Vermont GIS officials tell Ways & Means parcel data changes needed to support fair, timely reappraisals

John Adams, director of the Vermont Center for Geographic Information (VCGI), and VCGI parcel program staff told the House Ways & Means Committee on an informational briefing that the statewide parcel dataset underpins many state functions including property valuation, natural-resources permitting and transportation right-of-way work.

The presentation said most Vermont municipalities now maintain digital parcel maps but that differences in how towns define and submit parcel geometry, and a statutory definition that aggregates parcels by common ownership, hinder the state’s ability to track the smallest sellable units of land needed for accurate assessments. “The parcel program…is one major component of what VCGI does,” John Adams said, adding that the office builds the state’s foundational geospatial datasets used by state and local agencies and thousands of citizens.

VCGI staff said the technical problem traces in part to the statutory parcel definition in current law and to uneven municipal submissions. Tim Terway, who oversees the parcel program at VCGI, told the committee that the center’s recommendations—grouped into statutory changes, incentives/funding, technical guidance and technology investments—include amending the parcel definition so the state can track the smallest map unit (what municipalities often call “inactive” or “active” parcels) while preserving the current administrative aggregation used for tax administration. “If you invert the definition…you don't lose any information,” Terway said of the proposed change, which he connected to 32 V.S.A. §4152 and Act 68, the statute directing this work.

Why it matters: VCGI staff told members that parcel data are used across state government. They cited the Agency of Natural Resources' need to intersect permits with parcels, the Agency of Transportation’s right-of-way workflows and PVR (Property Valuation and Review) uses for assessment work. Terway said the statewide parcel resource now supports roughly a quarter-million annual users through web viewers and that the “SPAN” (school property account number) is the practical unique identifier that allows reliable joins between map geometry and grand-list tables.

Scope and quality issues: VCGI reported progress—more than 90% of municipalities now maintain digital parcel data—but said only about two-thirds of submitted municipal geometry is fully compliant with state data standards or requires only minor edits. The presentation said 44 municipalities submitted updated geometry in 2024 and that roughly one-third of town submissions need major edits or are not joinable to grand-list records. The briefing also warned of large acreage discrepancies: VCGI estimated roughly 177,000 acres in measurable disagreement between map acreage and grand-list acreage and another 357,000 acres in categories such as overlapping town boundaries, rights-of-way, or stacked/“unlanded” parcel conditions (condominiums and common-interest parcels).

Recommended steps: VCGI gave four broad recommendation types. First, amend statute to treat the smallest mappable unit as the tracked parcel while preserving administrative aggregation for tax purposes (VCGI cited language mapping to 32 V.S.A. §4152 as an example). Second, tie incentives or funding to standardized data submission (per-parcel payments or contract guidance) so municipalities and any future assessment districts have consistent expectations. Third, expand technical guidance and training to reduce submission errors and support town contracts with mapping vendors. Fourth, increase the frequency and resolution of statewide orthoimagery and make oblique imagery options available through state contracts so local governments can measure building change and support assessments; VCGI said imagery purchases would be available under existing contracting vehicles.

Other items discussed: VCGI highlighted the Vermont Land Survey Library (a statutory repository created in 2020) as a place to deposit registered land surveys, recommended clearer guidance on how to treat rights-of-way acreage for taxation, and urged coordination between any redesign of assessment jurisdictions and parcel submission rules to avoid duplicated work. Terway noted that Connecticut and other states have adopted similar centralized grabs of CAMA (computer-assisted mass appraisal) or parcel datasets and that standardized, survey-linked land records and digital land-record initiatives would help track easements, conservation parcels and other land-based policy goals such as conservation targets cited in Act 59 of 2023.

Committee reaction and next steps: Committee members asked about privacy concerns for higher-resolution and oblique imagery; Terway and Adams said the products are photographic and similar in kind to other public imagery products and that data governance choices—what PVR and towns advise for inclusion—will determine what becomes public. VCGI staff closed by saying the next step is drafting legislative language informed by the report and the presentations and that they would adapt recommendations depending on how the legislature resolves assessment jurisdiction questions.

Ending: VCGI presented a technical, multi-part plan that would require legislative choices about parcel definition and incentives for standardized municipal submissions. Staff framed the recommendations as flexible: they said the technical fixes and incentives can be adapted whether assessment responsibilities remain municipal or move to a new regional structure, but the statutory definition and data-submission rules must align with whatever assessment-jurisdiction decision the legislature makes.