also requires standard guidelines and procedures developed by PVR (not formal rulemaking) covering contract terms for reappraisals, parcel-data collection standards, and IT and data-software standards (including camera-system standards if the agency chooses). The bill permits RADs to contract with third parties to conduct reappraisals.

Committee members pressed on funding and access concerns. Representative Ode said she worried the plan could become an unfunded mandate: "I just don't want this to be an unfunded mandate to the municipalities," she said, asking whether the Department of Taxes budget would need additional appropriations. Gee acknowledged the bill does not yet specify appropriations or new FTEs and that further testimony from the Department of Taxes and PVR would be needed. The draft redirects an existing per-parcel fee (currently about $8.50 per parcel) to the RADs; Gee estimated that the current per-parcel revenue amounts to "3 point something million," which likely would not fully fund 12 RADs.

Lawmakers also raised access-to-justice concerns. The draft includes a placeholder minimum availability for grievances — for example, holding RAD grievance hours a minimum of four hours per day for at least five days — but members said standardized availability will require further work. Representative Woody asked whether taxpayers could access outside assistance during appeals; Gee pointed to the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate as an available resource.

Several conforming and transition provisions were noted: repeal and replacement of parts of the existing appeals chapter, removal of lister-specific provisions, transfer of per-parcel funding to RADs (or possibly to the Department of Taxes), and an initial effective date placeholder. Gee asked members and the administration for feedback on language and implementation details.

Next steps: committee staff will seek testimony from the Department of Taxes and PVR on funding and operations; committee members were invited to submit suggested language changes to counsel ahead of further drafting and hearings.

Ending

Committee members scheduled further review in a subsequent meeting and asked staff to invite the Department of Taxes and PVR to testify on budget and implementation needs. Kirby Gee asked members to send suggested language edits to counsel ahead of the next draft.