Assessment expert says Vermont’s ratio study shows regressive patterns; urges districts, time adjustments and audits

Chris Landon, an assessment consultant and instructor with professional designations in mass appraisal, told the House Ways & Means Committee that an analysis of fiscal-year-2022 sales and assessment data shows multiple statistical indicators of regressivity and horizontal inequity in Vermont’s current ratio-study approach.

Landon said he ran the Lincoln Institute–inspired vertical-equity tests on a cleaned FY2022 dataset drawn from PVR records, using the CLA (common level of appraisal) to equalize and trimming only outliers per standard practice. “When we look here, the trend line is down and to the right,” Landon said, describing decile medians of assessment-to-sales ratios; he said the pattern indicates lower-valued properties tended to be assessed at higher relative levels than higher-valued properties.

Key findings and why they matter: Landon said the dataset produced multiple failing or out-of-range indicators: a median assessment-to-sales ratio near parity (1.008) but decile breakdowns that show a regressive pattern; a coefficient of dispersion (COD) for the rural category outside the recommended 5–20 range; a price-related differential (PRD) and price-related bias (PRB) that suggest regressivity; a Spearman rank correlation indicating a moderate regressive association; and Gini/Lorenz-based measures showing meaningful divergence. Landon told the committee these multiple signals together point to systematic inequities that would not be visible if the study relied only on older single metrics.

Recommended fixes: Landon recommended several changes to improve equity testing and assessment practice:

- Use larger assessment districts (he proposed five districts) to increase sample size and the law-of-large-numbers reliability for ratio studies. - Build ratio studies using CAMA/camera variables (building type, units, age) rather than only class/town buckets, so tests reflect more comparable property cohorts. - Apply time adjustments to sales so all transactions are treated as if priced on a common date instead of mixing markets across a three-year window without adjustment. - Implement independent audits of municipal ratio studies (municipalities produce studies; a state oversight agency would audit them), and adopt a continuous-improvement program that adds multiple vertical- and horizontal-equity tests now available from recent research and Lincoln Institute tools.

Limitations and methodology: Landon said he used the entire FY2022 sales dataset after basic trimming rules (removing sales < $10,000, missing SPANs and the extreme 5% tails used for 95% confidence). He said he did not perform sales validation (he used submitted sales as-is) and did not apply time-adjustments in the test runs so the committee could see raw, year-based signals; he recommended testing with time adjustments as a next step. He also discouraged immediate reliance on AI for valuation adjustments, saying current tools are not yet mature for this use.

Committee response: Members thanked Landon for the detailed statistical review and described his recommendations as “actionable.” A committee member invited Landon to return for follow-up when the committee examines draft statutory language and assessment-district proposals.

Ending: Landon said the evidence from multiple, modern equity tests suggests Vermont should update ratio-study methods and oversight to better detect and correct regressivity; he urged time adjustments, larger districts for stability and independent audits before major structural changes to assessment practice are finalized.