Ad-Hoc Committee on Reappraisal — Burlington, VT
Date: 2023-03-23
Time: 17:30

Thursday, March 23, 2023
 Ad-Hoc Reappraisal Committee Meeting - Champlain Room, City Hall 3rd Floor and
 *Remote* March 23rd @ 5:30PM

When: Mar 23, 2023 05:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Topic: Ad-Hoc Reappraisal Committee Meeting
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/97698004154
Or One tap mobile :
US: +16469313860,,97698004154# or +19292056099,,97698004154#
Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 646 931 3860 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 305 224 1968 or +1 309 205 3325
or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 689 278 1000 or +1 719 359 4580 or +1 253 205 0468
or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 360 209 5623 or +1 386 347 5053 or +1 507 473 4847
or +1 564 217 2000 or +1 669 444 9171
Webinar ID: 976 9800 4154
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/abYwLD2KVn


1. Adopt the Agenda

1.01 Adopt the Agenda

2. Adopt Draft Minutes from February 28

2.01 Adopt the Draft Minutes from February 28th

3. Public Comment

3.01 Public Comment

4. Finalizing the Report to the City Council

4.01 Finalizing the Report to the City Council

5. Other Committee Business

5.01 Other Committee Business

6. Adjournment

6.01 Adjournment

AD-HOC REAPPRAISAL COMMITTEE

 Tuesday, February 28, 2023

 Champlain Conference Room and via Zoom

 DRAFT MINUTES

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

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

Others in Attendance: (None)



Meeting called to order at 5:35 PM.

1.0 Agenda

 1.01 Motion to Adopt Draft Agenda

 Motion by Chris Haessly, Seconded by Alan Bjerke.

 Final Resolution: Motion Passes.

 Yes: Unanimous.



2.0 Adopt Minutes from 12/01/2022

 2.01 Motion to Adopt Minutes from 12/01/2022

 Motion to Adopt Minutes from 12/01/2022.

 Motion by Chris Haessly, Seconded by Kevin Stapleton.

 Final Resolution: Motion Passes.

 Yes: Unanimous.



3.01 Public Comment
No members of the public present.

4.0 Committee Discussion

 4.01 Legislature’s Proposal for the State to Cover Appraisals

James Unsworth: The Ways and Means Committee has been taking testimony and having
hearings regarding this. Half the municipalities in the state are going to need a reappraisal.

Alan Bjerke: is there a bill number?

David Edwards: So is the issue that all the municipalities are having these issues and it isn’t
Burlington in particular?

John Vickery: It is a lagging study so we will be in this position in a few years, not
immediately. Chittenden County is appreciating at a higher rate than much of the state.

David Edwards: Chittenden County has a lot of the state’s parcels.

James Unsworth: To get Joan up to speed, the legislature is working on this issue and seeing if
the state will take over this burden.

Joan Shannon: Will this not be handled by the CLA?

John Vickery: I don’t know about that. There are so many towns that need to do reappraisals
that there are simply not enough professionals to do it.

David Edwards: I don’t know if the CLA is state-wide.

John Vickery: They equalize every town when they do education funding.

David Edwards: When they equalized education, they must have started comparing towns.

Joan Shannon: They weren’t saying that Stowe is worth more than Stannard, but rather the
property taxes are higher so they have more revenue for education versus a less valued town. It
is a complicated equation, but there is a method to it. Some towns are in different phases of
reappraisal too which feeds into how towns are equalized.

Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: CLA helps to balance between towns for education, but at 85% the
town has to reappraise.

John Vickery: I think towns should be making efforts to reappraise. I hope they improve this
system.

James Unsworth: I think the state will take a few years to figure out this issue.
Alan Bjerke: does it make sense to reference this in our report?

James Unsworth: Yes, there are large implications from this. What I propose is that a cover
letter to this report states that the testimony and discussion was done before this proposal.

Joan Shannon: We can identify problems and pass along our recommendations.

James Unsworth: The City Council could send the recommendations to the Ways and Means
Committee as they are working on this same issue.

Alan Bjerke: It would be appropriate for the City’s lobbyist to get on the Ways and Means
Committee to let them know our recommendations.

Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: Would it be too forward for us to make a public comment about local
control? It seems like it would be harder to do reappraisals if Montpelier were part of the
discussion.

James Unsworth: Right now, local folks do the appeals, etc. so do we want Montpelier to be in
charge?

Alan Bjerke: The legislation will likely change and does not even have a bill number.

James Unsworth: Yes, this should be in the cover letter to the report that we are apprehensive
about letting reappraisals leave local control.

Joan Shannon: We are apprehensive about giving up local control? We are?

David Edwards: We would not have to abandon local assessors, and could we have a less local
appraisal but keep control through our own assessor?

Kevin Stapleton: We should mention how these issues are being discussed in Montpelier. We
are making assumption about how this legislation could end up.

Alan Bjerke: The second level of appeal is already at the state level.

Joan Shannon: The appeals process was such a burden and Alan Bjerke did a great job by
stepping up to take on that task. Many of the people were volunteers and put in the time. Locals
know the appellants and might be sympathetic or not because it is a small town. The appeals
process wasn’t bad because it was in Montpelier, it was bad because it was poorly done.

John Vickery: The major model around the entire US is county-wide or market district. Vermont
is quite unique. Most assessors in VT don’t want total state control or even county-wide. The
process could be better and more professional if done at a larger area.

Kevin Stapleton: Local control issues seem to be on the forefront.
James Unsworth: Do we agree that there are too many moving pieces to make accurate
predictions on the legislature at this time, but hopefully our recommendations can go to
Montpelier and see how they could be incorporated.

 4.02 Finalizing the Committee’s Report to the City Council

James Unsworth: Any issues with the final draft that we’ve prepared beyond grammar?

Alan Bjerke: The report should have an appendix with the educational materials we put out
previously.

Shannon: People might feel unheard if we quote too many people but not them. We should
probably generalize more so it is less personal, including our own thoughts on the issues.

Bjerke: I think we could just cut it out, but I do think the direct quotes are helpful.

Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: I agree, I think the direct quotes are helpful. We could say that these
are the kind of the things that we heard.

Kevin Stapleton: De-individualizing the quotes would be great, but keep the general quote. Not
to take anything away from your report, James.

James Unsworth: So we’ll de-individualize it, do we agree?

Alan Bjerke: There are some baseless accusations.

Joan Shannon: I don’t think we should include baseless accusations or things that are just totally
non-fact based. It might be helpful to consolidate all of the recommendations at the end. The
structure might need to be made consistent since we have multiple authors.

James Unsworth: Anyone else can adjust anything in the report if they care to. Do we want to
agree on a format now?

Alan Bjerke: My two sections are consistent and the third is not. I don’t see a fourth section
here.

James Unsworth: Alan, should the two of us work on this one last time to create a solid final
draft for everyone to review.

Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: I have a few comments. Including a full, comprehensive timeline of
the appraisal process and appeal process before everything begins would be a good idea. The
informal appeal is done without a timeline.

Alan Bjerke: I think it was because of COVID and we did not have the ability to have informals.

Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: I think informals should be a required portion of this appeals timeline.
John Vickery: We had to forego it with the time crunch in this last appraisal.

Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: With that step, I think our process would have been much better.

James Unsworth: Yes, it has been there in the past. Do you want to put together a paragraph to
include?

Alan Bjerke: We followed the statute guidelines.

Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: Yes, but I think the timeline was flawed, unfortunately.

James Unsworth: The informals would allow owners to get the numbers explained before the
formal appeal process.

Joan Shannon: The assessor’s office can handle the day to day, so who is doing the informals?

John Vickery: Tyler did in the past. In a good year, the process works pretty well and most
people are left satisfied. We used our deputy assessor and assistant assessor in the informals too.

Joan Shannon: So much time and money went to Tyler and they made large errors and were not
satisfactory. So much seemed to be ignored by the contractor. The hearing officers were
unprepared and had not read anything in advance. Then the superior of the hearing officer would
reject the appeal despite not hearing the appeal in the first place.

Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: The contractor did the Board of Assessors appeals and it was a
failure. Informals would have remedied many of them.

Joan Shannon: We put lots of effort and money into the process and the contractor was
unprepared and insufficient.

Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: The informals didn’t really happen and the BOA appeals didn’t really
happen. The state is not prepared to hear such a volume of appeals from the local level and
everything got tied up.

Joan Shannon: The informals should be with the contractor and not volunteers.

John Vickery: I gave Tyler warnings about the volume and they said they were prepared, but
evidently were not. The contract has all the details in it and perhaps the next contract should be
even more detailed in what we want.

James Unsworth: Part of our recommendation is to keep assessment in-house and not rely on
contractors. There should be an informal process with locals before we get to the appeals.

Kevin Stapleton: For John, do you agree that Tyler was derelict in their duties?
John Vickery: I think they have competent people but were not ready for what we needed. They
did not have enough people in the call center, everything was virtual because of COVID.

Kevin Stapleton: So should we change or improve the RFP process to try to improve things?

John Vickery: The RFP could be better and require more on-site staffing, that kind of thing. The
pandemic really messed things up for Tyler.

Joan Shannon: Some hearing officers were better than others, but they did listen to people’s
complaints. Those officers then have their recommendations overruled by a supervisor. I think
the hearing officer should have the final say and the City could be the ‘supervisor.’

Chris Haessly: Should we set a time so we know we want to get together?

Joan Shannon: Maybe we should talk more about the informals and the hearing process overall.

James Unsworth: We will continue to work on this draft.

Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: This may sound odd, but if there is another pandemic or emergency I
think we ask the state for a delay so we’re not doing a reappraisal in an emergency.

David Edwards: We would also need proper language in our contract to make sure that we aren’t
on the hook for the cost if there is an emergency.

John Vickery: There were some site visits during a normal reappraisal, but obviously none
during the pandemic.

Alan Bjerke: We need to be planning way ahead to get the RFP and contract done way ahead of
time with a lot of foresight.

Joan Shannon: Another complaint was about the frequency and this past year was actually the
largest increase in property values.

James Unsworth: So I think we would have to look into how we could ask the state for a delay in
an emergency. Who would be in charge of allowing that?

Alan Bjerke: Don’t you get penalized for having a particularly out-of-whack CLA?

John Vickery: I’ve never heard of that before myself.

5.0 Other Committee Business

Chris Haessly: I would suggest we meet 2 weeks from tonight to get back together to review the
final draft.
James Unsworth: If people know their calendars, could we set a time in 3 weeks? 5:30 on the
23rd? Let’s plan for then.

6.0 Adjournment

 Motion to Adjourn by Chris Haessly, Seconded by Jonathan Chapple -Sokol.

 Yes: Unanimous.



Committee Adjourned at 6:33 PM.
 Ad Hoc Committee on Reappraisal

 Review of Burlington’s 2021 city-wide property
 assessment reappraisal.


03/____/2023

Burlington City Council
City Hall
Burlington, VT
Attn: President Karen Paul

Re: Burlington Ad Hoc Reassessment Committee Final Report


Good day,
Enclosed with this cover letter is the final report compiled by the Ad Hoc Committee on Reappraisal
under the charge of resolution 6.05 “The Fairness of the Reappraisal Process and the Property Tax
System” signed by the Mayor 11/15/2021.

Through our process we took testimony from Burlington residents, the Tax Assessors office and others
from the community.

We respectfully submit our findings and those recommendations we believe will help in subsequent
reappraisals.

There is a very large caveat that accompanies this report. In early 2023, the Vermont Legislature’s House
Ways and Means Committee has taken up the task of analyzing the State system of reappraisals and
investigating whether a major overhaul is necessary.

Approximately 2/3 of municipalities in Vermont will be in need of reassessment in the coming year.

It will be of great interest, what direction the State decides to go in regards to reassessments. There is
far too much unknown at this time to comment one way or the other.

With regards,




James Unsworth, Chair
 Ad Hoc Committee on
 Reappraisal

 Review of Burlington’s 2021
 city-wide property
 assessment reappraisal.

 March ___ 2023


Committee Members
James Unsworth, Chair and Commercial Property Owner
David Edwards, South Homeowner
Jonathan Chapple-Sokol, East Homeowner and Board of Assessors
Dan Kirk, Central Homeowner
Joan Shannon, City Councilor and South Homeowner
Alan Bjerke, Board of Tax Appeals, Rental Property Owner and Homeowner
Christopher Haessly, Renter
Kevin Stapleton, North Homeowner


 1
 Resolution lines 86-88 “Identification of timelines and practices during the
 assessment process that are impediments to citizen participation and fair
  valuations; and recommendation around those” and “Review of the appeals
 process and recommendations”

The Resolution forming this Ad Hoc committee includes the statement that the committee:
“Identification of time lines and practices during the assessment process that are impediments
to citizen participation and fair valuations, and recommendations around those, ” and “Review
the appeals process and recommendations.”

The Committee scheduled two days of public hearing times at which we accepted both written
comments and in-person testimony.

We received comments related to this topic which included:

● Several members of the public stated that conducting the re-appraisal during the COVID-19
pandemic was bad timing for a number of reasons and that the City should have postponed the
re-appraisal until the pandemic had passed.

● Detailed information about the methods and standards used by the Assessor in the re-
appraisal were not publicly available until after the deadline to file an appeal of the assessment
for that year.

● One taxpayer described going through the appeal process and was satisfied by the process
and the result, although re-appraisals should be conducted more frequently to avoid “sticker
shock.”

One common theme that the committee has heard repeatedly in the community, though not so
much during the public hearings is that most people did not feel the need to appeal their
property valuation assessment until they received their tax bill, and that by then, it was too
late. Because the determination of assessed value happens before the tax bills get mailed out,
the appeal deadline typically expires before the tax bill is finalized.

The Vermont Statutes govern when the grand list is to be complete and when tax bills are sent
out. The overall statutory scheme makes sense - - First the Grand List of all taxable property is
determined for the year and only after that is set, can the tax bills be prepared, using the final
Grand List. This is because some aspects of the property tax rate are fixed tax rates (ie. Penny
for the Parks) while some are based on a budget amount that must divided by the final Grand
List in order to determine a tax rate (i.e. General Fund and School Budgets). Until the final
Grand List is determined, the tax rates and therefor bills cannot be determined.

It is true that much more information about the methods and standards used by the Assessor in
setting the re-appraisal valuations was not made available prior to or even early in the appeal

 2
process for taxpayers. While making the information widely available earlier in the process
would have improved the transparency of the process, it should not have had any significant
effect on a taxpayer’s ability to successfully challenge the assessment valuation of their
property. How the Assessor determines a valuation for a property under the market adjusted
cost approach to value is just the manner for conducting a mass appraisal of Burlington’s
~10,500 parcels. The proper check on that methodology is to conduct a sales comparison
analysis to see if the current marketplace supports the cost approach result for a particular
property. That sales comparison analysis does not require any information about the cost
approach methods or standards used by the Assessor.

There was one item about the appeal process which the representative from the Board of Tax
Appeals brought to the attention of the committee. The Vermont Secretary of State and the
Division of Property Valuation and Review jointly publish a Handbook for conducting appeals
from Grand List assessments. There is a passage in the Handbook on Page 28 that states that
for site inspections conducted by the [Board of Tax Appeals] in assessment appeals, the
Lister/Assessor does not have the right to attend the site visit unless given permission by the
property owner. This section was referenced and used by several property owners to refuse to
allow the Assessor to join site visits conducted by the Board of Tax Appeals (“BOTA”) in 2021.
As a practical matter, the BOTA found the exclusion of the Assessor unfair and even a bit
uncomfortable, as the appellant/property owner typically took full advantage of the exclusive
opportunity to direct the Board’s attention to and comment on evidence, without any
opportunity for the Assessor to rebut or comment on what the Board as factfinders, were
seeing.

There was another item brought to the attention of the committee by a member of the board
of Tax Appeals: There is a statute at 32 V.S.A. 3481(C) which provides that properties subject to
a perpetual housing subsidy covenant (aka Land Trust Houses and Condos) shall be assessed for
property tax purposes at 60-70% of fair market value. That is not an unreasonable manner in
which to support the creation/maintenance of affordable housing ownership. However, as the
land trust model has grown and aged, some properties where the person who purchased the
home 20 years ago are now maintained as a second home and not a primary residence. So for
example, in the City of Burlington there is a woman who owns a waterfront condo, which gets
the "land trust assessment discount", even though she is now a successful attorney who owns
her own home where she lives and works in New Hampshire. The waterfront condo is a
secondary/vacation property for her. The statute encouraging and supporting affordable home
ownership probably never envisioned that it could have this result.

The solution is really quite easy: Make the land trust assessment discount of 32 V.S.A. 3481(C)
dependent on the taxpayer filing the Form HS-122 Homestead Declaration for the property.
That would allow the land trust houses that are primary residences to get the support, but not
the ones which have become second homes.

A critical, though non-statutory, milestone on the reappraisal timeline is the ‘Informals’ step,
which was omitted during the reappraisal. It takes place 2-3 months before formal reappraisal

 3
letters are sent, but after draft valuations are complete. This draft reappraisal is made available
to residents, who then have the opportunity to sit with the appraisers who made the valuations
(in-house or contract) and correct errors. Those appraisers can make adjustments and
corrections prior to setting final values and sending formal valuation letters. Including an
Informal step will dramatically reduce appeals to the Board of Assessors (BoA).

Informals were not held in 2021 because of the compressed timeline caused by the Pandemic,
and the consequences were significant. The Committee heard consistent testimony from
residents that the contractors who heard Board of Assessors appeals were unprepared,
sometimes unprofessional, and rarely resulted in a change of assessment. The City Assessor
has acknowledged that there were many cases where the hearing officer did recommend a
change of assessment and that decision was overruled by a supervisor who was not present at
the hearing.

While the contractors were overwhelmed by the number of appeals, that cannot excuse what
happened. The committee recommends 3 systemic changes to address these valid issues raised
by taxpayers:

 a. Assure that “informals” are built into both the front end of the timeline and any
 contract for reassessment
 b. Set expectations for hearing preparedness in the contract.
 c. Define the powers and duties of the “Board of Assessors” to assure that no person, who
 was not at the hearing can overrule the decision of the Assessor attending the hearing.

Finally, as noted by one of the public comments, as well as a brief guide mailed to the taxpayer
when an appeal of their assessment is submitted, it is true that the BOTA may increase a
assessment valuation as the result of a closer examination of the appropriate fair market value
of their particular property. Indeed, in 2021, it increased the valuations of several properties
and in 2022, fully half of all appeals to the BOTA resulted in a higher assessment. However, the
increases are not motivated by politics or favoritism, but following a closer review of the
property at issue to determine a fair value. In fact, in one notable incident, a taxpayer who had
the assessment of their property increase through the appeal process in 2021 and who then
commented in the media that the decision was retaliatory, shortly thereafter sold the property
for approximately 10% more than the newly assessed higher valuation.

Based upon the forgoing, the Committee makes the following recommendations:

1. To the extent possible, the Assessor’s office should seek to provide more materials about the
standards and methods being employed in the cost approach to valuation methodology to the
public as early as reasonably practical. This need not include every table and formula, as of
course, some of these factors change during the testing of the model in order to confirm that
the cost approach result is within acceptable margins of actual bone fide sales comparisons.



 4
2. The City should reexamine the propriety of a taxpayer having the ability to bar the Assessor
(or a representative from the office) from attendance at a site visit conducted by the Board of
Tax Appeals. If the source of that information could be located and changed, that is what we
recommend.

3. The City should advocate that the Legislature make the land trust assessment discount of 32
V.S.A. 3481(C) dependent on the taxpayer filing the Form HS-122 Homestead Declaration for
the property. As described above, the change would continue support for owners of
perpetually affordable housing to own a primary residence, but if the property has become a
secondary/vacation property, it should be assessed consistent with other secondary/vacation
properties.

With respect to some of the other issues raised, the Committee finds that there is no reason to
recommend changes. The issue of the ability to appeal a property valuation after the tax bill is
published may seem desirable, but as described above, until the Grand List value is set, (And
the State determines the education tax rates) the tax bills could not be published without
speculation as to the amount of the final Grand List. There are communities (in other states,
applying different state laws) that send out the new assessments along with the tax bills, but
that is because they are holding the assessment amounts before releasing them, instead of
making the information available to taxpayers as early as possible. We also find no credibility in
the claim that the appeal process is subject to political, personal bias or favoritism. The fact
that a closer reexamination of one particular property may result in a determination that the
valuation should be higher is evidence that the process is in fact working to assure that all
property owners are paying their fair share and not more or less than their fair share of the tax
burden to maintain the community as voted by residents.

 Resolution lines 89-90 “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.

The Resolution forming this Ad Hoc committee includes the statement that the committee:
“Develop a best practice around education and participation of citizens in the assessment
process and how their properties are valued,” and to “Provide recommendations on how that
support will be offered.”

Through the public hearing process the committee heard a number of comments relating to
this issue:

• Residents said that the Property Record Card, a printout of the basic data elements of each
property parcel that is contained in the City’s property assessment software program was
opaque and confusing to many.



 5
• Commentors disputed the Assessor’s calculated impacts of land size and property location on
market value.

• Residents had difficulty understanding and a general distrust of the qualitative assessments of
properties used by the Assessor such as building quality and condition.

• The property valuation “Calc Ladder” on the Property Record Card did not contain all the
elements of the property assessment algorithm. As a result, a lay person could not identify all
the elements that affect the property valuation when applying the cost approach and the
degree to which each element impacted on the final valuation.

• There was significant confusion over the valuation methodology - between the “cost
approach” most typically used in making mass appraisals and the “sales comparison approach”
more typically used in making individual property valuations. As an example, while many
Property Record Cards listed some information in a section of the card labeled “Comparable
Sales,” that data was not used to determine the valuation of the parcel using the cost approach.
There was also confusion over the differences between residential and commercial appraisals,
and over discrepancies observed between professional real estate appraisals and, for example,
Zillow and Redfin calculators/advertisements.

All in all, the public perception was that the Citywide reappraisal process was not understood
by them, and they felt there were few if any resources to help them gain a better
understanding of how the valuation of their property was determined. Without a doubt, this
perception was heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic which significantly limited public
interaction between the property owners seeking information or corrections and the
contracted assessors making the valuations of the properties. In addition, in the absence of
information about the data and algorithm used to determine a property’s valuation, property
owners found it hard to understand what many of the elements of the valuation of their
property actually were. As neighbors met with each other to discuss their valuations, these
misperceptions and narratives were persuasive and gained undesirable credibility.

In reality, educational resources and opportunities concerning the property valuations
determined in the property tax appraisal process are plentiful in Vermont. One could get a
complete and comprehensive education in Vermont property valuation from a number of
providers at no cost - if you knew where to look and were willing to invest the time. Materials
are available from the Vermont Property Valuation and Review Division of the Vermont
Department of Taxes (“PVR”) and the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. Burlington also
keeps minutes of grievances and appeals that come to the Board of Assessors and Board of Tax
Appeals that can help guide residents through the process.

It is understandable that the general public finds the available resources to be complex and
overwhelming. The city has to play a significant role in helping residents understand the
process.


 6
People learn in different ways, and so a community needs a variety of pathways to information
at their disposal for important issues like reappraisal.

Based upon the forgoing, the Committee makes the following recommendations:

1. Create and make available a one page flyer directing a property owner to a comprehensive
set of resources they can avail themselves of to learn about the valuation process and the
process for challenging their assessment. The City’s Zoning Division produces similar flyers that
address commonly asked questions about various projects (decks, fences, window
replacement, etc.) that we have in mind as a model for the Assessor’s flyer. Make the flyers
available at the Assessor’s office, the City Clerk’s office and on the City’s website.

2. Create online, pre-recorded seminars specifically focused on the Burlington valuation and
appeals processes. We recommend that the City create and distribute at least two such
seminars:

One that is an overview of the valuation and appeal process. The City Assessor John Vickery
and the Chair of the Board of Tax Appeals Alan Bjerke presented and recorded such a seminar
in the Spring of 2022. We recommend that this seminar be re-presented and recorded again as
Alan had COVID at the time and appeared remotely. It would be a better presentation if both
presenters were in the same room at the same time. The PowerPoint slides of that
presentation can be found in the appendix.

The second would be a seminar more specifically directed to understanding and interpreting
the Property Record Card(s) used in Burlington. While the first presentation includes an
overview of the current Property Record Card, we also recommend an additional Cost Approach
Report as we detail below. A more in-depth seminar on the Property Record Card and the Cost
Approach Report would help property owners be much better informed about what
information the City has about their property and how it is used in determining their property’s
valuation.

For those who do not have the technological capabilities to stream the seminars on a
computer, the recorded presentations can be replayed at public locations at key times when
residents might be most interested in considering the property appraisal appeal process.
Perhaps replays could be held with someone knowledgeable about the process available to
respond to questions. Also, the Fletcher Free Library has resources for folks who are less tech
savvy and could support various information pathways.

3. Create a Cost Approach Report that would also be available for each property, similar to the
existing Property Record Card. In mass real estate property appraisals, the cost approach to
valuation applies an algorithm to each property’s data to determine an assessed value. The
existing Property Record Card contains a section labeled the “Calc Ladder” listing some of the
elements of that algorithm, but because it does not identify each of the elements of the
formula, the public finds it to be confusing and not understandable. Because the existing

 7
Property Record Card provides a lot of other data which realtors, attorneys, contractors and
others are familiar with and use each day, we don’t recommend replacing the existing Property
Record Card, but rather creating an additional Cost Approach Report that lists each of the steps
in the algorithm with the data values used and calculations resulting. To be clear, it may still be
confusing to many. The calculations often involve non-linear formulas and data tables which
will still be complex, but will at least, be much more transparent that the current information
available to the public.

4. The City may want to consider publishing a digest of opinions from the Board of Assessors
(BoA), Board of Tax Appeals (“BOTA”) and/or PVR (for appeals from Burlington only). By
statute, the BoA, BOTA as well as the PVR hearing officers must publish a detailed written
opinion on each appeal heard. At present there are approximately 300-350 of these opinions
on file. These written opinions are stored in the City Clerk’s Office along with the property
assessment records, such as the Grand List. Even if one knew to look for them to read them
they are not organized in a research friendly way. Many of the issues addressed by the BoA,
BOTA and PVR decisions arise around common themes. So for example, if you want to know
more about how the BOTA interprets the diminishing cost curve in land/building size
calculations, or using another property’s assessed value for comparison purposes you could be
directed to a list of the specific opinions that addressed and discussed those topics in order to
be better informed. This resource would also be helpful to future BoA and BOTA members
when evaluating cases and drafting written decisions.

5. The City may want to consider designing a front end, online tool for property owners to
compare the actual sales data for properties in Burlington with their own. Using such a tool, a
property owner could put in a small set of values (lot size, building size, location, number of
bedrooms and baths, etc.) and see a listing of the most similar actual sales that have recently
occurred in Burlington. We believe that the City already has the data in its public data portal,
but it is raw data and is not user friendly. While building a new tool may be relatively
inexpensive, the City should also evaluate whether existing online resources such as Zillow or
real estate brokerage’s MLS listings may be more attractive substitutes.

6. The evaluation of Quality and Condition were particularly difficult for people to understand.
A set of explanatory guidelines would help clarify these inputs to valuation and help to quantify
them.

7. The City should consider bringing on a Public Information Specialist for the Assessor’s office
during the time of any reappraisal. This position would be responsible for explaining the
process and answering questions about property valuations and the reappraisal process. The
Public Information Specialist would also be available for one-on-one conversations with
residents to help individuals understand their situation. During a reappraisal, the staff in the
Assessor’s office is very busy and property owners were frustrated with trying to get staff time
to understand the elements of their particular property. With the additional tools and
resources outlined above and someone who can promote and publicize them, taxpayers may
be better educated and less frustrated with the reappraisal process. The person in this role

 8
would be responsible to communicate prior to, during, and after a reappraisal to provide a
continuous flow of information on status and progress of the process. We envision this as a
temporary position, perhaps even a reassignment from another city department.

8. Consider inviting members of the public (including those who spoke at our forums) to ‘vet’
materials that are created before finalizing them. There is no point in creating an education
program that doesn’t work for its target audience.

These recommendations would cost money to implement. We have not undertaken any
research to estimate the cost to have a programmer create and test the Cost Approach Report
using data in the Assessor’s software or create and publish the flyer or digest we suggest.

None of the recommendations made here are required to comply with any law or other legal
requirements. While helping the public learn about and understand the property assessment
and valuation appeal processes are desirable goals, the cost of doing so will need to be
evaluated against the City’s other resource needs and availability.

We have made a rough estimate of the time involved with these recommendations:
Estimate of Time Required




Resolution lines 91-92 “Develop recommendations for the frequency of citywide
 reappraisals including funding, criteria for selection of consultants, and
 consideration of a rolling appraisal process”
Part of the charge of this ad hoc committee was to investigate the above. In speaking with John
Vickery, City Assessor and discussing amongst a sub committee and the ad hoc committee as a
whole we believe the following recommendations will make sense for the City in future
reassessments.

By state statute, a municipality is required to perform a reassessment of all properties on the
grand list when a Common Level of Appraisal (CLA) reaches an 85% (or 115%) threshold. What
this means is that based on sales of real property, the assessed value of the grand list is only
85% (or 115%) of true market value. At this point, it is required of a municipality to bring the
grand list to 100% of market value. These CLA studies are lagging and use 3-years of sales data
to compute.

 9
The frequency of municipal wide reassessments depends on the market. In a “hot” market as
we have experienced over the past few years, the time between reassessments will be shorter.
On the contrary, in a “cold” market, the reassessments may take many years to be required as
the time it takes to reach the critical CLA.

Recently, the state changed this threshold from 80% (or 120%) to the current 85% (and 115%).
This will make the time between reassessments shorter as it will take a shorter period to reach
the critical CLA threshold.

This committee spoke with the City Assessor about projections for the timing of the next
required city wide reassessment. From the City Assessors estimate, the next reassessment
could be triggered as early as April 2024.




If this projection is accurate, the next reassessment will occur in half the amount of time of the
last. This is a trend we believe will continue.

Based upon the forgoing, the Committee makes the following recommendations

That the City Council explore the hiring of 2 additional City Assessors and begin the work of
tooling the department to handle reassessments in house.

Reasons for In House Reassessments
 • The most recent reassessment cost the City of Burlington appropriately $1,000,000.
 Fortunately, the State of Vermont funds approximately $100,000 per year($8.50/grand
 list parcel) to help Burlington with the cost of reassessments. The unfortunate thing is
 that while this worked great for a 10-year cycle, the trend of more frequent assessments
 will require the City to pay the difference between the State contribution and the actual
 cost of hiring a consultant. We believe there is potential for a cost savings having 2 full
 time employees added to the office who will specialize in reassessments.
 • The Assessor believes around 70% of Vermont municipalities will be required to perform
 a grand list wide reassessment within the next 2 years. There is going to be tremendous
 demand for the consultants who perform the service of city wide reassessments. Best


 10
 case scenario is it will be difficult to secure the services and worst case scenario is that
 the cost will be dramatically higher than this past cycle.
 • One of the main concerns that tax payers had with the process (specifically in regards to
 the appeal and grieving process) was that the individuals they were speaking with had
 little to no local knowledge of the various neighborhoods in the City. Having in house
 specialists will allow tax payers appealing or grieving their tax assessment to speak with
 someone who actually knows the area and the nuances of the various neighborhoods.

Additionally, this committee recommends the City explore a “rolling reassessment”. This is
common in other areas of the country. For example, by reassessing groups of properties on a
rolling basis such as Commercial, Multi Family and Single Family on a 3-5 basis the 85% CLA
threshold that triggers the entire grand list be reassessed will be extended, if not wholly
eliminated.

By rolling the reassessment of properties it will allow for more routine reassessment values as
opposed to the “sticker shock” for many after a decade with relatively no change.

Additionally, having in house staff completing the work and utilizing an in house system will
eliminate the laborious process of selecting a consultant, tooling the data to that consultants
system and the fine tuning of that information that will be necessary for consistent and
accurate results.

  Resolution line 93 “Review capacity of the Assessors Office including staffing
 and IT needs.

A theme within this report is the need for additional resources directed towards the Assessors
Office. We have tried to include reasonable recommendations to adjust the resources utilized
by the Office of the Assessor to tackle the issue of both educating the public and streamlining a
process for subsequent reassessments.

Conclusion
The Burlington Citywide Reappraisal in 2020-2021 presented a wide array of challenges: The
City had not reappraised in 15 years; the COVID-19 pandemic; a very recent spike in residential
home prices; a drop in the values for many commercial property sectors, particularly
hospitality, retail and restaurants; and, a significant shortage of labor, including in the real
estate appraisal professional field.

In Conducting our study, including several public hearings, we encountered frustration and
dissatisfaction, but no clear or obvious solutions. There is some mystery to real estate appraisal
which can be unveiled with greater education and transparency. There are timelines which
sometimes cause confusion, but are generally well honed over the course of Vermont’s history.
There are potential staffing changes which can help smooth the process from driving off a cliff
to several, more frequent bumps in the road.

 11
 10/1/2022




 Challenging your
 Property Tax
 Assessment in
 Burlington, Vermont

 John Vickery
 Burlington City Assessor
 &
 Alan Bjerke, Esq., Chair
 Burlington Board of Tax Appeals


 May, 2022



1




 Overview


 Scope of this Presentation
 Property Valuation / Assessment Techniques
 Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, Income Approach, Special Statutory Approaches
 Appeal Timeframe / Deadlines
 Understanding the Lister Card
 Diminishing Cost Curve
 Making your case
 - Cost Approach
 - Sales Comparison
 Equalization
 Appeal Process Steps

2




 1
 10/1/2022




 Taxation: the 3 leg stool
 1. Property/Assets Tax Revenue




 2. Income
 Income



 3. Transactions



3




 Scope of this
 Presentation
 Homeowner Orientation

 1. Single Family Residences

 2. Duplexes, Triplexes

 3. Condominiums

 Not for Commercial Appeals

 1. Four or more residential units

 2. Commercial, Industrial, Farms

 Mobile Homes not addressed here



4




 2
 10/1/2022




 Property Assessment
 The 4 basic approaches
  Cost Approach
  Sales Comparison Approach
  Income Approach
  Special Statutory Approaches



5




 Assessment Methods - Statute
 32 V.S.A. § 3481. Definitions
 The following definitions shall apply in this Part and chapter 101 of this title, pertaining to the listing of property for taxation:
 (1)(A) "Appraisal value" shall mean, with respect to property enrolled in a use value appraisal program, the use value
 appraisal as defined in subdivision 3752(12) of this title, multiplied by the common level of appraisal, and with respect to all other
 property, except for owner-occupied housing identified in subdivision (C) of this subdivision (1), the estimated fair market value.
 The estimated fair market value of a property is the price that the property will bring in the market when offered for sale and
 purchased by another, taking into consideration all the elements of the availability of the property, its use both potential and
 prospective, any functional deficiencies, and all other elements such as age and condition that combine to give property a market
 value. Those elements shall include the effect of any State or local law or regulation affecting the use of land, including 10 V.S.A.
 chapter 151 or any land capability plan established in furtherance or implementation thereof, rules adopted by the State Board of
 Health, and any local or regional zoning ordinances or development plans. In determining estimated fair market value, the sale
 price of the property in question is one element to consider, but is not solely determinative.




6




 3
 10/1/2022




 Assessment Methods - Cost
 The Cost Approach to Value
 Most Common Approach in Mass Appraisals
 Collects Multiple Data Points for Land and Buildings
 Includes Property Location, Size and Characteristics
 Applies an algorithm tested against actual sales to the data to determine a valuation




7




 Cost Approach
 Algorithm




8




 4
 10/1/2022




 Assessment Methods - Sales
 Sales Comparison Approach to Value
 Identify recent, comparable sales that were bona-fide arms length transactions
 Identify the critical components of each property
 Evaluate the values of components that are different
 Estimate the sales price of the subject property by adjusting the sales of other
 properties by the difference in value of the components that are different




9




 Typical Fee Appraisal
 Sales Comparison
 Report




10




 5
 10/1/2022




 Assessment Methods - Income
 Income Approach
 Used only for Multi-Family Residential units of 4 or more units
 Commercial and Industrial properties
 Estimates the price a property would sell for based upon the amount of income it
 would produce for an investor and then applies a capitalization rate typical for that
 investment.
 Caution – While the Assessor’s Record Card, may show a building and land value
 breakout, they are not accurate for comparison purposes



11




 Assessment Methods - Income
 Example: Decision in Appeal of 24 Elm Terrace, Parcel ID 049-4-166-000, 2021


 6. [The taxpayers] presented several tables and charts comparing the assessed value of their property to several
 properties using Lister Card data. As described above, we are not permitted to use Lister Card data to determine the fair
 market value of the subject property. To illustrate this point, we note that the [Taxpayers] point out that 27 Adams Street is
 a property with a lot size of ~26,000 sq. ft where the land value is assessed at $143,200 while their lot is only ~4,200 sq.ft.
 but assessed at $231,900. While this disparity suggests that the valuation methodology is incongruous, the reason is
 because 27 Adams Street is an 11 unit apartment building and is therefore assessed using the income approach to valuation
 wherein the value is not determined by the value of the land and the building separately, but by the income production of
 the property in total. While there may be a land valuation shown on the Lister Card, it bears no relation to the valuation of
 the property. This is a telling and affirming example of why Lister Card data is not a reliable indicator of fair market value
 of a property.




12




 6
 10/1/2022




 Assessment Methods
 Statutory Approaches
 Statutory
 Perpetual Lease Lands 32 V.S.A. §§3609 , 3610
 Subsidized Housing 32 V.S.A. §3481(1)(B)
 Housing Subsidy Covenant (Land Trust) 32 V.S.A. §3481(C)
 Solar Panels and Projects 32 V.S.A. § 3802(17), 32 V.S.A. §3481(D)
 Current Use 32 V.S.A. §3750 et seq.
 Veterans 32 V.S.A. §3802(11)




13




 Assessment Methods – Statutory
 Most Common in Burlington
 Statutory Prescriptions
 Subsidized Housing
 Similar to income approach but with rules dictated by HUD
 May be less than 4 units and still qualify
 Housing Subsidy Covenant Property (Land Trust)
 Market Value less leasehold, reduced by 30%
 Caution – Don’t compare an assessment of either of these types of housing to a property
 type that is not the same



14




 7
 10/1/2022




 Identifying Special Statutory
 Assessments Methods
 How can you identify properties that are assessed by the income approach or a special
 statutory method?
 Look on the Lister Card
 Land Trust Property
 Income Approach Property
 Subsidized Housing Property
 - Everhome, Cathedral Sq., CHT




15




 Practical Considerations
 ~10,500 property parcels in Burlington
 Nearly Every Property is Different
 500-1,500 properties transfer each year
 ~1,000 Zoning and ~1,800 Building permits issued each year
 -Approximately 30% are for projects over $25,000
 Market Prices constantly changing
 Desirability of different housing types constantly evolve




16




 8
 10/1/2022




 The Appeal Timeframe
 Grand List Lodged May 5th
 Deadline to appeal assessment to Board of Assessors May 19, 2022
 Deadline to Appeal to Board of Tax Appeals – 14 days after decision by Board of Assessors
 Deadline to Appeal to State – 30 days after Board of Tax Appeals decision
 Deadline to meet with Assessor to discuss your property assessment - Anytime




17




 Understanding the Assessor’s Record
 Card a.k.a., the Lister Card
 Finding your Lister Card
 www.Burlingtonvt.gov


 Search for the Property




 Select the Assessor Record Card Tab




18




 9
 10/1/2022




 Understanding the Assessor’s Record
 Card a.k.a., the Lister Card
 Property Address   Assessed Value




 Land Section 




19




 Understanding the Assessor’s Record
 Card a.k.a., the Lister Card
 Building Information




 Ignore this section, It’s
 not used to determine value




20




 10
 10/1/2022




 Lister Card – Land
 Assessment Districts




21




 Lister Card – Land
 Assessment Subdistricts
 Lakeview Terrace – West Side


 Lakeview Terrace – East Side



 5 Sisters Neighborhood


 Hayward Street




22




 11
 10/1/2022




 Lister Card – Land
 Property Characteristics
 East Side Convent Square


 Slopes
 Ravines
 Wetlands
 Flood Plains
 Proximity to Economic Detriments, Hazards, etc.


 Elbow Street




23




 Lister Card – Building
 Building Characteristics
 Building Style 

 Building Components
  Building Sketch
 Building Quality 

 Building Condition



  Floor Area Calculations




24




 12
 10/1/2022




 Lister Card – Building
 House Style

 The Building Style determines
 the starting base rate for the
 Building.




25




 Lister Card – Building
 House Elements / Components

 The building sketch and sub area calculation
 The Building captures the floor areas for valuation
 Components
 Section captures
 the critical elements
 of a building that
 typically affect value




26




 13
 10/1/2022




 Lister Card
 Cost Calc Ladder

 The Calc Ladder Contains
 SOME of the critical elements
 of the Cost Approach to Value
 calculation, but not all of them.

 You cannot calculate all of the
 elements of your cost approach
 calculation based only on the
 Calc Ladder printed on the
 Lister Card.




27




 Size Matters -
 The Diminishing Cost Curve
 In real estate, as well as many other commodity values, once a critical size has been reached, the
 overall value increases for additional units of size added, but the incremental value added by
 each additional unit decreases – resulting in a lower average value per total units. This is known
 as the diminishing cost curve.
 For example, a single acre of rural land may cost $25,000.
 But 50 acres of similar rural land may cost $100,000 or only $2,000 per acre.
 The cost curve applied by the Assessor’s office is statistically derived from property sales for both
 land and building sizes.
 You can do your own analysis, apply the statistical principles and argue your merits, or simply
 confine your comparables to very closely matched building/land sizes.




28




 14
 10/1/2022




 Making a Persuasive Case on Appeal:
 Challenging the Cost Basis Formula
 Challenges to Uniformity
 Prices per sq.ft. of land, finished, unfinished space
 Standard valuations of amenities / components
 My neighbor’s house is nicer, but valued less
 Challenging your assessment by comparison to the assessments of other properties is the least successful
 path – Why?
 Comparing only a small number of the components used in the cost approach formula. If all
 components were included, the resulting value would be the same.
 Vermont Law prohibits the use of other property assessments as the basis for determining a
 property’s fair market value. City of Barre v. Town of Orange, 138 Vt. 484 (1980)




29




 Making a Persuasive Case on Appeal:
 Correcting the Lister Card
 This is the easiest and typically most effective route
 Identify incorrect data and document property components on your Lister Card
 Document steep, unbuildable or hazardous conditions on your land
 Identify building/zoning permits that have been pulled but not performed
 Identify elements that have been removed – pools, sheds, etc.
 Re-evaluate Building Grade / Condition / Depreciation
 Don’t be surprised if someone wants to visit your property to confirm your claims.




30




 15
 10/1/2022




 Correcting the Lister Card
 Grade / Condition / Depreciation
 Grade – the Quality of Building Construction – this helps determine the undepreciated cost
 approach value of the structure.




31




 Correcting the Lister Card
 Grade / Condition / Depreciation
 Condition – the extent of deterioration of the building and its principal components
 (Furnace, plumbing, electrical, etc.)




32




 16
 10/1/2022




 Correcting the Lister Card
 Grade / Condition / Depreciation
 Depreciation – The reduction from new construction values to account for the age and
 deterioration of the structure – driven by Age and Condition



 This is the Single Family
 Residential Table
 There are separate Tables for
 Multi-Family, Condominiums
 & Mobile Homes




33




 Correcting the Lister Card
 Grade / Condition / Depreciation
 Building Grade
 and Age




 Building Condition
 Application of Depreciation
 and Depreciation
 to Structure to determine
 Depreciation amount and
 Depreciated value




34




 17
 10/1/2022




 Making a Persuasive Case on Appeal:
 Sales Comparison Approach
 Hire a Professional Expert
 Fee Appraiser Report
 Realtor’s Opinion of Value
 Do it yourself
 Identify Comparable Sales, 3-5 minimum
 Identify Components of each property
 Adjust for differences between Subject and Comparables




35




 Making a Persuasive Case on Appeal:
 Sales Comparison Approach - DIY
 Identify Relevant Comparable Sales
 The More Recent the Better
 Sales over 2 years old rarely relevant
 Where to find them
 tax.vermont.gov/municipalities/reports/equalization-study

 Recent Property Transfer Tax Returns
 On file at City Hall




36




 18
 10/1/2022




 Making a Persuasive Case on Appeal:
 Sales Comparison Approach - DIY
 Make a Chart of the Subject and Comparables
 List the key Components
 Ascribe values to differences
 Adjust sales for market appreciation
 Appraisal Valuation date is April 1
 If Adjustment Ratios are not tight
 look for better comparables




37




 Making a Persuasive Case on Appeal:
 Sales Comparison Approach - DIY

 Here is an example of
 the Sales Comparison
 Report generated by
 The City Assessor’s
 Office




38




 19
 10/1/2022




 Equalization




 Kachadorian v. Town of Woodstock,
 144 Vt. 348 (1984).



39




 Equalization
 Where to find the current Equalization Ratio



 tax.vermont.gov/municipalities/reports/equalization-study




40




 20
 10/1/2022




 The Appeal Process - Step 1
 Gather your information, Review your Lister Card
 Identify the Basis for your Appeal
 Cost Approach – Identify incorrect data on the Lister Card
 Sales Comparison – Identify and document comparable sales
 Document your Case
 File a Notice of Grievance with the Board of Assessors




41




 The Appeal Process - Step 2
 Appeal to the Board of Assessors (BOA)
 Who is on the Board
 Initial Submission
 Review of the Response
 Meeting with the Board
 Site Visit
 Decision




42




 21
 10/1/2022




 The Appeal Process – Step 3
 Appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA)
 Who is on the Board
 Initial Submission
 Review of the Response
 Meeting with the Board
 Failure to attend hearing
 Site Visit
 Decision




43




 The Appeal Process – Step 4A
 Appeal to State of Vermont, Dept of Taxes, Division of Property Valuation and Review (PVR)
 Notice of Appeal must be filed with the City Clerk
 - Within 30 days of BOTA Decision
 - Accompanied by payment of $70
 Status Conference with Hearing Officer / Appraiser
 Site Visit
 Final Hearing
 Decision




44




 22
 10/1/2022




 The Appeal Process – Step 4B
 Appeal to Vermont Superior Court, Civil Division
 Notice of Appeal must be filed with the City Clerk
 - Within 30 days of BOTA Decision
 - Accompanied by payment of $295
 Status Conference(s)
 Discovery
 Trial
 Decision




45




 Impact of Final Determination
 Final Decision may be higher, lower or the same as current Assessment
 Tax bill will be retroactively revised for affected year
 Future appeals limited by City Charter




 Burlington City Charter Section 92(e)




46




 23
 10/1/2022




 Additional Resources
 This presentation and slide deck will posted on the City’s website:
 www.Burlingtonvt.gov
 Vermont Secretary of State website:
 www.sos.vermont.gov/municipal-division/laws-resources/



 Vermont Department of Taxes
 www.tax.vermont.gov/municipal-officials/certification-education-programs/materials




47




 24

AD-HOC REAPPRAISAL COMMITTEE
 Thursday, March 23, 2023
 Champlain Conference Room and via Zoom
 DRAFT MINUTES
Members Present: James Unsworth, Alan Bjerke, Kevin Stapleton, Jonathan Chapple-Sokol, David Edwards, Dan
Kirk, Joan Shannon
Staff Present: John Vickery (City Assessor), Joseph Dempsey (City Attorney’s Office Staff)
Others in Attendance: (None)


Meeting called to order at 5:41 PM.
1.0 Agenda
 1.01 Motion to Adopt Draft Agenda
 Motion by Alan Bjerke, Seconded by David Edwards.
 Final Resolution: Motion Passes.
 Yes: Unanimous.

2.0 Adopt Minutes from 02/28/2023
 2.01 Motion to Adopt Minutes from 02/28/2023
 Motion to Adopt Minutes from February 28, 2023.
 Motion by Alan Bjerke, Seconded by David Edwards.
 Final Resolution: Motion Passes.
 Yes: Unanimous.

3.01 Public Comment
No members of the public present.
4.0 Committee Discussion
 4.02 Finalizing the Committee’s Report to the City Council
Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: First, the force majeure. I believe we should be able to postpone a reappraisal if we need to.
Alan Bjerke: I believe that conversation was in the context of a contract with an outside contractor so we aren’t on the
hook for a large amount despite a force majeure.
Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: I think a lot of people would say “of course, there were issues since it was Covid”. I think we
should be able to petition to the state for a delay.
Alan Bjerke: We could have asked as the City to have some changes to the timeline due to the pandemic. The Mayor
has the authority to call the Governor and ask for a change.
John Vickery: We should have the contract include a section on having leeway to delay without losing a lot of money
on the contract.
Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: So it wasn’t really the statute that was stopping us from delaying during the pandemic.
John Vickery: We have our obligations with both the contractor and the obligations to the state when the threshold is
passed.
Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: It might be good to have an out and recommend to the Council that we think we should
include an out due to a force majeure.
James Unsworth: Does everyone think we should include a section on the force majeure in our recommendation?
Alan Bjerke: Every RFP includes the things we wish we had done before, of course.
Kevin Stapleton: Looks good to me.
Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: Looking at a second issue I had, we did do some time estimates but did not do cost estimates
for the recommendations as those costs will change over time. I think we just include the time estimates and leave out
the dollar cost issue.
Alan Bjerke: How about including this in the conclusion section? It could cover the entire report.
Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: I do think we should, given that all these recommendations take time, but we have not
touched on the dollar costs as a committee. I don’t think we need to itemize everything by cost.
Alan Bjerke: I am fine with including these paragraphs at the end and think it would be worthwhile.
Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: I think it is redundant. We could say we don’t really know how much it would cost to create
rolling reassessments. I would leave out the specifics in the second paragraph on section eight.
Joan Shannon: The first comment I have is at the beginning, we have three bullets and I would suggest not quoting a
single taxpayer to not give one taxpayer more weight than any other. The second issue I have is with the language on
‘not having solutions,’ which is the whole thing we are working on.
Alan Bjerke: I think that section was referring to the taxpayers, the taxpayers did not really give us any solutions, we
crafted the solutions.
Jonathan Chapple-Sokol: Didn’t one person say the process was okay? I think we should give that one taxpayer more
credence since it was an otherwise rare statement.
Kevin Stapleton: Couldn’t we say “feedback included….”?
Alan Bjerke: Yes, we can adjust that. While also including that at least one person said the process was okay. What
about replacing “one taxpayer” with “feedback?”
Kevin Stapleton: I must step out, but I think we are in good shape.
James Unsworth: Joan, does that sound good to you? We can deindividualize everything as ‘feedback’.
Joan Shannon: Yes, that sounds perfect.
Alan Bjerke: Can you add the word appendix to the top of the presentation PDF?
James Unsworth: Yes. So we are good with adding the language on force majeure? I will add that in the process
section. All those in favor of these changes as described?
 4.01 Motion to Adopt Final Report as Amended
 Motion to Adopt Final Report as Amended.
 Motion by Jonathan Chapple-Sokol, Seconded by Alan Bjerke.
 Final Resolution: Motion Passes.
 Yes: Unanimous.
5.0 Other Committee Business
No other Committee business.
6.0 Adjournment
Motion to Adjourn by Alan Bjerke, Seconded by Jonathan Chapple-Sokol.

Yes: Unanimous

Committee Adjourned at 6:03 PM.