IAAO adviser recommends more frequent valuations, clearer appeals and updated tech for Vermont property tax system

The House Ways & Means Committee heard a broad review of assessment best practices and recommendations for Vermont’s property tax system on the topic of statewide appraisals, presented by Justin Imers, an assessment adviser with the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO).

Imers told lawmakers that “current market value implies annual assessments of all properties,” a standard the IAAO uses to define best practice, and said his team compared Vermont’s processes with practices in other states and with IAAO standards. The presentation summarized surveys of other state oversight agencies and stakeholder interviews in Vermont, and reviewed tools and governance structures used elsewhere.

Why it matters: the state’s approach to valuation and inspection affects how education funding is calculated and how property-tax obligations are distributed among homeowners. The committee’s work could change the frequency of revaluations, the appeals process, and the technology used by local assessors.

Imers laid out several core findings and recommendations. On reappraisal and reinspection cycles, he said many states produce new values annually and that IAAO recommends annual assessments to meet a strict interpretation of current market value. At the same time, IAAO guidance accepts practical alternatives: a revaluation mandate such as Vermont’s proposed six‑year cycle would place the state “much improved” relative to having no requirement, and IAAO recommends reinspections every four to six years. Imers noted roughly 29 states contributed to the study’s survey data and that about 60% of respondents reported reinspecting every six years or more frequently.

On appeals, Imers described a standard escalation: an informal review by the local assessor, a secondary board-level review with trained members, then a state-level appeals board and finally judicial review. “Appeal boards must be knowledgeable and competent to hear appraisals related to appeals,” he said, arguing that local-level first reviews make sense because those offices generated the initial values.

Regarding software, Imers said states vary between single and multiple CAMA (computer-assisted mass appraisal) systems. Vermont stakeholders polled in the study favored a single statewide CAMA system (about 70% in the stakeholder sample), though the IAAO standards do not require a single vendor; they emphasize that oversight agencies ensure jurisdictions have adequate CAMA functionality.

Imers also reviewed inspection techniques and alternatives to in-person “boots on the ground” visits, including aerial imagery, change-detection software, MLS and listing data, and remote tours. He said many jurisdictions now supplement field inspections with digital tools and that IAAO allows alternative techniques, though the standard still recommends on-site physical review when imagery identifies a clear discrepancy (for example, a demolished outbuilding).

On capacity and workforce, Imers reported stakeholder concerns about insufficient assessment staff: in Vermont stakeholder responses, 88% said the state does not currently have an appropriate number of assessment staff. He recommended stabilizing workload through regular valuation cycles, consolidating jurisdictions where practical, and investing in ongoing training so assessors can run modern valuation software and meet professional standards.

Imers addressed equity and bias concerns, recommending several oversight and education measures: require or encourage assessors to follow the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), adopt IAAO sales-ratio and quality standards (for example, acceptable sales-ratio ranges and COD thresholds), and consider price‑related differential (PRD) or similar statistics to test for vertical equity. He said removing an automatic interior‑inspection requirement was one idea stakeholders raised to limit potential bias, since exterior-only inspections apply a consistent standard across properties.

Committee members raised questions about privacy and rural concerns tied to aerial imagery and drones; Imers said most mass-imaging contractors use airplanes at high altitude and that much of the imagery is already publicly available on platforms such as Google Earth. Members also discussed the tradeoffs of interior inspections: Imers acknowledged interior data can improve accuracy but said it is costly, hard to obtain consistently across jurisdictions and can introduce bias if access varies.

The presentation repeatedly flagged tradeoffs—frequency versus cost, field inspections versus digital methods, single versus multiple CAMA vendors—and concluded with a call to pair technical changes with investments in staff capacity, oversight, and training.

The committee chair said the group would “dive into this over the course of many weeks” and invited Imers to return for further questions.

Ending: The committee did not adopt any policy at the hearing. Members signaled interest in pursuing the issues Imers outlined—valuation and reinspection cycles, appeals structure, technology choices and capacity building—in subsequent sessions and follow-up briefings.