Ad-Hoc Committee on Reappraisal — Burlington, VT
Date: 2022-12-01
Time: 18:00

December 01, 2022
 Ad-Hoc Reappraisal Committee Meeting - December 1 @ 6:00PM in Bushor
 Conference Room (City Hall, 1st Floor) and **REMOTE**

@ Click here to view the minutes for this meeting
1. Adopt Agenda

 1.01 Adopt Draft Agenda



2. Adopt Draft Minutes from September 22, 2022

 2.01 Adopt Draft Minutes from September 22, 2022


 2 Draft minutes 2022-09-22.pdf

3. Subgroup Presentations of Findings

 3.01 Presentation from Alan Bjerke and David Edwards

 1.Identification of timelines and practices during the assessment process that are impediments to citizen
 participation and fair valuations; and recommendations around those;
 2.Review of the appeals process and recommendations;

 2 AdHocReport Timelines.pdf
 3.02 Presentation from Jonathan Chapple-Sokol, Alan Bjerke and Christopher Haessly

 3. Develop a best practice around education and participation of citizens in the assessment process and how their
 properties are valued. Provide recommendations on how that support will be offered;

 2 Education Subcommittee Report 20221129.pdf 2 Education Subcommittee Appendix.pdf
 3.03 Presentation from Joan Shannon, James Unsworth, and Kevin Stapleton with help from John
 Vickery
 4. Develop recommendations for the frequency of citywide reappraisals including; funding, criteria for selection of
 consultants, and consideration of a rolling appraisal process;

 3.04 Presentation from James Unsworth and Dan Kirk

 5. Review capacity of the Assessor's Office, including staffing and IT needs.



4. Any other Committee Business

 4.01 Any other Committee Business


City of Burlington, Vermont Page 1 of 2
 December 01, 2022
 Ad-Hoc Reappraisal Committee Meeting - December 1 @ 6:00PM in Bushor
 Conference Room (City Hall, 1st Floor) and **REMOTE**


5. Adjournment

 5.01 Motion to Adjourn




City of Burlington, Vermont Page 2 of 2

Ad-Hoc Reappraisal Committee Meeting - December 1 @ 6:00PM
 in Bushor Conference Room (City Hall, 1st Floor) and
 **REMOTE**
 12/1/2022

AD-HOC REAPPRAISAL COMMITTEE

Thursday, December 1, 2022

Bushor Conference Room and via Zoom

DRAFT MINUTES

Members Present: James Unsworth, Chris Haessly, Alan Bjerke, Kevin Stapleton, Jonathan Chapple-Sokol, Joan Shannon,
David Edwards, Dan Kirk

Staff Present: John Vickery (City Assessor), Joseph Dempsey (City Attorney’s Office Staff)

Others in Attendance: Beach Conger, Trine Bech



Meeting called to order at 6:05 PM.

1.0 Agenda

1.01 Motion to Amend Draft Agenda

Motion to Amend Agenda to include Item 2.02: Public Comment.

Motion by Joan Shannon, Seconded by David Edwards.

Final Resolution: Motion Passes.

Yes: Unanimous.



2.0 Adopt Minutes from 09/22/2022

2.01 Motion to Adopt Minutes from 09/22/2022

Motion to Adopt Minutes from 09/22/2022.

Motion by Alan Bjerke, Seconded by Kevin Stapleton.

Final Resolution: Motion Passes.

Yes: Unanimous.



2.02 Public Comment

Trine Bech: I have been here before. After having done this process and being a retired lawyer, I am still at a loss at how to
approach our case next time. We just received a decision from our hearing officer. The officer threw out the City’s
argument. The appraisal method went from cost to sales approach. We asked in discovery for how the City came to the
cost approach assessment. Because the City changed the approach, we never got our question answered.

 Page 1 of 6
 Ad-Hoc Reappraisal Committee Meeting - December 1 @ 6:00PM
 in Bushor Conference Room (City Hall, 1st Floor) and
 **REMOTE**
 12/1/2022
We still don’t know why our street is 70% more expensive. When John Vickery did the assessment he used the sales
approach and used 4 out of 5 comparables to what we had. We didn’t want to argue about things like how much a garage
costs, etc. We were at a loss as to what to do. We received no explanation as to why they used the cost approach at first.
There was no basis for the changes that John Vickery made, yet it came to a different appraisal. We need an understanding
about how to go about it the next time around. We were prepared to argue a cost approach, but the sales approach
reduced the appraisal by $70,000. We wanted to go to City Council with an agreement, but John Vickery insisted we have a
hearing. When I was a lawyer and sat on the bench, two opposed parties usually come to an agreement if possible. John
Vickery was not interested in doing that. I am hoping that the next time this happens we will have a better process.

Beach Conger: As a person responsible for trying to figure out our appraisal, I just could not make it work. The hearing
officer said that because we did not submit how a value was come to, he would throw out the value we came to. There was
no explanation from John Vickery as to how the City came to its values. We felt like we missed the boat to justify our
numbers since we were caught off guard.

3.0 Subgroup Presentations of Findings

3.01 Presentation from Alan Bjerke and David Edwards

Alan Bjerke submitted and presented a report addressing their charge of:

  1. Identification of timelines and practices during the assessment process that are impediments to citizen participation
 and fair valuations; and recommendations around those;
  2. Review of the appeals process and recommendations

Joan Shannon: The main thing with the timeline is the state requirements. We can’t change such a thing at the City level.
Would it be prudent to ask to change it at the state level? From the taxpayers’ perspective, they don’t like the timeline
since it does not allow for income sensitivity. In order for them to get that income sensitivity, would they have to get this
done by March 1 to file on their taxes?

John Vickery: It wouldn’t matter since the state is very tight on timing. They have a hard time reviewing our info and to
reset everything. We base taxes on the year prior, but it is a problem.

Joan Shannon: When we present about the timeline, I think this is the number one issue for the taxpayer.

Alan Bjerke: That is somewhat tied to reappraisal. It looks back rather than at present. The income sensitivity is always
rear-looking.

James Unsworth: How is this calculated?

John Vickery: It is complicated, but the goal is to have people pay no more than 2% of income to the education fund. It
also caps based on property value since some buildings go up in value, but owners don’t have increased income.

Joan Shannon: We can’t change the timeline and it probably wouldn’t help. We should flag this issue at the state level and
that taxpayers are being stressed by this problem. I think this committee needs to flag this issue and explain it.

John Vickery: One roundabout solution is that more regular reappraisals would cause less severe tax changes. A 10%
adjustment is a lot less shocking than a 40% one.

James Unsworth: I think we should have as a recommendation about this issue and make sure we raise this to the state.

Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: That recommendation seems beyond the scope of this group, unfortunately. The City does know

 Page 2 of 6
 Ad-Hoc Reappraisal Committee Meeting - December 1 @ 6:00PM
 in Bushor Conference Room (City Hall, 1st Floor) and
 **REMOTE**
 12/1/2022
how much of a portion of the Grand List so that could be used to estimate people’s property taxes.

John Vickery: That is a good point, but it is difficult to answer every problem at the same time.

Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: It is about practicality, of course. One of the first comments was that people did not appeal since
they did not know how much their taxes would go up. The important step that was missing was the informal hearing
stage. The City needs to add to the timeline the informal hearings.

John Vickery: The prior reappraisal we had 5-6 appraisers and the informals went off well. The company did not have
enough people on call to deal with the formal appeals because we missed the informals due to Covid.

Alan Bjerke: I thought I had an informal hearing with Tyler and someone from the Secretary of State’s office, but that ended
up just being the formal hearing.

Joan Shannon: The Tyler people did not have the paperwork in front of them when doing the formal appeal hearing. The
formals seemed informal since they were unprepared.

Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: The Board of Tax Appeals became the formal appeal board since we did not have informals. We
need to have that extra step added back in.

Joan Shannon: The issue of income sensitivity was something the City Council really wanted addressed in this committee,
and the more frequent appraisals should help mitigate that issue.

James Unsworth: Perhaps the City can talk with our legislators to see if the State can assist.

John Vickery: Our City timeline follows state statute. I would not recommend putting the appeals until after the tax bills are
due since it extends things out too long. I would recommend sending out notices earlier for reviews since things get very
busy and still have to be done by July 1.

Alan Bjerke: That solves the issue of people wanting to appeal their appraisal, but people still won’t know their tax bill.

John Vickery: We could add a tool to estimate a tax bill with the caveat of it being informal and non-binding.

Joan Shannon: When appraisals come out, the CC has not set the tax bill. The appraisal is supposed to be revenue neutral,
but tax still go up every year. By sharing the fractional number, they could estimate their new taxes.

Alan Bjerke: A fraction would not be very helpful, but the tax bill would make sense.

David Edwards: If we gave out a hypothetical number, is there any risk to mortgage escrow departments? If people send
out that new number then could that confuse people and cause issues?

John Vickery: We already have a tax calculator on the City website and we could expand upon that.

Joan Shannon: I think when we did the calculator we forgot the income sensitivity issue and we could add that.

3.02 Presentation from Alan Bjerke, Jonathan Chapple-Sokol, and Chris Haessly

Alan Bjerke submitted a report from the Education Subgroup. Jonathan Chapple-Sokol submitted an appendix to that report.
The Education Subgroup’s charge was:

3. Develop a best practice around education and participation of citizens in the assessment process and how their properties
are valued. Provide recommendations on how that support will be offered;


 Page 3 of 6
 Ad-Hoc Reappraisal Committee Meeting - December 1 @ 6:00PM
 in Bushor Conference Room (City Hall, 1st Floor) and
 **REMOTE**
 12/1/2022
Alan Bjerke: We did not make a recommendation for an ombudsperson. Such a person would be an advocate for the
taxpayers. We recommend having a person getting educational materials and know the process rather than directly
advocate for them.

Joan Shannon: I think a need a key to decipher the tax assessor’s card. I think this committee should prepare this key (with
the help of Vickery). The values and factors seem profoundly subjective but supposed to be objective. If we had a list of
materials etc that would qualify for good vs not good etc. The taxpayer expects the assessor to show their math and even
the smartest people cant figure out the numbers. The numbers behind ‘very good’ or ‘good’ should be visible an
transparent. Some things on the card are not part of the assessment and other things are missing from the card. Our card
should show the math.

John Vickery: I agree, it is not easy to follow. I understand how it is built, and it has a base cost that is adjusted by factors.

Joan Shannon: I am recommending that we do the card rather than just recommend doing it.

Alan Bjerke: Some of the factors are large tables rather than just simple multipliers and the card could get very confusing
very quickly. We should improve the card, but it will be more complicated.

James Unsworth: it also seems impossible to explain every tiny aspect to the taxpayer and we might get too bogged down.
Having a full page equation is probably not the answer.

Joan Shannon: Many people went through many materials to learn about the appeal process, but the complex
mathematics behind the appraisal is still complicated.

John Vickery: I did the sales comparison approach as a second check on the cost approach. These should be similar and
vary only a little. I don’t know why the hearing officer did not accept the values that I came up with. I think most people
like sales comparison approach, but not this officer.

Joan Shannon: it seems odd that a hearing officer can throw out values only because they were based on sales approach. I
don’t know who to hire to create a transparent record card, but we should be able to do it.

John Vickery: Our officer needs a simpler cost approach that is more approachable. I can’t explain certain values that go
into the equation, but the steps should be visible and helpful.

Joan Shannon: Perhaps all the math can’t be shown on a property card, but we could have an online calculator that shows
the deeper steps so you can see the steps if you want to.

Chris Haessly: I don’t know if we should be hiring more consultants, but rather have the people in-house. A calculator with
some tooltips and show the formula with extra depth. It would be fairly simple programming from my perspective.

Alan Bjerke: Youtube and PVR reports are full of information. All of the education for an appraiser is free and available
online or in person.

Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: I think pointing people to resources is important, but the City really needs to make this clear on
its own rather than direct them elsewhere. The City is ultimately responsibility.

Alan Bjerke: A lot of questions are about quality and condition. We should not be too definite about quality and
condition. Lots of issues of building code come up with quality and condition. If a building has certain numbers of
violations then it will be below average even if it should be above average.

John Vickery: Burlington should have its own criteria since we have more older houses that are very nice despite having
code violations.

 Page 4 of 6
 Ad-Hoc Reappraisal Committee Meeting - December 1 @ 6:00PM
 in Bushor Conference Room (City Hall, 1st Floor) and
 **REMOTE**
 12/1/2022
Chris Haessly: We should separate out code violations into another category would be helpful.

Kevin Stapleton: Do housing code violations reduce a person’s house value?

John Vickery: Yes, some people argue that to reduce their taxes.

Joan Shannon: I think there should be less subjectivity like Chris said.

Chris Haessly: I think we should incentivize improving a building.

Alan Bjerke: Different buyers offer different offers and appraisal is the same thing: no two people will come to the same
conclusion.

Chris Haessly: Depending on our bandwidth, we could have a workshop or something to observe what the differences
between conditions and quality.

Joan Shannon: We need to come to a conclusion on how far we will go in making change. We can just make a report to
the Council or we could do more. It is easier to say we need a key for the card but much harder to actually craft a
satisfying card.

James Unsworth: I think we will need to go through multiple reappraisals with continued effort to make sure we get this
right over time.

Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: We have a bunch of recommendations in our presentations, but we don’t have the skills to create
these tools to improve the system.

Joan Shannon: We need to assess the capacity of our City employees and then see if we need to hire outside expertise.

Chris Haessly: As we build up the Assessor’s Department that will build up institutional knowledge. Do you know how
many staff the Department would need to do an assessment?

John Vickery: We did a study and came to six plus consultants so that the algorithms were cleaner and closer to reality.
Some places do rolling appraisals with a large inhouse staff, but I think the best option is having a decent size staff with
some outside help with the complex properties and newer techniques.

David Edwards: All that sounds great, but I question the math. I don’t think we will have a reappraisal every three years
since the last few years have been very different due to the pandemic and climate change.

James Unsworth: That’s kind of our big picture. We will make recommendations and we will see where the Council goes
with staffing going forward.

John Vickery: We are already at under 85% so we are waiting on doing a reappraisal. In-house staff would know the local
properties and communities and outside help would provide newer techniques and specialists. The technology is always
evolving and it can be hard to keep up.

Alan Bjerke: Do we know how much time Tyler spent on data collection and analytics?

John Vickery: They create a model with sold buildings and then they tweak the model until it matches the City landscape all
the way until the end when things are complying. If the model gets close enough then you go and inspect the outliers.
The newer way to do things is through google maps.

James Unsworth: And how should we move forward? I think I at least have some more thoughts.

 Page 5 of 6
 Ad-Hoc Reappraisal Committee Meeting - December 1 @ 6:00PM
 in Bushor Conference Room (City Hall, 1st Floor) and
 **REMOTE**
 12/1/2022
Alan Bjerke: We can adjourn until after the new year and everyone has completed their reports.

Agenda Items 3.03 and 3.04 will be tabled until the next meeting.

5.0 Adjournment

Motion to Adjourn by Alan Bjerke, Seconded by Chris Haessly.

Yes: Unanimous.



Committee Adjourned at 8:06 PM.




 Page 6 of 6